Can a CSM go into POV’s without the owner present?

Former MP here, and no, you cannot randomly just go into a POV and search it without just cause, and usually any cadre will call the MP's to do the search if they suspect something. And still, if there is no just cause the MP's would probably decline to search the vehicle, even if it's unlocked, as a matter of fact, they just might secure the vehicle then leave the area.

The word "PRIVATE" in POV is a dead giveaway...for sure.

SP5 Ed Nolan - 100 % correct! The only time I ever searched a vehicle without the owner being present was when our patrol found an abandon vehicle. Other than that a POV was a "privately" owned vehicle.

SSgt Joseph Baptist - I was the Physical Security NCO of 2 different units while I was on AD. One at Ft Campbell and the other in Germany. Both units had policies, approved by JAG and the Provost Marshall's Office, that the senior leadership (BN CSM, 1SG, PSG) could and would conduct security checks of POVs in the company lots. If the doors were found to be unlocked, the visor and floor mats, etc would be checked to see if keys were there. If so, a note would be left on the seat, with the unit leadership and the CQ/SDNCO where that soldier could find their keys and the POV would be locked. Loss prevention and physical security consciousness were the goals of the policies as we dealt with COMSEC and sensitive communications gear. We had a policy about barracks room doors and offices on post. Off base housing, vehicles and on base family housing were left to the MPs as that was in their lane.

Loss of personal belongings and security failures took the time and focus of the soldiers and leadership from mission requirements. If you remembered to secure things and follow the policies, it saved everyone a big hassle. Ever had to buy a PAGST helmet? One vehicle that was left unsecured on the back line of the company lot lost one, a set of new ALICE gear and an intermediate sleeping bag...4 days before a deployment.

SSgt Joseph Baptist CSM or whichever 1SG was accompanied by the other 1SGs and usually a Physical Security NCO or two to log which vehicle and where keys were found and who was keeping them for retrieval. We are talking un the late 80s and early 90s and post physical security policies also required vehicle security. I am not going to argue with anyone over this.... Some will always try to place fault on someone else because they fail to be accountable for their own actions.

SSgt Joseph Baptist - "Sounds like there were mutliple (sic) people violating the law at those units. That's top-down corruption providing cover for criminal activities. But hey, "leaders" are above the law." Well Joseph, with a comment like this I figured you knew how this stuff was done. Just like a layout inspections of TA-50 or hand receipt items, etc there was always an inspector and a person to record the findings/notes for the inspection follow-up. The fact a note was left told the service member who had been there....so one would think it was clear who had been there.

SSG (Join to see) - What SSgt Baptist is responding to is something that occurs all-to-frequently on this site. A jr. enlisted will ask a question about something that he observed that *is* illegal, and SNCOs and Os will tell them "Shut up and do your job," or otherwise look at things from the perspective of someone who doesn't want to give a proper answer, they just want someone to roll over and take it, because a senior-subordinate relationship shouldn't be muddied by subordinates seeing illegal activity on the part of the senior and worrying about it. And he (and I, when I see them) will call out the SNCOs or Os and point out that letting a senior NCO or officer do things that are against the UCMJ is more predjudicial to good order and discipline than having a PFC report the illegal activity to the MPs or IG and they investigate and arrest the SNCO.

Under the UCMJ , it IS possible for such a search to occur. However, I doubt very much the CSM would be conducting such a search, nor would it be random in nature. Refer to the following;

US v. Grisby, 335 F. 2d 652 -4th Circuit (1964)-Investigators developed probable cause that Grisby had stolen property in his base residence. The Chief of Staff on behalf of the commanding General ordered the search. Under 152, ch. XXVII, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, promulgated by the President, with Congressional authorization, a search of property located within a military installation and occupied by persons subject to military law is valid when authorized by a commanding officer having jurisdiction over the place where the property is. The authorization of the Chief of Staff, acting for the commanding General, was in accordance with the Manual for Courts-Martial and validated, as a matter of military law, the search it approved.
The Judge Advocate General of the Army has frequently expressed the opinion that a commanding officer has an unqualified right to enter and search quarters of military personnel on the reservation he commands. This is said to be an attribute of his military authority and essential to the maintenance of order and discipline. The military agreed to refer the case to civilian court. The evidence is still admissible even though Grisby was turned over to a civilian court for trial. The civilian court is not confined to civilian rules of evidence when dealing with a case developed under military rules.

That being said, let’s all also consider the signage posted at the entry to each and every military post I’ve ever entered . That signage may vary in wording but in essence states,”Entering these premises constitutes implied consent for vehicle search at any time.” . I’m no lawyer but I would assume this “ signage “ doesn’t extend such powers of search to command personnel ,but limits it to DOD police/military police. The above referenced case law only extends such “ search “ authority under fairly narrow requirements, IE the Installation CO must authorize the search for specific reason and may even need seek higher authorization .

For sure, that is clearly a Breaking and entry into a motor vehicle and is not acceptable ever, that is clearly a violation of law intentional or not.

100% not a gray area.

It's not a gray area the CMS had no right at all to enter that persons vehicle or even touch the car. Yes, the military can control the use of the car on the base and respond including towing for clear cut Violations but the Military Police would handle that. The CMS could bring it to their attention for action but NOT do any searches themselves. As base Commander can order searches but even He checks with base Legal before doing so, even there are limitations usually based on probable cause. One rare exception If mass checks, they need to be random perhaps the 5th of each five cars as an example. and not focused on an individual vehicle that would be at base entry points or exit gates. Those checks would mostly be made by the Military Police.

Sorry but that’s the woke Army The CSM used to have the power to do such inspection because it’s a violation to leave a vehicle unlocked but the kinder gentler Military might get there feeling hurt
I call bullshit the CSM should and did have a obligation to do this
But the pussy Army of day don’t understand And if you agree makes part of the Pussy Army SMSgt Lawrence McCarter

So not wanting anyone to break into your car is “pussy” and “woke”?
Clown show

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - I would be surprised that nobody is ever checking on a vehicle every once and a while. The Marine Corps still does them but it is generally only a thing that happens around long weekends and if it's a deployable unit using leave block windows. Usually a Thursday thing where everyone meets up somewhere or creates a line in a parking lot and NCO's go through double checking everyone is ready to roll. Nothing crazy or super intrusive. Just checking lights, making sure everyone has insurance and making sure they have everything they need if they are driving on a road trip. I agree that the CSM doing this sounds like they are doing their own thing all together.

SSgt Joseph Baptist - I wouldn't recommend assuming the intent but I agree it isn't a good look to be doing it. It opens up too many questions. But I can't recount several instances where I saw SNCO's checking vehicles to ensure they are locked in an attempt to reinforce the importance of attention to detail. Good initiative/bad judgement rings a bell. Similar to the Marine Sgt Maj who ended up being shown the door when he was looking for a Marine and had their landlord open the door so he could go in.

SSgt Joseph Baptist I agree and that’s what my original statment was.

SSgt Joseph Baptist - We certainly have way more questions than answers with this. The poster has not really provided any clarity or follow on information.