Posted on Mar 19, 2019
Can you take a subordinate’s personal property?
14.5K
27
14
0
0
0
I work in a hospital and the charge nurse threatened to take a corpsman’s phone because she saw it. He wasn’t even using it.
Our hospital’s policy is cell phones have to be on silent or on vibrate that’s it.
Our hospital’s policy is cell phones have to be on silent or on vibrate that’s it.
Posted in these groups: 
Officer
Cell Phones
Officer Cell Phones
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
0
0
0
IF IT IS ACCORDANCE TO HOSPITAL SOP, I DO BELIVE THE CHARGE NURSE WOULD BE OUT OF LINE. AND IF SHE DID TAKE IT DISCUSS IT WIT THE HEAD NURSE AND ADVISE HER/HIM WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE. FOR FINAL ACTIONS.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No, that is theft. Only the commanding officer, Military police, or law enforcement may seize property, or when executing a warrant.
Restriction on the authority to undertake search and seizures
Before looking into the punishment for removing, destroying or disposing a property to prevent its seizure, it is important to see if the act of searching and seizing itself was lawful.
A commanding officer has extraordinary responsibilities and his powers are broader than those vested in an officer with equal characteristics under a civilian government. He has been given implicit powers to authorize inspections and searches on the men under his command and to seize property. This power is considered indispensable to maintaining discipline and order. Still, there is a provision for an unlawful search, which restricts his powers.
Paragraph 152 of the Manual for Court Martial gives specifications for a 'lawful' search.
It says that a search is lawful when it is conducted:
By the power is vested in a person via a court issued warrant.
In connection with a lawful apprehension (arrest).
In circumstances where immediate action is necessary to prevent the removal, destruction or disposal of criminal goods.
When the accused has given his consent.
By instructions of the commanding officer.
Searching the body of a service member is authorized only if the person has been apprehended or if it is felt that the accused has on his person, property of a criminal nature and to prevent its disposal, destruction or removal. For searches and seizures to be lawful, they have to be conducted 'according to military custom'.
If these specifications are not satisfied, and if there was an attempt to search and seize or if the property of the person was seized and if the person resisted the search or seizure, it may be possible to get an acquittal. Here is an example, where the accused did not prevent the authorized person from searching and seizing.
In United States Vs Brown, the Court of Military Appeal ignored the maxim of 'search conducted according to military custom' and held a search unlawful. In that case, a commanding officer had ordered the apprehension and search of 10 service members, including the main accused, who were suspected of using narcotics. A subsequent search of the accused found two bottles of heroin. The Court of Military Appeals found that the search was unlawful. So the bottles of heroin could not be admitted as evidence.
Restriction on the authority to undertake search and seizures
Before looking into the punishment for removing, destroying or disposing a property to prevent its seizure, it is important to see if the act of searching and seizing itself was lawful.
A commanding officer has extraordinary responsibilities and his powers are broader than those vested in an officer with equal characteristics under a civilian government. He has been given implicit powers to authorize inspections and searches on the men under his command and to seize property. This power is considered indispensable to maintaining discipline and order. Still, there is a provision for an unlawful search, which restricts his powers.
Paragraph 152 of the Manual for Court Martial gives specifications for a 'lawful' search.
It says that a search is lawful when it is conducted:
By the power is vested in a person via a court issued warrant.
In connection with a lawful apprehension (arrest).
In circumstances where immediate action is necessary to prevent the removal, destruction or disposal of criminal goods.
When the accused has given his consent.
By instructions of the commanding officer.
Searching the body of a service member is authorized only if the person has been apprehended or if it is felt that the accused has on his person, property of a criminal nature and to prevent its disposal, destruction or removal. For searches and seizures to be lawful, they have to be conducted 'according to military custom'.
If these specifications are not satisfied, and if there was an attempt to search and seize or if the property of the person was seized and if the person resisted the search or seizure, it may be possible to get an acquittal. Here is an example, where the accused did not prevent the authorized person from searching and seizing.
In United States Vs Brown, the Court of Military Appeal ignored the maxim of 'search conducted according to military custom' and held a search unlawful. In that case, a commanding officer had ordered the apprehension and search of 10 service members, including the main accused, who were suspected of using narcotics. A subsequent search of the accused found two bottles of heroin. The Court of Military Appeals found that the search was unlawful. So the bottles of heroin could not be admitted as evidence.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google