United States v. EPPES
| Decision Date | 10 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | 17-0364 |
| Citation | 77 M.J. 339 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Tyler G. EPPES, Captain United States Air Force, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals, Armed Forces Court of Appeals |
Argued November 8, 2017 [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Military Judge: Shaun S. Speranza
For Appellant: William E. Cassara, Esq. (argued); Major Annie W Morgan (on brief).
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler (argued); Colonel Katherine E. Oler (on brief); Colonel Julie L. Pitvorec and Mary Ellen Payne, Esq.
Amicus Curiae for Appellant: Seantyel Hardy (law student) (argued); Angelica Nguyen (law student) (on brief); John H. Blume, Esq. (supervising attorney) (on brief)— Cornell Law School.
OPINION
Appellant was convicted of submitting fraudulent travel vouchers and tax documents, falsifying insurance claims, stealing money and cameras from the United States government, and conspiring to unlawfully possess an intoxicating substance. The investigation into Appellant’s misconduct was far-reaching and complex, and involved numerous searches and seizures. We are concerned with only two of these searches: the December 7, 2012, search of Appellant’s home and the February 5, 2013, search of Appellant’s bags in his workspace.
Appellant, an Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) agent, began his duties as the Air Force Chief of Staff’s personal security advisor in July 2012. He and his coworkers shared an office at the Pentagon and had equal and unfettered access to the desks and computers therein.
In November 2012, Appellant arranged to have his wedding at a hotel in Dallas, Texas, fraudulently claiming it was an official Air Force function. He prepared fake travel orders for his coworkers, maintaining they were his "security team," and applied for tax exempt status for himself and his wedding guests, including his family members. Appellant also paid his enlisted coworker to take leave to act as his assistant during the wedding and even provided his coworker with false documents indicating the wedding was an official Air Force function. On November 13, 2012, Appellant had a series of disagreements with the hotel staff, culminating with Appellant threatening to remove the hotel from consideration for use by government employees. On November 16, 2012, in response to Appellant’s threat, the hotel manager contacted AFOSI and the office of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. The Air Force opened an investigation based on the hotel staff’s complaint.
During the week of November 19, 2012, AFOSI Special Agent (SA) Armstrong traveled to the hotel to interview the hotel employees. SA Armstrong learned of the tax exemption request for the cost of the wedding, collected false tax forms from the hotel, and obtained copies of emails Appellant exchanged with hotel staff.
AFOSI agents interviewed the supposed wedding "security team" members. These witnesses provided the AFOSI agents with the forged documents authorizing their detail and told the agents Appellant had mentioned filing insurance claims for a burglary of his previous residence.
On November 29, 2012, one of Appellant’s coworkers went through the desk he shared with Appellant in search of a work-related memorandum and came across a folder labeled "wedding shower." This folder contained fraudulent travel documents authorizing the travel of a number of Appellant’s family members to Dallas, Texas, for a "[Chief of Staff of the Air Force] Special Interest Itinerary for 10-11 September." Realizing the itinerary was false, Appellant’s coworker scanned and emailed it to his AFOSI supervisors. Apparently, no such Special Interest event scheduled in September ever occurred.
On December 6, 2012, AFOSI conducted a formal search of Appellant’s shared desk at the Pentagon, seizing a work computer and a receipt for a camera. From December 7 to December 10, 2012, agents searched Appellant’s work email accounts.
In the final stages of his initial investigation, SA Armstrong reviewed a letter of counseling Appellant received in 2008 for falsifying travel documents.
On December 7, 2012, SA Armstrong swore an affidavit requesting a search warrant before a District of Columbia Superior Court judge. SA Armstrong sought to search Appellant’s home and, inter alia, Appellant’s "computer hardware, computer software and digital media (e.g., computer equipment, digital storage devices, cameras, photographs, etc.)" for evidence of frauds against the government.
The Superior Court judge found probable cause to believe a search of Appellant’s home would reveal evidence of a crime. He issued the warrant on December 7, 2012, and AFOSI conducted the search pursuant to the warrant on the same date. This search yielded a significant quantity of evidence including blank prescription forms already signed by a military provider, receipts and documents from two bags in Appellant’s living room, as well as USB drives, hard drives, and a laptop from elsewhere in Appellant’s home.
On December 8, 2012, agents interviewed Appellant, searched his person, and, with his consent, searched two of his personal bags. The bags contained travel orders on official letterhead, prescription forms, a laptop, a Blackberry, SIM cards, an iPad, and medications. Agents subsequently received verbal search authorization to search the electronic devices recovered during this search.
In mid-December, AFOSI obtained Appellant’s Defense Travel System claims, manually submitted travel vouchers, and Government Travel Card records, and conducted a review of Appellant’s financial, insurance, and medical records. Of sixty travel vouchers Appellant submitted between January 2009 and December 2012, fifty-one contained false information and five were completely fraudulent. The review of Appellant’s insurance records showed evidence of insurance fraud and reviews of his medical records showed "no indication that [Appellant] was prescribed the medications" for which prescriptions and prescription packaging were found in his home.
At some point during the investigation Appellant was moved from his regular work station at the Pentagon to a small office in Chapel 1 at Joint Base Andrews. On February 5, 2013, SA Cooper submitted a signed and sworn affidavit requesting authorization to search Appellant and his personal bags at the Chapel 1 office, as well as his personal vehicle. A military magistrate granted the authorization, but did not expressly authorize a search of Appellant’s bags.
Pursuant to the authorization, SA Cooper and his colleagues searched Appellant’s person, vehicle, and office on February 5, 2013. Agents recovered a jewelry invoice, pharmacy receipts, and documents evidencing false claims against the United States in Appellant’s vehicle. They found leave authorizations, bank statements, a permanent duty travel voucher, blank Chief of Staff of the Air Force documents, and various other documents in Appellant’s office. Agents recovered a watch they believed to be evidence of insurance fraud during the search of Appellant’s person. After searching Appellant’s person, agents searched Appellant’s immediate vicinity and two of his bags. With respect to the bags, the military judge found that, upon discovering evidence of travel fraud A Report of Investigative Activity submitted for this search indicates the bags in question contained the following items of relevant evidentiary value:
one Marriot [sic] room rate discount authorization form with the date covered, an 18-page merchandise inventory sheet, A 10-page United Services Automobile Association (USAA) valuable personal property (VPP) insurance document, 11 airline tickets and travel related documents, three blank USAA checks, 12 pages of USAA VPP documents, three blank [CSAF] letter documents, one Cole Haan receipt, one Citi direct statement, One ATM card with "Africa Russia"...
To continue reading
Request your trial