Wallis v. O'KIER

Decision Date19 February 1974
Docket NumberNo. 73-1414.,73-1414.
Citation491 F.2d 1323
PartiesStan A. WALLIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colonel Oliver E. O'KIER, Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Joel M. Gora, New York City (Melvin L. Wulf, Joel M. Gora, New York City, Nicholas Waranoff, Law Student, Palo Alto, Cal., American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City, David Addlestone, Military Law Project ACLU, Washington, D. C., and Scott Jarvis, Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for petitioner-appellant.

Franklin A. Luna, Washington, D. C. (Robert J. Roth, U. S. Atty., Bruce D. Miller, Asst. U. S. Atty., Franklin A. Luna, Major, USAF, Office of the Judge Advocate Gen., United States Air Force, on the brief), for respondent-appellee.

Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, and JONES* and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

JONES, Circuit Judge.

The factual situation from which this appeal arises may be stated briefly. The appellant, Stan A. Wallis, was an Airman in the United States Air Force. He was stationed at Mountain Home Air Base, Idaho. Agents of the Office of Special Investigation at the Base had information that Wallis was trafficking in contraband drugs. The information was given orally to the Colonel in command of the Base. The Colonel issued a special warrant authorizing or purporting to authorize the search of the effects of Wallis in his barracks room and automobile. The search was made and prohibited drugs were found. Four charges, all involving possession and sale of illicit drugs, were made. Wallis was tried before an Air Force General Court-Martial and convicted on all of the charges. A single sentence of dishonorable discharge, four years imprisonment at hard labor, loss of grade and forfeiture of pay was imposed. His sentence was reviewed and affirmed by the Staff Judge Advocate of the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, by the General Court-Martial Convening Authority and by the United States Air Force Court of Military Review. The conviction and sentence was affirmed by all of these. The Court of Military Appeals denied a petition for review. The term of imprisonment was commuted from four to three years. He was confined in the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and while so confined he petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Kansas for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The district court entered an order denying the petition and from that order Wallis has appealed. After the judgment of the district court and prior to the filing of the notice of appeal, Wallis had completed serving his sentence and was released from custody.

The district court held that the contentions of Wallis had been given full and fair consideration by each military tribunal to which they were presented and accordingly, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to intervene or to review the merits of the case. After deciding that it was without jurisdiction, the court proceeded to determine that the procedures followed in the issuance and execution of the search warrant were valid and proper, and that Wallis was not denied any right accorded him by the Federal Constitution.

In that document it is provided that,

"The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces." U.S.Const., Art. I, § 8.

The Congress has provided that,

"The procedure, including modes of proof, in cases before courts-martial, courts of inquiry, military commissions, and other military tribunals may be prescribed by the President by regulations which shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts, but which may not be contrary to or inconsistent with this chapter." 10 U.S.C.A. § 836(a).

In the exercise of the granted powers, the President promulgated the Manual for Courts-Martial. In this extensive Manual it is set forth that a search may be made pursuant to a warrant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Guerra v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1995
    ...that the issuing magistrate has abandoned his neutral and detached role absent some evidentiary showing of such. Wallis v. O'Kier, 491 F.2d 1323, 1325 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 901, 95 S.Ct. 185, 42 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974). Without such a showing, Guerra's argument with regard to the m......
  • U.S. v. Chapman
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • February 12, 1991
    ...insofar as practicable and shall be reported to Congress.34 See United States v. Brown, 784 F.2d 1033 (10th Cir.1986); Wallis v. O'Kier, 491 F.2d 1323 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 901, 95 S.Ct. 185, 42 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974).35 Rule 315. Probable Cause Searches(a) General rule. Evidence ......
  • DeChamplain v. Lovelace, 74--1766
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 2, 1975
    ...to a court-martial in itself deprives the Convening Authority of the neutrality required by the Due Process Clause. Cf. Wallis v. O'Kier, 491 F.2d 1323, 1325 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 901, 95 S.Ct. 185, 42 L.Ed.2d 147 However, the facts of a particular case may so actively involve......
  • United States v. Burrow
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • June 12, 1975
    ...6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961); Weissman v. United States, 387 F.2d 271 (10th Cir. 1967); United States v. Miller, supra; Wallis v. O'Kier, 491 F.2d 1323, 1325 (10th Cir. 1974); United States v. Vaughan, 475 F.2d 1262, 1264 (10th Cir. 1973); United States v. Crowley, supra; United States v. Grisby, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT