113 - Season Finale: Chatrie and Bass

Send us Fan MailIn the final episode of the season, Sam and Trevor cover two cases. First, Chatrie v. United States, __ U.S. __, No. 25-112, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 2878 (June 29, 2026), a recent Supreme Court case covering geofence warrants. There, the majority held that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his or her cellphone location, relying heavily on Carpenter v. United States, 585 U. S. 296 (2018). The Government needs a warrant when demanding such information, even from third parties. See United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (1976); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735 (1979). Both Sam and Trevor think this case allows for broader challenges to cellphone searches, while also emphasizing how this case provides a good overview of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence starting with Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967). Ultimately, the Supreme Court remanded for whether the warrant in Chatrie’s case was valid, which could implicate the good faith exception later on (see Episode 110, The “Bad Faith” Exception, for a refresher).Second, the duo cover United States v. Bass, __ M.J. __, No. 25-0149, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 544 (C.A.A.F. June 24, 2026), a fractured Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) decision on M.R.E. 404(b) and the permissive inference (see Episode 96, Did Downum Change the Permissive Inference?). Bass was charged with violating Article 92, UCMJ, for allegedly using hemp after testing positive for THC-8. The majority held that his positive urinalyses used in a previous court-martial resulting in an acquittal could not be admitted under M.R.E. 404(b) without a “repeated, fact specific innocent ingestion narrative linked to the same product or event.” The majority also held that the permissive inference under Article 112a, UCMJ, does not apply to hemp and hemp derived products. The logic the CAAF uses to find the permissive inference does not apply to hemp seems to be readily applicable to marijuana, something Trevor emphasized in Episode 112 when discussing Hemani, so keep challenging the permissive inference in marijuana cases!After covering these cases, Sam signs off with a goodbye. She’s taking a new assignment and stepping away from the defense world, but, as always, she wishes everyone good luck with litigating their cases! We will miss her deeply.Questions, feedback, comments? Send them to [email protected]!