The military handles chain-of-custody disputes in urinalysis prosecutions very seriously, as the integrity of the sample is the foundation of the government’s case. When a defense attorney raises a chain-of-custody issue, it triggers a formal legal challenge, typically through a motion to suppress the urinalysis evidence. The dispute is then litigated before a military judge in a hearing outside the presence of the panel members.
During the hearing, the burden is on the prosecution to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the chain of custody was properly maintained. The prosecutor will call witnesses, such as the unit’s urinalysis coordinator and any mailroom clerks who handled the sample, to testify about the procedures they followed. They will present the official chain-of-custody form, the DD Form 2624, as their primary piece of documentary evidence.
The defense attorney will vigorously cross-examine these witnesses, highlighting any deviations from the strict regulatory procedures. They will point out any missing signatures, incorrect entries, or unexplained gaps in time on the chain-of-custody form. If the attorney can show that there was a significant error that broke the chain, they will argue that the government cannot guarantee the sample was not contaminated or tampered with. If the judge agrees the error was substantial, they will rule the evidence inadmissible, which is usually fatal to the prosecution’s case.