Command-directed questioning automatically triggers Article 31 protections when commanders order subordinates to answer questions about suspected offenses. The command direction itself creates compelling pressure requiring rights warnings before any substantive questioning. This applies whether commanders question directly or delegate interrogation to others acting under command authority.
The key distinction involves whether questioning serves legitimate administrative purposes versus criminal investigation. Commanders can direct subordinates to explain duty performance or operational matters without warnings. However, once questioning shifts toward suspected UCMJ violations, Article 31 applies regardless of commander’s stated purpose. Courts examine substance over form.
Common violations occur when commanders blur lines between administrative inquiries and criminal investigations. Starting with duty performance questions then shifting to misconduct without warnings violates Article 31. Command-directed appointments with investigators require warnings before questioning begins, not merely when suspicion develops.
Strategic implications include challenging any statements resulting from command-directed sessions lacking proper warnings. The command involvement heightens coercion concerns, making voluntary waiver more difficult to establish. Defense counsel should investigate command influence throughout questioning processes, as directed interrogation often reflects broader command pressure for admissions. This context strengthens suppression arguments and supports unlawful command influence claims.