The primary restriction on the use of a compelled urinalysis in a court-martial is based on the purpose for which the test was ordered. Military Rule of Evidence 312 establishes a clear distinction. If a urinalysis is “command-directed” for the purpose of determining a soldier’s fitness for duty or for a safety inspection, the results of that test are generally not admissible as evidence in a subsequent criminal court-martial. This is a form of limited use immunity that encourages commanders to use testing for safety and readiness purposes.
However, if the urinalysis was compelled on a different basis, the results can be used. For example, if a commander has “probable cause” to believe a service member has committed a drug offense, they can order a search-and-seizure urinalysis. The results of this probable-cause test are fully admissible at a court-martial. Similarly, results from a valid, random urinalysis conducted as part of the military’s deterrence program are also admissible.
A military defense attorney will always scrutinize the reason for a compelled urinalysis. If they can show that a commander improperly used their “command-directed” authority as a pretext to search for criminal evidence without probable cause, they will file a motion to suppress the results. The attorney will argue that the government is trying to circumvent the probable cause requirement. The judge will then have to determine the true purpose of the test to rule on its admissibility, making this a critical legal battle in many drug cases.