Court Opinion

ID: 9836874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:18.950292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.112895
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(dissenting):
I would grant the petition for reconsideration with full oral argument. I dissented from the Court’s prior opinion in this case, which created the requirement for scientific proof “that the user at some time would have ‘experienced the physical and psychological effects of the drug.’” United States v. Campbell, 50 MJ 154, 160 (1999). The majority does not meaningfully depart from this position today, so I again dissent.
In my previous dissenting opinion, I expressly stated that I disagreed with, the majority’s creation of a new requirement in urinalysis eases for “evidence that the con*390trolled substance is present in the accused’s body in such a quantity that an expert can opine that the effects of the drug would have been felt.” Campbell, 50 MJ at 163 (Sullivan, J., dissenting). In my view, this requirement is contrary to what is stated in United States v. Harper, 22 MJ 157, 163-64 (CMA 1986); paragraph 37(c), Part IV, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984; and a host of our cases after Harper. See 50 MJ at 162.