Case: UNITED STATES, Respondent v. STUART G. GOLDMAN, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Petitioner
Abbreviation: United States v. Goldman
Decision Date: 1969-08-22
Docket Number: No. 21,732
Citation: 18 C.M.A. 516
Volume: 18
Reporter: Decisions of the United States Court of Military Appeals
Court: United States Court of Military Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: UNITED STATES, Respondent v STUART G. GOLDMAN, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Petitioner
Judges: Chief Judge Quinn concurs.
Pages: 516–517

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Respondent v STUART G. GOLDMAN, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Petitioner
18 USCMA 516, 40 CMR 228
No. 21,732
August 22, 1969
Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Howard L. Kaplus, and Captain Karl J. Vebel were on the pleadings for Petitioner.
Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger, and Captain Larry S. Seuferer were on the pleadings for Respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court
DARDEN, Judge:
Petitioning for reconsideration, the defense urges that the recent opinion of the Supreme Court in Chimel v California, 395 US 752, 23 L Ed 2d 685, 89 S Ct 2034 (1969), so narrows the law regarding searches incident to lawful arrest as to require a different result in this case. See United States v Goldman, 18 USCMA 389, 40 CMR 101. We disagree.
Not only was our decision not premised solely upon the legality of a search incident to an arrest but the search here involved was not so unlimited in scope and reasonableness as to offend against constitutional authority. The agents here acted both upon probable cause and necessity. It is one thing to construe the scope of police operations narrowly within the calm and orderly atmosphere of this nation, another to delimit them in a foreign and strife-torn city.
Moreover, the defense contention that the military may not try the accused for these offenses committed by him while on active overseas duty in a zone of conflict finds no support in O'Callahan v Parker, 395 US 258, 23 L Ed 2d 291, 89 S Ct 1683 (1969).
Therefore, we perceive no reason to reconsider our former opinion and thus adhere to the results contained therein.
Chief Judge Quinn concurs.