UCMJ Lawyers

Gagne, Scherer & Associates

(224) 935-6172

Free Consultation – Call/Text

Category: Investigations

  • What To Do If Accused of CSAM at Joint Base Langley-Eustis

    What To Do If Accused of CSAM at Joint Base Langley-Eustis

    CSAM cases are common at Joint Base Langley-Eustis and expected to be a top priority of the Office of Special Trial Counsel. If you’re an Airman suspected of a child pornography offense at JB Langley-Eustis or any other military installation, this page will give you steps you can take right now to help yourself. The page also explains how a sting operation can start as an indecent communication or suspected possession case but become a far more serious court-martial. The page gives tips on what kind of lawyer a CSAM case at Langley requires, and answers whether to tell your family about your situation.

    While most people looking for legal help with this kind of case use the term “child pornography,” which is still used in the UCMJ as well, courts and law enforcement now prefer to call it “child sexual abuse material,” or CSAM, and this page uses both.

    The relevant portions of the UCMJ, the potential punishments, and the investigative processes, are covered on our Computer Crimes Against Children page. This page is your investigation survival guide.

    By the time your first sergeant tells you that you have a meeting with OSI in the morning, the investigation is well underway. A provider like Google or Snapchat will have flagged your files and shut down your account, might have sent a tip to NCMEC, and the tip was sent to military investigators before anyone said a word to you. You might have gotten a notice from your service provider about your account being suspended, but the rest of the investigation is conducted in secret. In the background, the agents will have obtained authorization to seize and search your devices and to raid your home or barracks. Your ISP, email, bank, and other records might already be in the subpoena process.

    How common are CSAM cases at Langley-Eustis?

    Very common. As of August 2026, the three most recently completed courts-martial on the Langley-Eustis docket were child pornography cases. Child sex cases draw maximum scrutiny, especially when they have corroboration like CSAM cases inevitably will. While OSTC prosecutors defer the majority of the cases referred to it, they keep child pornography prosecutions, and our OSI and OSTC sources expect the CSAM caseload to continue through 2027 and beyond.

    Even federal prosecutors get work from JB Langley-Eustis. In June 2026, a service member stationed at Langley was sentenced in federal court to eighteen years for coercing two minors to produce explicit images, a case that started with files on his devices and expanded to evidence obtained from his Snapchat and Apple accounts, and ended as a coercion and enticement prosecution on top of the CSAM allegation.

    What should I do right now?

    Stop talking and stop creating new evidence. How you handle your devices, behavior, and communication during the investigative case can have a huge impact as the case evolves. The adage applies: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

    • Say nothing about the facts to anyone. Not OSI, not your chain, not your friends, not a counselor or chaplain. If you need mental health care, a lawyer can help you get it without feeding the investigation.
    • Don’t consent to a search of any phone, computer, drive, or account. Make OSI get authorization.
    • Lock your devices with a PIN or passphrase, not your fingerprint or face. This is a good practice for everyone, but it’s especially important for anyone who thinks law enforcement might come knocking. A memorized passcode is treated the same as speech, with the same degree of constitutional protection as your right to silence. Biometrics generally don’t because they’re not a form of speech. OSI can compel you to give a facial scan or fingerprint, the same as taking blood samples, DNA, or handwriting exemplars. But OSI can’t compel you to give them your PIN or passcode, so don’t.
    • Don’t delete anything. Once a person knows an investigation is underway, deleting or destroying evidence can be charged as a separate crime. At a minimum, it can be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt (a guilty mind). It’s also not something an attorney is allowed to advise you on.
    • Keep your data on the device, not in the cloud. Turn off app-data backups and cloud backups. Local storage only. Backing up your keychain is fine, especially on Apple.
    • Get off Meta products, including WhatsApp. We advise against the use of Meta products, including WhatsApp, for sensitive communications. While WhatsApp offers end-to-end encryption for direct messaging, its cloud backups to platforms such as iCloud and Google Drive aren’t encrypted by default, potentially leaving data accessible to third parties, including law enforcement. Furthermore, metadata (contact info, chat logs, timestamps) remains exposed to Meta and law enforcement even when encryption is enabled. For enhanced privacy, we recommend using Signal, which doesn’t maintain cloud backups. We suggest that all essential data be stored and backed up locally.
    • Assume anyone who contacts you about sex is working with law enforcement. If someone (like an ex-girlfriend) texts wanting to chat about anything in the sexual realm, asks about past sexual encounters, or steers toward a meetup, don’t answer. More often than not, an outreach like that is a “pretext” message, scripted and observed by law enforcement. It’s a trap that’s been lethal to countless military members.
    • Don’t respond to DCSA. If the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency reaches out for a “continuous vetting” clearance interview, merely wanting to discuss your existing clearance, that’s an interrogation in another form. These agents aren’t with law enforcement and they have no law enforcement training, but they’re going to ask you about whatever legal flag provoked them to contact you in the first place. They’re not required to give you a rights advisement, but whatever you say to them can be used against you in court. Whatever you say to them will go into their report and get up-channeled and then inevitably referred to law enforcement. Say nothing and tell your lawyer they made contact.
    • Stop all risky conduct now. No pornography of any kind. Don’t exchange intimate images with anyone, or obtain them from anyone, including a spouse or romantic partner. Monkish behavior is self-preservation.
    • Make sure someone can reach your lawyer. Pretrial confinement is unusual in these cases but not unheard of. A family member or friend should have your attorney’s number in case you get arrested and can’t make the call yourself.

    Does OSI at Langley perform CSAM stings?

    Yes. OSI at Langley runs CSAM and ICAC operations, including stings, on its own and in coordination with other law enforcement agencies. Understanding the real scope of the trouble you’re in is the first step of protecting yourself. An Airman who thinks he’s facing a possession charge might make ill-advised decisions, like talking to investigators, if he misperceives the threat and convinces himself he can have it both ways: talk himself out of trouble while keeping the big secret to himself. Consider a case where he thinks he’s in trouble for trying to get an intimate image of a minor during a text exchange. Consider the typical “to catch a predator” sting scenario. Here’s the problem with talking his way out: there was no minor. The agents were the minor. They have every message he sent, so the secret he thinks he’s protecting is already on paper, in their folder, right there on the table, and each new thing he tells them is one more admission stacked on top of an illegal conversation they already have. Communicating with a minor, or with an undercover agent posing as one, can lead to charges for (attempted) sexual abuse of a child under Article 120b, enticement and solicitation under Article 134, and attempted production of CSAM, even if no real child was ever involved and no meeting ever happened. This is how you help OSTC stack charges against you. So: If you’re under investigation, don’t talk to the cops. Ever. Our pages on how CSAM cases are prosecuted and defended and ICAC sting operations explain how this happens.

    What kind of lawyer do I need for a CSAM case at Langley?

    You need a civilian military defense lawyer who specializes in defending covered offenses, especially CSAM and child-sex cases, and who already has a working relationship with the OSTC District 1 office at Langley. Not every criminal defense lawyer, and not every “former JAG,” is equipped for a child pornography case. In a CSAM case, a lawyer needs deep, specific experience with these cases, not just court-martial experience in general. He needs to know how these cases are built on the government side from start to finish: the initial tip, the search warrant application and how it’s executed, how long the devices sit before they’re analyzed and what that analysis consists of, how the prosecution decides and proves that an image depicts a minor, the role AI now plays in these prosecutions, and the facts that separate a possession case from an attempted sexual abuse charge under Article 120b or a production charge under Article 134. He needs to know not just the sentencing range but what real-life factors drive a sentence up or down. You can’t defend one of these cases without knowing how the perfect investigation and prosecution is supposed to look. Once you know that, you can find where the government’s version falls short and build reasonable doubt out of the gaps. Ask a lawyer to walk you through all of that. His answer will tell you whether he’s equipped for your case. It’s not something a case count can tell you, and it’s not something a firm can fake with a page of AI-generated text.

    Should I tell my family I’m under investigation at Langley-Eustis?

    Yes. You might need their emotional and financial support, so you should tell them you’re facing an investigation and that you’ve hired or would like to hire a civilian military attorney. You don’t want them to hear it for the first time from a law enforcement agent or someone in your chain of command. Even if they’re eager to help, you can’t discuss the facts with them. Graciously accept their support but remember that there is no family-defendant communication privilege. Say enough that they can help you; not so much that they become witnesses. Our page on telling your family you’re facing a court-martial covers how to strike that balance.

    Doesn’t the Air Force give me a free lawyer?

    Yes, but not the kind you need at this stage or for this kind of case. The Air Force gives an accused access to an Area Defense Counsel, but at the investigative stage that often means one short meeting, usually with the paralegal, and the same advice a standard uniformed defense lawyer gives everyone: don’t talk to OSI, call us if you get charged. The ADC will get more involved if the case truly requires it (e.g., you get put in pretrial confinement), but during the investigation their role is usually limited to that intake conversation and the basic warning. Other services don’t even provide counsel during the investigative stage. If you want someone working your case while the investigation is pending, which will likely take months and possibly more than a year, you will have to hire an attorney. Most civilian military defense lawyers take the JAG approach anyway: stay quiet, wait, call me when you’re charged. That’s not Gagne, Scherer & Associates’ policy. We get involved immediately, talk to the prosecution often, and stay engaged throughout the cases.

    Talk to a JB Langley-Eustis CSAM defense lawyer

    If you’re under investigation for a computer crime involving a minor at Langley-Eustis, call Gagne, Scherer & Associates at (224) 935-6172 for a confidential review. We’ll explain what you’re facing, how to deal with OSI, and how to survive the investigation.

  • What To Do If You’re Under Investigation for Sexual Assault in the Military

    You’re facing the most aggressively prosecuted charge under the UCMJ. Article 120 cases now fall under OSTC’s exclusive jurisdiction, which means a dedicated prosecution office with handpicked trial attorneys is deciding whether to take your case to court-martial. Congress created OSTC because it didn’t think commanders were prosecuting enough sexual assault cases, and it felt the acquittal rate at trial was too high. OSTC exists to increase conviction rates, not to ensure fair trials. The Sexual Assault Response apparatus (SARC/SAPR) runs a parallel operation that goes beyond supporting the accuser: it briefs commanders, trains unit members, and saturates your installation with messaging that contaminates the potential jury pool before you ever see a courtroom. You’re facing a system built to convict you.

    What you do in the next few days will affect everything that follows. This guide from Gagne, Scherer & Associates tells you what to do and what not to do, starting right now.

    The First 48 Hours

    Don’t talk

    Don’t make a statement to investigators. Not even a partial statement, not a “my side of the story,” not a clarification. CID, NCIS, OSI, and CGIS are trained to get you talking before you understand the threat you face. They’ll tell you this is your only chance to clear things up. It isn’t. Read the Gagne, Scherer & Associates interrogation survival kit before you sit down with anyone. If you’ve already been contacted by investigators, read our guide to military interrogation tactics and your Article 31(b) rights so you understand what they’re doing and why.

    Don’t contact the accuser

    Don’t send a text, leave a voicemail, pass a message through a friend, or post anything on social media, even if it doesn’t reference the allegation. Every word you put out there becomes evidence. If a no-contact order hasn’t been issued yet, one is coming. Violating it exposes you to an additional criminal charge and destroys whatever good will with your chain of command.

    Don’t try to gather evidence on your own

    Don’t ask friends to screenshot the accuser’s social media. Don’t go through old text messages and start forwarding them around. Don’t record conversations with potential witnesses. All of this can be characterized as obstruction or witness tampering. Your attorney will handle evidence collection the right way.

    Don’t discuss the facts of the alleged incident with friends, family, or coworkers

    Those conversations aren’t privileged. Your internet history isn’t either. Your best friends, girlfriend, coworkers, family members: they can be compelled to testify about what you told them. Your phone data and search history can be recovered or subpoenaed, so whatever question you have about your case, ask your lawyer, not Google.

    Don’t delete anything on your phone, computer, or cloud accounts

    If you’re under investigation, your devices are going to be searched or seized. Deleting files after you know you’re under investigation is a separate offense and it makes everything worse.

    Do back up all helpful evidence to a secure location

    Your phone, your laptop, and your computer can all be seized, and once they’re in the investigators’ possession you won’t see them again for months if ever. Get screenshots, texts, photos, and any other evidence that helps you off those devices and into a secure location your attorney can access. Use a personal cloud account, external storage, or some other means, but make sure your attorney will be able to review all helpful evidence.

    Do tell your family what’s happening

    Service members facing court-martial should tell their families. They need to know, and you need their help. Your parents or your spouse might be the ones who help you afford a civilian attorney. They can’t help if you keep them in the dark. Waiting until charges are preferred to break the bad news, or on your way to jail after a conviction, leaves everyone scrambling at the worst possible time.

    Do call an attorney right away

    In most branches you won’t get an appointed JAG defense counsel until charges are preferred or a board is convened, which could be months away. The Air Force and Space Force assign counsel earlier, but even those attorneys tend to take a passive approach during the investigation. If you want someone working your case while the investigation is still open, you need to hire a civilian military defense lawyer. Gagne, Scherer & Associates explains why that’s essential and what to look for when choosing the right attorney.

    Their Investigation vs. Your Defense

    Stage What the Government Is Doing What You Should Be Doing
    Investigation opens Pulling phone records, internet history, banking, texts. Interviewing witnesses. Collecting surveillance. Say nothing. Back up helpful evidence. Hire an attorney.
    SARC/SAPR activates Coaching the accuser. Arranging Base of Preference transfer. Briefing your commander and OSTC. Saturating your base with messaging. Tell your family. Stay off social media. Don’t contact the accuser or anyone connected to them.
    OSTC reviews Evaluating evidence for trial viability. Deciding whether to prefer charges. Coordinating with investigators for additional evidence. Your attorney contacts OSTC and investigators, puts favorable evidence in front of them, works to influence the charging decision.
    Charges preferred Charge sheet is signed. You’re formally accused. JAG defense counsel assigned (in most branches, this is the first time you get a lawyer). If you hired early, your attorney already has the case developed. If you waited, you’re starting from zero.
    Article 32 hearing Government presents probable cause. PHO evaluates and writes a report. Your attorney focuses on reasonable doubt, presents favorable evidence, and works to produce a PHO report that gives OSTC a reason to back off.

     

    What You’re Up Against

    The table above shows the timeline. Here’s how the charges work and what to do about them.

    Article 120 covers rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, and abusive sexual contact. The government can charge multiple theories from the same incident. A single night can produce half a dozen specifications on the charge sheet. Gagne, Scherer & Associates has a plain English guide to military sex offense law that explains what these charges mean, how they overlap, and why even prosecutors and judges have trouble understanding them.

    For a closer look at how these cases are tried and how the defense fights them, read the Gagne, Scherer & Associates 50 tips for defending an Article 120 case.

    Alcohol is a factor in most of these cases. If the allegation involves drinking, the science of how alcohol affects memory, perception, and testimony will be contested at trial. The government will frame the accuser’s gaps in memory as proof of incapacity. The defense must understand the science well enough to challenge that bogus framework. Gagne, Scherer & Associates has a guide on memory, alcohol, and Article 120.

    Gagne, Scherer & Associates wait for charges. The firm contacts OSTC and investigators the day the firm is hired and stays in contact, working to influence the trajectory of the case before the government makes its charging decisions. That’s the period when the case can be derailed, deferred, or resolved with an outcome that doesn’t destroy your life and might save your career. Once charges are preferred and referred, that opportunity becomes much more difficult to manufacture. Read more about why early representation and intervention are crucial to your defense and how the firm uses the Article 32 in the OSTC era to fight for a good outcome long before trial.

    If you’re under investigation or facing charges under Article 120, call Gagne, Scherer & Associates at (224) 935-6172. You’ll speak with an experienced military lawyer who has tried hundreds of sexual assault cases across every branch of service. Not a paralegal. Not a receptionist. Not a chatbot.

  • Military Interrogation Tactics and Your Article 31(b) Rights

    Military investigators start manipulating you long before you ever meet them. They do it in the way they coordinate your interrogation through your chain of command. When you meet them, everything they say and do is designed to get you to waive your Article 31(b) rights. When they advise you of your rights, they’ll try to make it sound like a minor housekeeping task. They will use mind games and word tricks to get you to waive your rights. This charade will continue all the way through trial, when agents will testify against you in pastels to look soft and harmless. The only safe way to respond to an interrogation is to make a clear, unambiguous request for a lawyer. Anything else can leave you vulnerable. Recent military appellate decisions have given these issues close attention and you should too.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Under Article 31(b), you have the right to know what you’re accused of, the right to stay silent, the right to an attorney, and the warning that anything you say can be used against you at court-martial.
    • Investigators begin messing with your head before they ever read your rights.
    • If you want a lawyer, your request must be unambiguous and unconditional.
    • A hesitant or limited request can give investigators permission to keep questioning you.
    • Polygraphs are interrogation tools, not neutral truth-finding devices.
    • If investigators contact you for questioning, call a military defense lawyer right away.

    What Article 31(b) Requires

    Before obtaining a waiver, investigators must disclose specifics of the accusation: who, what, where, and when. Your rights also include the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and protection against compulsory self-incrimination.

    Common Military Rights Advisement Forms

    • AFOSI Form 1168
    • CID Form 588-E

    Investigators Start Manipulating You Before Reading Your Rights

    When investigators notify you of your rights, it’s called an advisement. One of the most important things service members need to understand is that the interrogation starts before the advisement. Before they read you your rights, they’ll chat you up. They’ll pretend to have things in common with you. They’ll make the whole thing feel like a conversation between people who are on the same side. By the time they get to the rights card, they’ve already framed it as a speed bump, a little paperwork you need to get through together before the real conversation starts. The purpose is to convince you to waive your rights without realizing it’s a mistake.

    Common Pre-Warning Tactics

    • They just want to clear something up.
    • They’re just trying to rule you out as a suspect.
    • The rights advisement is an annoying interruption they’re sorry to put you through.
    • This is your only chance to tell “the commander” your side of the story.

    Case Example: United States v. Campbell

    Courts give agents wide latitude, as you’ll see in United States v. Campbell, decided by the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on April 25, 2017. First Lieutenant Campbell was investigated after AFOSI found incriminating text messages on a co-accused’s phone involving ecstasy and other drug-related misconduct. Campbell was later convicted of most charges, and his confession was upheld on appeal.

    What AFOSI Did Before Reading Campbell his Rights

    Before reading Campbell his rights, the agent told him there was a lot of stuff they wanted to discuss, and a lot of it didn’t really deal with Campbell directly. It dealt more with other people. But in order to get into all of that, the agent explained, he had to get through what he called an umbrella catch-all. Campbell asked if he was being charged with something. The agent said he was going to ask some questions. He wasn’t saying Campbell did anything. He wasn’t saying Campbell was guilty of anything. He just had to advise him of his rights before they could get into it. Did that make sense? Yeah. The agent read the rights form. Do you want a lawyer? Pause. I don’t know. The agent said, It kind of has to be a yes or a no. Campbell waived his rights, confessed, and got convicted.

    The agent told him he wasn’t the real target. He downplayed his fundamental rights as an umbrella catch-all (what does that mean?). He used conversational theater: ah, ah, um, ah, ah, kinda, um, ah. He did everything they could to make the rights advisement sound like a minor administrative hassle. And he got away with it.

    Campbell is important for two reasons. First, it shows how far agents can go before a court will step in and how much they can get away with. Second, as you’ll see below, it shows what happens when you agree to talk but try to draw a line later; telling the agent you’d like to consult a lawyer before deciding on a polygraph doesn’t stop the interrogation. Agents can keep questioning you about everything else, and courts won’t fix it later.

    Don’t Try to Have It Both Ways

    One of the biggest mistakes a service member can make is trying to split the difference by talking to investigators while also trying to preserve the option of getting a lawyer later. That kind of halfway approach can leave room for what the courts call clarification, and clarification will always lead right back to interrogation.

    Case Example: Campbell and the “Conditional” Request for Counsel

    Later in the same interview, investigators asked Campbell if he would take a polygraph. His response was that he wanted to talk to a lawyer first. But he agreed to keep talking. Agents didn’t bother with the polygraph because they didn’t have to: Campbell was telling on himself. He tried to argue later that his confession should have been thrown out because he had asked for counsel. The appeals court concluded that Campbell was willing to keep talking without a lawyer and only wanted counsel before deciding whether to take the polygraph. The court held that his request for counsel was conditional and related to the polygraph only.

    Invoke and Shut Up 

    If you say you want a lawyer only for one part of the process, investigators can keep questioning you about everything else. If you want the interrogation to stop, your request needs to be firm and clear. You don’t have to explain yourself. These people aren’t your friends. You owe them nothing.

    The Polygraph Will Not Set You Free 

    If you don’t confess, investigators will likely offer you a polygraph as a way to prove you’re telling the truth. That’s designed to sound like an opportunity to clear your name, but in reality the polygraph is an interrogation tool with wires attached. The polygraph is an excuse to accuse you of lying. The examiner is just another agent, and when the machine shows “DI,” deception indicated, he’ll use it to confront you. The machine doesn’t pick sides, he’ll tell you. So what are you hiding? And you’re into a new round of interrogation.

    Why the Polygraph is a Bad Idea

    • It’s administered by an investigator, not a neutral scientist.
    • It’s used to create leverage, not reveal truth.
    • A claimed failed result can be used to escalate an interrogation.
    • Polygraph results aren’t admissible in court. Agents know that. Which proves the only reason they’re strapping you to the machine is to reopen the interrogation.

    Case Example: Campbell and a Polygraph Request 

    Campbell had already been talking for a while when the polygraph came up. He said he wanted to talk to a lawyer before agreeing to take it. The agents heard that as a narrow request about the polygraph, not a request to stop the interview, and they kept going. Anything other than a firm, clear, total invocation of rights just invited agents to keep the interrogation rolling, and courts will let them get away with it.

    If You’re Wishy-Washy, Agents Will “Clarify” to Keep You Talking

    “Maybe I should get a lawyer” will not stop the interrogation. Agents will pause and ask a clarifying question. Are you sure you want to miss your one chance to let the commander know your side of the story? They will deploy the same psychological weapons at every stage of your interaction with them.

    Case Example of what Crosses the Line: United States v. Whitehead

    In United States v. Whitehead, an agent responded to an equivocal request for counsel by saying, “If you didn’t do anything wrong, you don’t need one, right?” The court found that crossed the line.

    Recent Help from the Appeals Court: United States v. Hurtado

    A recent and more helpful case is United States v. Hurtado, No. 25-0212, decided by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces on March 23, 2026. In that case, a CID agent asked Hurtado whether he wanted a lawyer. Hurtado responded: “I mean, I would like to speak to a lawyer, but um, yeah.” The agent asked again, and the interrogation continued until Hurtado confessed.

    What the Court Held in Hurtado

    CAAF held that Hurtado’s statement was an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel, despite his hesitation. The court ruled that a reasonable law enforcement officer would understand that statement as a request for a lawyer. The filler words and awkward phrasing didn’t nullify the request. According to the court, the “yeah” actually reinforced the request rather than withdrew it, so questioning should have stopped immediately.

    How the Hurtado Case Helps You

    Hurtado says a service member doesn’t need to sound polished, confident, or grammatically perfect to invoke the right to counsel. Scared people hesitate and use filler words. That doesn’t give investigators permission to pretend they didn’t hear the request for counsel.

    The Warning From Hurtado

    But it was a very close call and it could have gone the other way. The decision was a 3-2 split, and the chief judge sided with the minority. He argued that the word “but” created ambiguity that justified agents’ pressing for clarification. KISS applies: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Invoke your rights, stop talking.

    Keep It Simple

    If you are being questioned by military investigators, using clear speech is how you protect yourself. Every word you give them is intelligence they didn’t have before and they will use it to get what they want: your confession. Your best response is short, direct, and firm.

    Safest Language To Use

    • I want to speak with a lawyer right now.
    • I don’t want to answer questions.
    • I don’t consent to any search or seizure.

    Don’t Be Distracted by the Agents’ Performance

    Investigators present themselves as polite, casual, and friendly, whether in the interview room or later in court. They can’t afford to spook you right away. The rapport-building, strategic bathroom breaks, and helpful bottles of water are part of the same effort to keep you talking. Don’t be fooled.

    The Performance Continues All the Way Through Trial 

    When agents testify, it’s usually in pastel dress shirts. They don’t want the panel thinking about the devious ways they ran your interrogation. The pastel strategy is well known in criminal courts across the country. Marcia Clark, the lead prosecutor in the O.J. Simpson trial, was advised to “talk softer, dress softer, wear pastels.” The defense team for Lyle and Erik Menendez did the same thing from the other direction, putting their clients in pastel sweaters (and glasses they didn’t need) to signal vulnerability. From the interrogation room to the courtroom, it’s all fake.

    Insist on Talking to a Lawyer

    The whole interrogation is designed to keep you talking. Campbell shows how far agents can go, and how even a request for counsel might not be enough to stop an interrogation. Whitehead shows what it takes for an agent to take these tactics too far. Hurtado shows that a scared soldier’s stammering request for a lawyer can still be a valid invocation.

    If investigators contact you, keep it simple. Ask for a lawyer. Stop talking. Don’t agree to a polygraph. If they ask for consent to search or seize your property, say no. For additional survival tips, see our Interrogation Survival Kit.

    Military Interrogation Tactics FAQs

    What’s the difference between Article 31(b) rights and Miranda rights? 

    Article 31(b) is broader. Miranda applies when you’re in custody. Article 31(b) applies any time a military superior or investigator questions you about a suspected offense, whether or not you’re in custody.

    Is it a lie when they say my commander wants my side of the story? 

    Yes. Agents use the chain of command as a pressure point because they know you’ve spent your entire military career trying to please your superiors and not piss them off. You don’t want to anger the person who rates you and controls your future. The offer to tell your side of the story is just bait.

    What if I miss my only chance to tell my side of the story? 

    There is no “only chance.” That’s another pressure tactic. You can call them back that night, the next day, or next month. Your attorney can arrange a meeting where he can be at your side. You can testify at trial. Your attorney can tell your side through evidence that helps you without exposing you to interrogation or cross-examination. There are many smart ways to defend yourself. The interrogation room isn’t one of them. The deadline they’re selling you is fake.

    What if the polygraph examiner is only available today? 

    He’ll be available tomorrow. And next week. The one-day-only polygraph is the same pressure tactic as the one-day-only confession. There is no deadline. The offer to prove yourself to the commander through a polygraph is also fake. The results aren’t admissible in court, which means the only thing the polygraph can do is give agents another excuse to interrogate you.

    What if I already talked to investigators without a lawyer? 

    Call a military defense lawyer immediately. What you said can be used against you, but there might still be options depending on how the advisement was handled.

    What if I asked for a lawyer but agents kept questioning me anyway? 

    That’s a potential suppression issue. Get a lawyer and tell them exactly what happened and exactly what you said.

  • UCMJ Article 31(b) Rights: What They Don’t Want You to Know

    Article 31(b) of the UCMJ prohibits military investigators from questioning suspects before informing them of the nature of the accusation and advising them of their right to remain silent. Your rights under Article 31(b) are clear but the forms agents use to inform you of those rights are not. This article covers what Article 31(b) requires, how rights advisement forms differ across the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, and how investigators use mind games and the rights form itself to get you to sign your rights away. United States v. Scottgeorge (NMCCA 2026) and United States v. Campbell (AFCCA 2017) illustrate where courts draw the line between a valid waiver and one that violates your rights.

    Article 31(b) Rights Advisement Forms

    • Primary Statutory Right: UCMJ Article 31(b) (Compulsory Self-Incrimination Prohibited)
    • Key Appellate Precedents: United States v. Scottgeorge (NMCCA Feb. 2026); United States v. Campbell (AFCCA 2017)
    • Orientation Requirement: Investigators must disclose the nature of the accusation (who, what, where, when) prior to obtaining a waiver
    • Forms in Use: DA Form 3881 (Legacy Army); CID Form 588-E (Current Army); NCIS 5580/20 (Navy and Marines); DAF 1168 (Air Force); CG-5810E (Coast Guard)
    • Key Precedent: United States v. Scottgeorge, 2026 CCA LEXIS 94 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 25, 2026)

    Your Rights Under The Law

    Article 31(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice reads:

    “No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or request any statement from, an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.”

    The law is titled “Compulsory Self-Incrimination Prohibited.” Congress wrote it in 1950. It applies at every installation, in every branch, in every investigation, even command-directed investigations. Military members have broader protections than civilians; Article 31(b) kicks in before Miranda would, and it applies even when agents aren’t legally required to give Miranda warnings at all. The agents know this. They still do their best to get around it.

    This protection is in addition to the protections of your Miranda rights. The military justice system has biases against the accused, but it’s also true that military members have heightened rights compared to civilians.

    A proper advisement under Article 31(b) has three components. The agent identifies the specific incident, not just the UCMJ article number, not just the legal definition of the offense, but the actual details: date, location, names, or some combination that lets the suspect know what they’re dealing with. The agent confirms the suspect understands. And then the rights themselves are stated clearly, without suggesting that the form is paperwork rather than a constitutional and UCMJ protection. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals drew that last line explicitly in United States v. Campbell: while the law permits investigators to use deceit during other portions of an interview, the notification of rights must be clear, honest, and understandable.

    How a Rights Notice is Like a Photo Lineup

    Wrongful conviction research has established that how a photo lineup is presented to the witness determines the reliability of the identification.

    The Department of Justice’s own eyewitness identification guidelines, dating back to 1999, endorse showing photos one at a time rather than all at once. When a witness sees one photo at a time, he has to make a real decision about each face. Yes or no. Show him six photos simultaneously and he picks the one that looks most like the guy, whether or not the guy is even in the lineup. When a witness says no to a photograph in a sequential lineup, that no is on the record and shared with the defense. If the same witness later identifies the defendant at trial, after having said no, his credibility evaporates.

    The same logic applies to a rights advisement. When an agent rattles through all your rights in one breath and then slides a waiver form across the table, you’re not deciding about each right. You’re making one decision about the whole situation, in a room designed to produce one answer

    A right-by-right advisement, each right stated separately, each followed by a pause and a question, and an opportunity for the suspect to ask questions, each confirmed with an initial before the next is reached, serves the same purpose as a sequential photo array. Each acknowledgment is an independent decision. There is no accumulated momentum toward waiver.

    The Forms

    The title of the form discloses the agents’ intentions. The Army form is an Acknowledgment and Waiver of Rights. The Navy and Marines call theirs a Military Rights Waiver. The Air Force calls theirs a Statement of Suspect/Witness/Complainant. The Coast Guard (unique among the services) calls theirs a UCMJ and Miranda Rights form.

    Here’s what the forms have in common beyond their titles: the only ones that make it into the case file are the ones with a signature on the waiver line. When a suspect invokes, the agent pulls out the form, goes through it, gets a no, and the form goes in the shred pile. The prosecutor never sees it. The defense never sees it. The only reason the form exists is to get a waiver. If that doesn’t happen, the form ceases to exist.

    Article 31(b) was written to protect the accused from compelled self-incrimination. The Coast Guard named their form after the rights it protects. The Army and Navy named theirs after the act of giving those rights up. The Air Force named theirs after the document it’s designed to produce: a confession.

    The following are descriptions of representative forms. The Air Force form is standardized service-wide. Most others vary by service, region, and detachment.

    Article 31(b) Form Comparison

    • Army (Current): CID Form 588-E (replaced DA Form 3881 in 2023). Only option presented is waiver; no option to invoke.
    • Navy/Marines: NCIS 5580/20. Same as Army. A waiver form, not a rights form.
    • Air Force: DAF 1168. Rights column and ample white space for your confession.
    • Coast Guard: CG-5810E. Most rigorous. Sequential election boxes. Other protections.
    • Key Precedent: United States v. Scottgeorge, 2026 CCA LEXIS 94 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 25, 2026). Blank nature-of-accusation field plus agent leverage over confused suspect equals suppressed confession.

    Coast Guard: CG-5810E

    The Coast Guard form is the only one whose design reflects the actual purpose of Article 31(b). Page one requires a plain language description of the suspected crime and a brief description of the incident. Each right is then listed separately with a blank line for the suspect’s initials. Right five is a confirmation: I have carefully read the above. I understand my rights. Any questions I have asked concerning my rights have been answered to my satisfaction. Page two has four election boxes: desire to consult a lawyer, do not desire to consult a lawyer, desire to make a statement, do not desire to make a statement. The suspect initials one from each pair. The instructions to the interviewer are printed on the form itself. The form states explicitly that these warnings are more extensive than those required under either Article 31(b) or Miranda.

    Army: DA Form 3881 (Old form, no longer used)

    The old Army form was well-designed. The front side documented the rights advisement with a space for the suspected crime and the suspect’s acknowledgment. The reverse side was a sequential script for the investigator: identify the agent, state the offense, advise of rights, confirm understanding, ask about prior attorney requests, ask about waiver. Part I had three sections: Section A for rights, Section B for waiver, Section C for non-waiver. Section C read: I do not want to give up my rights. The suspect signed one of two sections, waiver or non-waiver; both options were equally available.

    Army: CID Form 588-E (Current, 2023)

    In 2023, Army CID replaced DA Form 3881 with CID Form 588-E. The title changed to “Military Suspect’s Acknowledgement and Waiver of Rights.” There is no single version of this form. Each detachment can create its own version. But the forms we have seen have a lot in common. The sequential investigator script is gone. The non-waiver section is gone. What remains is five numbered rights, followed by a single paragraph: I understand my rights as related to me and as set forth above. With that understanding, I have decided that I do not desire to remain silent, consult with a retained or appointed lawyer, or have a lawyer present at this time. I make this decision freely and voluntarily. No threats or promises have been made to me. Then a signature block. The form presents one option; Waive here. Campbell was decided in 2017. CID redesigned their form six years later and removed the only features that treated invoking as a normal, available choice.

    Navy and Marines: NCIS 5580/20

    NCIS generally uses one form for both the Navy and Marine Corps, but detachments are free to create their own versions. The standard form is titled “Military Rights Waiver.” It’s one page. At the top is a short field that allows the agent to fill in a brief description of the accusation, which is usually just a reference to a UCMJ Article. Below that, five numbered rights. Below that, the same waiver paragraph as the Army form: I understand my rights as related to me and as set forth above. With that understanding, I have decided that I do not desire to remain silent, consult with a retained or appointed lawyer, or have a lawyer present at this time. One signature block. There is no place on the form to invoke.

    The nature-of-the-accusation field is whatever the agent writes on that blank line. In United States v. Scottgeorge, decided by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals in February 2026, NCIS agents left that field effectively empty of meaningful information and then told the suspect he would find out what he was actually accused of after he signed the waiver. The court held that was impermissible quid-pro-quo leverage and suppressed the confession. The blank line is where it started.

    Air Force: DAF 1168

    The Air Force form is titled “Statement of Suspect/Witness/Complainant.” It’s two pages. Page one has a header section for the suspected offense, a column for per-right initials labeled “Suspect Initials,” eight separately listed rights, and three waiver elections at the bottom: willing to answer questions, willing to make a statement, or both. Page two, where your confession goes, is titled “IV. Statement” and is otherwise blank, followed by an oath block and signature lines.

    Marine Corps: OPNAV 5527/2 (DEC 1982)

    USMC command investigations sometimes use a form that gives Marines much more protection than the NCIS form. It has initials-boxes for each right, it’s titled correctly (“Article 31 Rights”), and it’s more transparent about the threat level. It also has a “cleansing statement” that advises the Marine that any statement obtained before the rights advisement can’t be used at a court-martial. But not all commands use the official form. Some do a homemade form and remove the cleansing statement.

    A Textbook Rights Advisement (That You’ll Never See)

    A proper advisement tells you who is accusing you, of what, and when and where it happened. Something like: We want to talk to you about some of your online activity a couple of weeks ago. We got a tip from Dropbox that might involve CSAM related to your account. But before we proceed, I need to advise you of your rights. That orients the suspect to the specific incident under investigation. He knows what they’re talking about. He can make an intelligent decision about whether to say anything.

    What won’t suffice: an article number, no name, no date, no incident.

    In Scottgeorge, the agents’ exploits made it even worse. They told the suspect he could find out what he was accused of but only if he waived his rights and agreed to be interrogated. On appeal, the court said no. The waiver was not “knowing and voluntary”; the suspect did not know what he was waiving. The military judge suppressed the confession. The government appealed. The court upheld suppression.

    You Need to Keep It Simple

    These forms exist for one reason: to get your signature on a waiver.

    The best approach is to never bother with the form. Just tell them you don’t want to make a statement, don’t consent to any searches, and want to talk to a lawyer. Make the form irrelevant. If you invoke right up front, you won’t even see the form.

    For a practical guide to taking control of your interrogation before the form ever hits the table, see our companion post, 3 Ways to Turn the Tables on Investigators. For a detailed case study of how these advisement pantomimes look in real life, see United States v. Campbell: A Military Interrogation Case Study. For a comprehensive guide on dealing with OSI, NCIS, CGIS, and CID, see our Interrogation Survival Kit.

    Primary Legal Sources

  • 3 Ways to Protect Yourself During a Military Investigation

    Your script, simplified: 

    1. What exactly am I being accused of?
    2. That’s not true. I didn’t do it.
    3. I’m not going to talk to you, I want a lawyer.

    If the military suspects you of committing a crime, eventually the investigators will ask you to talk. The conversation won’t be on your turf. It’ll be at their office, behind locked and guarded doors, in a tiny, windowless, clockless interrogation room. You’ll be directed where to sit. The scene and the method are scripted, staged, and calibrated for maximum psychological effect. It’s not a conversation, it’s psychological warfare. And it can last all day and night if you let it.

    Update, April 2026: Three recent cases (two from 2026 and one from 2017 that keeps coming up) show what happens when service members do and don’t follow the steps described on this page. The cases also show how far investigators will push it, including the games they play with the rights advisement forms themselves before a single question is asked. See the case law update and the forms at the bottom of this post.

    The Three Things You Can Say, and Then Stop
    These three tips can help you get out of that situation quickly and without risk:

    1. Get whatever information you can about the accusation.
    2. Make your denial, on video if possible.
    3. Assert your rights immediately after making your denial.

    We’ll address each of those steps first, and then at the end of this post we’ll give an illustration of how these steps might play out in an actual interrogation. For additional survival tips, see our Interrogation Survival Kit.

    GET THEM TO GIVE YOU INFORMATION

    The simplest way to end the interrogation quickly and before any damage is done is to tell them you’re not going to make a statement and you want to talk to a lawyer immediately. You won’t get any information about the allegations, but it works. If you choose to do that, don’t be meek about it. Be firm. Don’t ask them if you should talk to a lawyer. Just invoke your rights and get back to safety.

    If you decide to try to get some information before invoking your rights, the first thing you need to ask once you’re sitting in the interrogation room is if the interview is being video recorded. You want to make sure everything you say and they say is captured.

    Once you’ve established that, then you ask your questions. You do this before they try to make any small talk or get any biographical information. You make it the first thing to be covered.

    At a minimum you should be able to get these answers if the investigators are playing it straight:

    • Am I under investigation?
    • What specific crimes or misconduct am I being suspected of committing?
    • What specific article of the UCMJ are you investigating me for?

    Bonus information you might be able to get:

    • Who is making the accusation?
    • When did this happen?
    • Where did this happen?

    Unless you subject yourself to an interrogation, which you aren’t going to do, you probably won’t be able to get the bonus information. But it can’t hurt to ask.

    When you ask the initial questions, they’ll steer you away by saying something like, “We’ll get to that, but first we need to …”

    Keep in mind that, as far you’re concerned, this is not a two-way street right now. Right now your perspective has to be that if they want to talk to you at all, it’s only fair for you to know what it’s about, specifically. Military investigators love being vague. It’s a trap. Insist that they tell you the specific allegation (who, what, where, when) and specific article of the UCMJ it falls under.

    When you ask why they want to talk to you, they might not even tell you that much. They might ask, “Why do you think you’re here?” You don’t have to play along with that. If they try it, ask again. If they refuse to tell you why they want to talk to you, tell them you want to talk to a lawyer immediately. Get out, get to safety.

    If they do tell you what you’re suspected of, they might tell you they just want to eliminate you as a suspect. That’s a lie. They’re allowed to lie to you.

    When you ask why you’re there, what you’re accused of, etc., the investigators will try to put you off and steer the conversation back to where they can control it. They’re not interested in giving information. That’s ok. They owe you, you don’t owe them. Ask your questions, get what you can get, end the interrogation. Just don’t be a jerk about it. Always be classy and polite.

    DENY, DENY, DENY

    You don’t have to deny it, but we’re going to assume that’s what you want to do. As soon as you know what you’re being accused of, and have whatever bonus information you can get up front, make your denial. It can take just about any form, so long as it’s clear:

    • That’s not true.
    • I didn’t do that.
    • I’m innocent.
    • That’s not true, I didn’t do it, and I don’t care what evidence you think you have. I’m innocent.

    If you want to say anything other than I want a lawyer, use this technique whether or not the interrogation is being recorded.

    When you make your denial, be firm and be confident. Someday a panel or judge might see that video. For sure the prosecutor will see it, and the absence of a confession is always important to a prosecutor’s assessment of the strength of the case. And a denial is even better than an absence of a confession.

    If all the investigators get from you is a denial, you might not be able to use the video at trial – they hate putting a denial in front of a judge or panel – but it’s better to have it recorded than not have it. Let your attorney figure out how to use it.

    And then …

    INVOKE YOUR RIGHTS

    Once you’ve made your denial, tell them you’re not going to agree to be interviewed, you’re not going to make a statement of any kind, and you don’t consent to the search of any of your property or your residence. Again, be firm but polite.

    When in doubt, invoke your rights. If at any time you don’t feel comfortable asking the questions we listed here, invoke your rights. The most important thing is to never waive your rights. Invoke them. It’s only a question of when you want to invoke them.

    That’s true even if you have already waived your rights and agreed to be interrogated. If you waived your rights and things go sideways on you, invoke your rights before you say something you’ll regret for the rest of your life.

    If you have anything helpful to say about the case, you can have your attorney say it for you. Nothing your attorney says can be used as evidence against you in a court-martial, and your attorney will make sure the information is presented, if at all, in the best possible way.

    You don’t have to wait for the investigators to inform you of your rights in order to invoke your rights. Just do it. It can be as simple as saying

    • I’m not going to talk to you. I want a lawyer.

    That’s all it takes. The steps explained in this post are designed to get information that might help level the playing field, but they’re not necessary. If in doubt, invoke.

    In an ideal scenario, here’s how the conversation might go if you’re controlling the flow of information:

    1. Is this interview being recorded right now?
    2. Why do you want to talk to me?
    3. What am I suspected of, specifically?
    4. What article of the UCMJ covers that?
    5. Who’s accusing me?
    6. When did it happen?
    7. Where did it happen?
    8. It’s not true. I didn’t do it. I’m innocent.
    9. I don’t consent to you searching my phone, computer, car, residence, or anything of mine. And I won’t take a polygraph.
    10. I’m not going to talk to you. I want to talk to a lawyer right now.

    It’s probably never going to be quite that easy. Investigators aren’t stupid, and they’re trained to fend off your resistance and steer you away from your denials. Even if they figure out what you’re up to, they might give you some of the information anyway just to see if you’ll open up. Which you won’t.

    Whether or not you can get the additional information, whether or not you decide to skip straight to asserting your rights, knowing the rules of engagement will help you survive, get home quickly, and keep your court-martial defense intact.

    Case Law Update, April 2026

    What Recent Cases Reveal About the Agents’ True Intentions

    United States v. Scottgeorge (Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, February 2026) is the clearest illustration of what investigators will do when a service member tries to get information before waiving his rights. Scottgeorge showed up thinking the meeting was about a urinalysis. When agents told him it involved a sex crime and extortion, he wanted to know more before signing anything. The agents told him he’d find out what he was accused of after he waived. He waived, and then he confessed. The military judge suppressed the confession. The government appealed. The court upheld suppression; the waiver wasn’t “knowing and voluntary” because he didn’t know what he was waiving. That outcome was unusual. Most appellate courts tolerate this kind of manipulation. Scottgeorge got lucky. Most service members in that position don’t. See our full case study of Scottgeorge, what it means for your interrogation, and additional tips for taking control.

    United States v. Campbell (Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, 2017) shows what happens when an agent spends several minutes before the rights card even comes out telling the suspect that the advisement is essentially a formality, a procedural nuisance, something we have to get through, an umbrella catch-all that doesn’t really mean what it sounds like. By the time the form arrived, Campbell had already been conditioned to treat it as paperwork rather than a UCMJ and constitutional protection. Campbell waived his rights. He confessed. He appealed. The appeal was denied because Campbell was a 24-year-old Academy graduate who the court concluded already knew what his rights were and why he was there. The agents got away with it. They usually do. Later in the same interview, agents asked Campbell to take a polygraph. He said he wanted to talk to a lawyer first, but he meant only before the polygraph, not before continuing to talk. That conditional invocation didn’t stop the interrogation. The agents asked him to clarify, he kept talking, and the court said that was his choice. The lesson: when you invoke, invoke. Not for one purpose and not for another. See our full Campbell case study.

    United States v. Hurtado (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, March 2026) is the closest call of the three. When the CID agent asked Hurtado if he wanted a lawyer, he said: “I mean, I would like to speak to a lawyer, but um, yeah.” The agent kept going. Hurtado eventually confessed. CAAF held that stammering, uncertain, vague sentence was an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel. Questioning should have stopped right then. But the court’s decision was only 3-2, with the Chief Judge taking CID’s side, arguing that Hurtado’s “but” injected enough ambiguity to justify a clarifying question. One vote the other way and Hurtado would have lost. Don’t put yourself in that position. Keep it simple: I want a lawyer.

    How Far They’ll Push It Before You Even See the Rights Card
    The games don’t start when the agent pulls out the form. They start with how they describe what’s about to happen, what the form is for, and what signing it means. Agents have been documented telling suspects the rights advisement is a formality, an umbrella catch-all, just a little something we have to do, paperwork for us, protection for us as much as you. Campbell shows what that looks like word-for-word.

    The forms themselves tell the same story. The Army’s current form presents one option: waive here. The non-waiver section that existed on the old form is gone. The Navy and Marine Corps form is titled “Military Rights Waiver” (not a rights form, a waiver form). The Air Force form’s second page is blank white space above a signature line titled “Statement,” with plenty of space for your confession. The Coast Guard form is the only one that treats invoking as a valid choice.

    Scottgeorge shows what happens when the nature-of-accusation field, the line where the agent is supposed to write what you’re actually accused of, is left effectively empty, and the suspect is told he’ll find out what’s on it after he signs. Even if the line contains a reference to an Article of the UCMJ, that’s not much to go on and it’s not what CAAF says you’re entitled to.

    For a full breakdown of what each branch’s form looks like, what the law actually requires before you sign anything, and what a proper advisement would look like, see our Article 31(b) rights forms overview.

     

    This blog post is not intended to be legal advice. This post reflects our experience and what we believe works best for our clients. It is intended for informational use only. This blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with our firm. Any military member facing an allegation of misconduct should consult with lawyer who specializes in military criminal law before taking action or making decisions in a military investigation or court-martial.