The phrase “informal conversation” carries no legal weight under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When a commanding officer asks a subordinate to come in and talk about an incident, the setting may appear casual, but the legal consequences of what is said in that room can be anything but. Courts have repeatedly examined whether the circumstances of a conversation created an obligation to provide Article 31 warnings, and the answer often turns on factors the service member could not have recognized in the moment.
Commanders who initiate these conversations without giving proper warnings are not always acting in bad faith, but the result is the same either way. Statements made without a valid Article 31 warning may still be challenged, but the fight to suppress them is harder than the fight to avoid making them in the first place. Knowing what triggers these protections is the first line of defense.
What Makes a Conversation “Official” Under Military Law
Military courts apply a functional test when determining whether Article 31 warnings were required. The test does not turn on how the conversation was described, what room it took place in, or whether the commander said the word “investigation.” It turns on whether the person conducting the questioning had an official purpose and whether the person being questioned was under suspicion of an offense.
A commander who calls a subordinate in to discuss “what happened last weekend” is not conducting an informal chat if the commander already suspects the subordinate of misconduct. Courts have found warning obligations to arise in offices, motor pools, and even during vehicle travel, when the surrounding circumstances created enough of a custodial atmosphere that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. The informality of the setting does not transform a custodial interrogation into a voluntary conversation.
How Courts Have Defined Custodial Interrogation in the Military
Military appellate courts have consistently held that the label given to an encounter does not determine whether it was custodial. The test is objective: would a reasonable person in the subject’s position have felt free to decline to answer and leave. Courts have applied this standard to encounters in commanders’ offices, unit dayrooms, vehicles, and administrative spaces, finding custodial interrogation in each when the surrounding circumstances communicated that the subject was not free to go.
The factors that recur in these decisions include whether the subject was summoned rather than appearing voluntarily, whether the door was closed, whether the questioner disclosed that the subject was suspected of a specific offense, whether the questioning was prolonged or intense, and whether the rank differential between the parties created an implicit obligation to remain and answer. Any combination of these factors, evaluated together, can tip an encounter into custodial territory regardless of how it was introduced.
Why the Word “Informal” Is Often Used to Bypass Your Rights
The informal framing serves a purpose for the person doing the questioning. If the subject accepts that the encounter is casual, they are less likely to assert their rights and more likely to speak freely. Commanders who use this framing may be doing so strategically or may genuinely believe that what they are conducting falls outside the warning requirement. The legal analysis does not depend on their intent. It depends on what the circumstances communicated to the subject.
The service member who hears the word informal should treat it as a signal to be more cautious, not less. Invoking Article 31 rights in a conversation that turns out to have been genuinely informal costs nothing. Speaking freely in a conversation that turns out to have been custodial can cost everything. The asymmetry of those outcomes makes the decision straightforward for anyone who understands what is at stake.
Why You Should Not Attend Without Contacting Counsel First
Walking into any meeting with a superior or investigator without first speaking to defense counsel means making decisions without the information needed to make them correctly. The service member does not know at that moment what the investigation has developed, what witnesses have been interviewed, or what specific conduct is under scrutiny. That ignorance makes it impossible to assess the risk of any particular statement.
Defense counsel contacted before the meeting can often determine what the investigation is about, advise whether attendance is legally required, prepare the service member for what may be asked, or arrange to attend alongside the client. Each of those outcomes is better than attending uninformed. The time required to make the call is short. The consequences of not making it can be permanent.
When to Contact a Civilian Military Attorney
The answer is before the informal meeting takes place. A service member who contacts civilian military counsel after the conversation has already happened is working with a diminished set of options. Whatever was said is now part of the record. Counsel retained before the meeting preserves the full range of choices, including the choice to say nothing at all.
Civilian military attorneys with UCMJ experience are available for initial consultations by phone. The information gathered in that consultation shapes how the service member handles not just the next meeting but every stage of the case that follows. Cases that begin as informal conversations frequently become formal investigations and, in some cases, court-martial proceedings. The attorney who is present from the beginning builds a defense on a complete foundation rather than inheriting a record that was established without any protection in place.
This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.