of his conclusions of law. United States v. Moses, 45 M.J. 132, 135 (1996); Ayala, 43 M.J. at 298. We adopt the military judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as contained in Appellate Exhibit XXXIX, as they are amply supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. We agree completely with the military judge’s conclusion that a Fourth Amendment violation did not occur where (1) Cpl Cervantes was not acting in an official or investigative capacity when he went looking for the envelope (and therefore he was not on a “quest for evidence” of a crime), and where, (2) Cpl Cervantes did not suspect that a theft had been committed at the time he searched through the appellant’s “cammies.” See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Reister, 44 M.J. 409, 415-16
holding that the fourth amendment and the exclusionary rules are not implicated by a private search holding that a private invasion whether accidental or deliberate reasonable or unreasonable does not violate the fourth amendment because of its private character holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment recognizing private damage action for fourth amendment violations by federal officers recognizing private right of action