Falsely accused of drug charged - right to know accused

I'm in the U.S. Military and am from Georgia. I was falsely accused of using drugs. The MPs didn't really tell me much. I did not talk to them beyond being told what I was charged with (using drugs) and immediately got a lawyer, despite being totally innocent. The charges were later dropped for lack of evidence(since there isn't any since I didn't do anything).

Now I would like to pursue legal action(both under the UCMJ and civil law) against my accusers for damage to my reputation/mental health. Everyone now knows I was under investigation for drugs, and that alone has ruined my reputation. But the MPs won't tell me who accused me. Don't I have a right to know my accuser(s)? I have been told by another soldier involved in the situation who it was, but I don't have definitive proof, and I could easily get that from the MPs.

I think this would be a pretty straight forward case since someone said I did drugs with them and that is a complete lie and the MPs have their sworn statements.

You have no civil damages.
You have no right to the information about who made the allegation.
You can not pursue things under the UCMJ, that is up to the military themselves.
The right to confront your accusers is limited to your criminal trial which you are not being subject to.

If every person who was investigated and later cleared could sue the police the entire system of justice would break down because the police wouldn't ever risk an investigation.

If your reputation was "ruined" because you were investigated and exonerated their either you were a shady person to begin with or you need to associate with higher quality people that don't jump to conclusions.

swalsh411 said:

If every person who was investigated and later cleared could sue the police the entire system of justice would break down because the police wouldn't ever risk an investigation.

If your reputation was "ruined" because you were investigated and exonerated their either you were a shady person to begin with or you need to associate with higher quality people that don't jump to conclusions.

Click to expand...

Great advice here

[Edit:] And here's how it works: You get investigated, everyone hears about the charges and assumes that you must've done "something" to warrant being investigated. Months later the charges are dropped. But no one hears/cares about that because it's not as interesting. By then you've been re-assigned, everyone you worked with is gone, and no one hears about how they quietly dropped the investigation because they had no evidence beyond some random guy's statement. Coincidentally, you've also lost your promising next assignment and you're going to some ****hole.

Here's a similar situation(long read), though in this case the guy was accused of a sex crime.
http://******ezlegal.blogspot.com/2007/12/to-be-falsely-accused-of-crime.html

This quote sums it up well:
"I always assumed, like every other journalist does, that all sex scandals are rooted in the truth, period. You may not have done precisely what you're accused of, but you did something."


And I'm not even considering suing the police. I have no reason to believe they were trying to **** me just to get a prosecution or anything like that. I would like the sue the people that started this bull****.

The right to confront your accusers is limited to your criminal trial which you are not being subject to.

Click to expand...

That's what I was trying to figure out, thanks. Couldn't find a reference for it but I'd read about it before.

AnonymousCowa2d said:

[Edit:] And here's how it works: You get investigated, everyone hears about the charges and assumes that you must've done "something" to warrant being investigated.

Click to expand...

That's not true at all. I for one do not assume that a person who is under investigation has done anything wrong just like I do not assume a person who is charged with a crime is necessarily guilty. Like I said, either you were shady to begin with or hang around people who don't think for themselves and don't realize that sometimes completely innocent people are suspected of having committed a crime.

swalsh411 said:

That's not true at all. I for one do not assume that a person who is under investigation has done anything wrong just like I do not assume a person who is charged with a crime is necessarily guilty. Like I said, either you were shady to begin with or hang around people who don't think for themselves and don't realize that sometimes completely innocent people are suspected of having committed a crime.

Click to expand...

I wasn't shady to begin with and I don't hang out with shady people(maybe since I don't hang out with co-workers that's considered shady, who knows).
I don't really appreciate being accused of that either. Maybe asking it as a question would work out better next time(i.e. do you hang out with people that are shady/do drugs?)

Option 2 seems pretty accurate, but unfortunately I can't really change that. The people I worked with knew that it was ridiculous to begin with. But I no longer work with them, and I didn't work with the other 95% of the people here, so that other 95% forms assumptions based on what little knowledge they have of me, which is this rumor.

Also, I don't really get the lack of civil damages thing. Accusations of drug use should be defamation by default, right? Or is it only if they're public accusations?