Despite the scenario's origination in an ttempt to arrest Nazi war criminals, my opinion remains unchanged with respect to the application of today's lawof armed conflict. However, the Geneva Conventions were signed in 1949, after WWII. At that time, the Hague Convention of 1907 was applicable and Article 44 states that "A belligerent is forbidden to force the inhabitants of territory occupied by it to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, or about its means of defense." Assuming that the Nazi regime had surrendered and thus its army effectively disbanded, the applicability of this provision is in doubt. If it did apply, then the scenario would be unlawful since Hoess was a member of the Nazi Army (right?) and the wife was being asked to provide information about him. Assuming the inapplicability of the provision, the laws of Germany (to the extent they do not violate international law) would apply and I can't speak to that.

There were some references to various criminal laws, including a cite to US code. However, the scenario is not cut from US federal criminal law. It is an intenrational law, specifically the law of armed conflict, issue. I don't believe we can mix the two. For one reason, we cannot expect our troops to be versed in criminal law and search & seizure jurisprudence in the manner a cop would be. Moreover, I think over reliance on criminal law ties our hands. The job of our combat troops is to reduce the threat not prepare for a trial. Sure, trial can be had, but it must be done in the context of a war crimes trial rather than normal criminal law where the standards can be much different.

Using Schmedlap's scenario with some slight changes, the differing results can be seen. Let's assume for the sake of argument that criminal law applies and that there is no basis for holding or detaining the wife. Let's further assume that she provided incriminatory evidence (i.e. "the smoking gun") rather than simply his location. In that case, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine might apply thereby rendering any evidence unuseable. However, applying the law of armed conflict may go the to weight of the evidence rather than the admissibility of it. Of course, much would depend upon the facts and I'm being very broad here, but merely trying to make a point rather than present a treatise.