ROMINGER LEGAL
Virginia Legal Research & Resources - VA Legal Resources
Need Legal Help?
NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE
This opinion or court case is from the Courts of Virginia. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH
COURT REPORTERS
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
PROCESS SERVERS
DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS
EXPERT WITNESSES

 

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

 
Web Rominger Legal

Legal News - Legal Headlines

 

                 COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA



Present:  Chief Judge Moon, Judges Willis and Elder
Argued at Richmond, Virginia


LEONARD SHELTON JACKSON
                                                                                                                                               MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
v.   Record No. 0036-96-2            CHIEF JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON
                     NOVEMBER 4, 1997
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA


        FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
                   James B. Wilkinson, Judge

         Maureen L. White (Theodore Tondrowski;
         Grennan & Tondrowski, on brief), for
         appellant.

         Marla G. Decker, Assistant Attorney General
         (Richard Cullen, Attorney General; Steven A.
         Witmer, Assistant Attorney General, on
         brief), for appellee.


    Leonard Shelton Jackson ("Jackson") was convicted of
possession of cocaine with an intent to distribute and
distribution of cocaine, both in violation of Code   18.2-248.
Jackson contends that the cocaine on which his conviction rests
was illegally seized and, thus, the trial judge erred in
declining to suppress that evidence.  Finding no error, we affirm
the convictions.
    On May 9, 1995, police officers received a tip from an
informant who had previously provided the police with reliable
information.  The informant identified Jackson by name, claimed
he was selling drugs, and predicted where he would be found and
the car he would be using.  The officers drove to the location
identified by the informant and saw both Jackson and the car
identified by the informant.  The officers saw Jackson and Nelson
Washington ("Washington") get into the car, with Washington
driving.
    The officers checked the car's license plate number and
discovered that the plates were for a different car owned by
Washington.  They also learned that Washington's license was
suspended.  The officers stopped the car and told Washington that
his plates were wrong and his license had been suspended.  They
also told him that they had been told that the car he was driving
was being used to transport drugs.
    An officer asked Washington to consent to a search, and he
consented.  The officer discovered cocaine on Washington.  The
officer then told Jackson why they stopped the car and that they
had information that Jackson was transporting drugs.  The officer
asked Jackson to consent to a search, and he consented.  The
officer began searching Jackson, but when he reached to search
his pants leg, Jackson ran.  The officers apprehended Jackson and
arrested him, discovering cocaine in his pants leg.
    In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress,
the appellant has the burden to show that, considering the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
ruling constituted reversible error.  Fore v. Commonwealth, 220
Va. 1007, 1010, 265 S.E.2d 729, 731, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1017
(1980).  "`Ultimate questions of reasonable suspicion and
probable cause to make a warrantless search' involve questions of
both law and fact and are reviewed de novo on appeal," McGee v.
Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 193, 197-98, 487 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1997)
(en banc) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___,
116 S. Ct. 1657, 1659 (1996)), but "we are bound by the trial
court's findings of historical fact unless `plainly wrong' or
without evidence to support them, and we give due weight to the
inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local
law enforcement officers.'"  Id. at 198, 487 S.E.2d at 261
(citing Ornelas, ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S. Ct. at 1663).
    Although the initial search of Jackson was consensual, his
flight implied a withdrawal of consent.  Once consent is
withdrawn, the Fourth Amendment is implicated and police are
required to have probable cause to search further.  Camden v.
Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 725, 727-28, 441 S.E.2d 38, 40 (1994);
see Payne v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 86, 88, 414 S.E.2d 869,
870 (1992) (citing Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991)).
    After verifying the reliable informant's identification of
Jackson, his location, and the car he was using, the officers
searched Jackson's companion, Washington, and found cocaine.
Jackson then consented to a search.  When Jackson fled, he
impliedly withdrew consent.  Nevertheless, the officers'
verification of the informant's information, their discovery of
Washington's possession of cocaine, and, most importantly,
Jackson's flight, together gave the officers probable cause to
search Jackson.  Compare McGee, 25 Va. App. at 203, 487 S.E.2d at
264 (holding that police lacked probable cause to search because
informant was an anonymous tipster, no evidence established the
reliability of the tipster, and the police did not observe any
suspicious conduct), with James v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 98,
101-02, 379 S.E.2d 378, 380 (1989) (noting that flight helps
support a finding of probable cause), and Quigley v.
Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 28, 33 nn.5-6, 414 S.E.2d 851, 854
nn.5-6 (1992) (noting that fight alone may constitute
"`"reasonable suspicion" when made in the face of lawful
authority'" and can "`color[] conduct which hitherto had appeared
innocent'") (quoting United States v. Lane, 909 F.2d 895, 899
(6th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1093 (1991)).
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
         Affirmed.                                                       

Ask a Lawyer

 

 

FREE CASE REVIEW BY A LOCAL LAWYER!
|
|
\/

Personal Injury Law
Accidents
Dog Bite
Legal Malpractice
Medical Malpractice
Other Professional Malpractice
Libel & Slander
Product Liability
Slip & Fall
Torts
Workplace Injury
Wrongful Death
Auto Accidents
Motorcycle Accidents
Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Business/Corporate Law
Business Formation
Business Planning
Franchising
Tax Planning
Traffic/Transportation Law
Moving Violations
Routine Infractions
Lemon Law
Manufacturer Defects
Securities Law
Securities Litigation
Shareholder Disputes
Insider Trading
Foreign Investment
Wills & Estates

Wills

Trusts
Estate Planning
Family Law
Adoption
Child Abuse
Child Custody
Child Support
Divorce - Contested
Divorce - Uncontested
Juvenile Criminal Law
Premarital Agreements
Spousal Support
Labor/Employment Law
Wrongful Termination
Sexual Harassment
Age Discrimination
Workers Compensation
Real Estate/Property Law
Condemnation / Eminent Domain
Broker Litigation
Title Litigation
Landlord/Tenant
Buying/Selling/Leasing
Foreclosures
Residential Real Estate Litigation
Commercial Real Estate Litigation
Construction Litigation
Banking/Finance Law
Debtor/Creditor
Consumer Protection
Venture Capital
Constitutional Law
Discrimination
Police Misconduct
Sexual Harassment
Privacy Rights
Criminal Law
DUI / DWI / DOI
Assault & Battery
White Collar Crimes
Sex Crimes
Homocide Defense
Civil Law
Insurance Bad Faith
Civil Rights
Contracts
Estate Planning, Wills & Trusts
Litigation/Trials
Social Security
Worker's Compensation
Probate, Will & Trusts
Intellectual Property
Patents
Trademarks
Copyrights
Tax Law
IRS Disputes
Filing/Compliance
Tax Planning
Tax Power of Attorney
Health Care Law
Disability
Elder Law
Government/Specialty Law
Immigration
Education
Trade Law
Agricultural/Environmental
IRS Issues

 


Google
Search Rominger Legal


 


LEGAL HELP FORUM - Potential Client ? Post your question.
LEGAL HELP FORUM - Attorney? Answer Questions, Maybe get hired!

NOW - CASE LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try it for FREE


 


Get Legal News
Enter your Email


Preview

We now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!

ADD A SEARCH ENGINE TO YOUR PAGE!!!

TELL A FRIEND ABOUT ROMINGER LEGAL

Ask Your Legal Question Now.

Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board

TERMS OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES

Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2009.

A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.