COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Frank and McClanahan
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
COREY NEVILLE MATTHEWS, S/K/A
CORY N. MATTHEWS
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. Record No. 2632-05-2 JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK
MARCH 13, 2007
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Walter W. Stout, III, Judge
Reginald M. Barley for appellant.
J. Robert Bryden, II, Assistant Attorney General (Robert F.
McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Corey Neville Matthews, appellant, contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion
to suppress, as police did not have “reasonable suspicion that [appellant] was engaged in criminal
activity.” For the reasons stated, we affirm the decision of the trial court.1
BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2004, well after midnight, Detective Lamont Paul Tucker of the Richmond
Police Department saw appellant’s vehicle parked outside of a house on a street in an area
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1
The Court notes that the conviction and sentencing orders indicate that the appellant
was found guilty, upon his conditional guilty plea, of possession of cocaine in violation of Code
§ 18.2-250. However, from a review of the record and the representation of the parties, it
appears that the appellant was indicted for, and entered a conditional guilty plea to, possession of
cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of Code § 18.2-248. As this discrepancy has no
effect on the issue before us, this matter is remanded to the trial court for the sole purpose of
clarifying, if necessary, the proper charge and statute under which appellant was convicted.
well-known for illegal drug activity.2 Appellant was sitting in the driver’s seat, and another person
was sitting in the front passenger seat. Detective Tucker parked his police vehicle parallel to
appellant’s car on the opposite side of the street, where it would not block appellant’s car from
leaving the scene. Detective Tucker approached appellant on the driver’s side of the vehicle.
Detective Tucker asked appellant if he lived at the house and if he “needed anything.”
Appellant responded that he was visiting the mother of his child at the house. Detective Tucker
asked appellant and his passenger for identification. While appellant was looking for his
identification, Detective Tucker noticed a digital scale on the floor between appellant’s legs.
Detective Tucker testified that, in his training and experience, digital scales were frequently used for
drug distribution.
Detective Tucker asked appellant about the scale and, in response, appellant became “very
upset” and “out of control.” Appellant began “moving around inside the vehicle” and “putting his
hands from the front to the rear of the vehicle.” Appellant was “yelling and going pretty crazy.”
Several times appellant’s hands were out of Detective Tucker’s view, reaching behind the passenger
seat and inside the glove box. Detective Tucker repeatedly asked appellant to “relax” and to show
him his hands. Appellant did not comply.
At that point, Detective Tucker stepped back from the vehicle and put his hand on his
weapon, though he did not draw his gun. Detective Tucker requested for other officers to respond
to the scene, and two other officers arrived “within seconds.” Appellant continued to ignore the
officers and move about the vehicle until one of the responding officers “racked a shotgun.”
Detective Tucker then told appellant to exit the vehicle slowly. As he was doing so, Detective
Tucker saw an “off-white rock-like substance” on the floor of the vehicle near appellant’s right foot.
2
Detective Tucker testified that he had personally made drug arrests at the house in front
of which appellant had parked his vehicle.
-2-
Detective Tucker placed appellant in handcuffs and recovered the cocaine from the vehicle. Upon
searching appellant incident to arrest for the cocaine discovered in the vehicle, Detective Tucker
found more cocaine in appellant’s pocket. Detective Tucker did not seize the digital scale that he
initially saw on the floor of the vehicle.
The trial court ruled that the initial encounter between appellant and Detective Tucker
was consensual. The trial court further found that, while the digital scale may have given
Detective Tucker reason to investigate the situation further, reasonable suspicion to detain
appellant developed when appellant reacted “improperly” to Detective Tucker’s question about
the scale. This reaction, coupled with the drug activity in the area and the late hour, gave
Detective Tucker reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant posed a threat to his safety and
that appellant was engaged in criminal activity.
This appeal follows.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, appellant contends that Detective Tucker’s “observation of a digital scale in
[appellant’s] car” was insufficient to provide Detective Tucker “with reasonable suspicion that
[appellant] was engaged in criminal activity.”
“On appeal from a denial of a suppression motion, we must review the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Commonwealth, giving it the benefit of any reasonable inferences.”
Slayton v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 101, 103, 582 S.E.2d 448, 449 (2003).
An appellant’s claim that evidence was seized in violation of
the Fourth Amendment “presents a mixed question of law and fact
that we review de novo on appeal. In making such a
determination, we give deference to the factual findings of the trial
court and independently determine whether the manner in which
the evidence was obtained [violated] the Fourth Amendment.”
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 193, 202-03, 609 S.E.2d 612, 616 (2005) (alteration in
original) (quoting Murphy v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 568, 573, 570 S.E.2d 836, 838 (2002)).
-3-
On appeal, “we defer to the trial court’s findings of ‘historical fact’ and give ‘due weight to the
inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.’”
Barkley v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 682, 690, 576 S.E.2d 234, 238 (2003) (quoting Davis v.
Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 421, 429, 559 S.E.2d 374, 378 (2002)).
Fourth Amendment jurisprudence recognizes three categories of citizen-police
encounters. Sykes v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 262, 267, 556 S.E.2d 794, 796 (2001).
First, there are consensual encounters which do not implicate the
Fourth Amendment. Next, there are brief investigatory stops,
commonly referred to as “Terry” stops, which must be based upon
reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is or may be
afoot. Finally, there are “highly intrusive, full-scale arrests” or
searches which must be based upon probable cause to believe that
a crime has been committed by the suspect.
McGee v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 193, 198, 487 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1997) (en banc)
(citations omitted).
Here, the encounter between Detective Tucker and appellant began as consensual. See
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980) (holding that an encounter is consensual
and no seizure occurs under the Fourth Amendment unless “in view of all of the circumstances
surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to
leave”). Detective Tucker did not impede appellant’s exit from the area, and he did nothing to
indicate that appellant was not free to terminate the encounter and leave. During such an
encounter, Detective Tucker was entitled to question appellant and ask for his identification. See
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 200-01 (2002) (holding that police officers may, even if
they “have no basis for suspecting a particular individual,” approach individuals in public places
and “pose questions, ask for identification, and request consent to search” without implicating
the Fourth Amendment).
-4-
Appellant complains that Detective Tucker’s observation of a digital scale on the floor of
his vehicle did not supply him with reasonable suspicion to detain appellant and remove him
from the vehicle. We need not consider whether the presence of the digital scale alone gave
Detective Tucker reasonable suspicion to detain appellant. When Detective Tucker noticed the
digital scale and questioned appellant about it, the encounter remained consensual. Nothing in
Detective Tucker’s actions or demeanor would indicate to a reasonable person that appellant was
not still free to leave at that time.
It was not until after appellant began yelling and apparently reaching for something
inside the vehicle that the nature of the encounter changed. When Detective Tucker stepped
back from the vehicle, put his hand on his weapon, and told appellant to keep his hands in view,
appellant was “seized” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.3 See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at
554 (holding that circumstances that could indicate a seizure includes “the display of a weapon
by an officer” and “the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the
officer’s request might be compelled”). At that time, appellant was not free to leave.
In order to justify such a seizure, an officer must have a
“reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity on the
part of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Holloway, 9 Va. App.
11, 15, 384 S.E.2d 99, 101 (1989). However, an officer need not
suspect an individual of a particular crime . . . . A general
suspicion of some criminal activity is enough, as long as the officer
can, based on the circumstances before him at the time, articulate a
reasonable basis for his suspicion.
Hatcher v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 487, 490, 419 S.E.2d 256, 258 (1992).
“[I]f there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has
committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question
him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information.” Hayes v.
3
Appellant does not challenge any part of the encounter until Detective Tucker stepped
back from his vehicle and placed his hand on his weapon.
-5-
Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985). “There is no ‘litmus test’ for reasonable suspicion. Each
instance of police conduct must be judged for reasonableness in light of the particular
circumstances.” Castaneda v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 574, 580, 376 S.E.2d 82, 85 (1989)
(en banc).
In order to determine what cause is sufficient to authorize
police to stop a person, cognizance must be taken of the “totality of
the circumstances -- the whole picture.” Assessing that whole
picture, “the detaining officers must have a particularized and
objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of
criminal activity.”
Leeth v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 335, 340, 288 S.E.2d 475, 478 (1982) (quoting United States
v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981)).
Considering, as the trial court did,4 all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter
between Detective Tucker and appellant at the time appellant was seized, we find that Detective
Tucker had reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged in criminal activity.
Appellant was parked, late at night, in a neighborhood well-known for its illegal drug activity.
Detective Tucker had personally made drug arrests at the house appellant said he was visiting.
Appellant had a digital scale, an item commonly used for the distribution of drugs, sitting in
plain view on the floorboard of his vehicle. When questioned about the digital scale, appellant
became “out of control” and began yelling. He reached into his glove box and behind the
passenger seat, ignoring Detective Tucker’s repeated requests to keep his hands where Detective
Tucker could see them. Based on appellant’s behavior, his possession of possible drug
paraphernalia, the location and the timing of the encounter, Detective Tucker had reasonable
4
The trial court made it clear that it did not consider only the digital scale when
determining whether Detective Tucker possessed reasonable suspicion to detain appellant and
remove him from the vehicle. Indeed, the trial court states that it considered the “totality of the
circumstances” and lists the location and timing of the encounter, the presence of the scale, and
appellant’s reaction to the officer’s questions as forming the basis for a finding of reasonable
suspicion.
-6-
suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged in criminal activity. Thus, Detective Tucker
could lawfully detain appellant while he conducted a further investigation.
Once an officer has lawfully detained an individual, “he is ‘authorized to take such steps
as [are] reasonably necessary to protect [his and others’] personal safety and to maintain the
status quo during the course of the stop.’” Servis v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 507, 519, 371
S.E.2d 156, 162 (1988) (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221,
235 (1985)). “An officer may preserve the status quo by ordering the person detained to place
his hands where the officer can see them.” Welshman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 20, 34,
502 S.E.2d 122, 129 (1998) (en banc). An officer can also order an individual who is lawfully
detained “to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of
unreasonable searches and seizures.” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 n.6 (1977).
Removing the driver from the vehicle establishes a “face-to-face confrontation” that “diminishes
the possibility, otherwise substantial, that the driver can make unobserved movements; this, in
turn, reduces the likelihood that the officer will be the victim of an assault.” Id. at 110.
Detective Tucker, in an effort to protect his personal safety and that of the other officers
present, ordered appellant to exit his vehicle. When appellant did so, Detective Tucker observed
a rock of what he believed to be crack cocaine in plain view on the floor of the vehicle. See
Delong v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 357, 366, 362 S.E.2d 669, 674 (1987) (holding that officers
were justified in retrieving gun in plain view from appellant’s vehicle, as officers had probable
cause to believe the gun had been used in a murder). As Detective Tucker possessed reasonable
suspicion to detain appellant, was justified in asking appellant to exit the vehicle, and saw the
cocaine in plain view upon appellant’s exit, we find that the trial court did not err in denying
appellant’s motion to suppress the cocaine.
-7-
CONCLUSION
We find that, under the totality of the circumstances, Detective Tucker had reasonable
suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged in criminal activity. He was justified in
removing appellant from his vehicle in order to protect the safety of the officers at the scene.
Upon appellant’s exit from the vehicle, Detective Tucker observed a rock of cocaine in plain
view that he was entitled to seize. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s
motion to suppress the cocaine.
Affirmed.
-8-