COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Elder and Bray
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
NATHANIEL LAMONT CARTWRIGHT
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1349-00-2 JUDGE LARRY G. ELDER
MAY 15, 2001
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
James B. Wilkinson, Judge
Gregory W. Franklin, Assistant Public
Defender (Office of the Public Defender, on
brief), for appellant.
Susan M. Harris, Assistant Attorney General
(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.
Nathaniel L. Cartwright (appellant) appeals from his bench
trial conviction for possession of cocaine pursuant to Code
§ 18.2-250. On appeal, he contends the trial court erroneously
denied his motion to suppress because the evidence established
his purported consent to search was invalid in the face of his
illegal seizure. We hold that, although appellant was on foot
inside a convenience store at the time of the encounter, the
officer's direction to appellant and others to "put their hands
up," coupled with the officer's subsequent retention of
appellant's driver's license without reasonable suspicion or
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
probable cause, vitiated appellant's consent to a search of his
person because a reasonable person in appellant's position would
have believed he was not free to leave at the time he
purportedly gave his consent for the search. For these reasons,
we reverse appellant's conviction and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion if the Commonwealth be
so advised.
I.
BACKGROUND
On December 30, 1999, three uniformed officers, LaMonte
Tucker, Robin Geck and a third person, responded to a call for
service which originated from the pay telephone in the parking
lot of a convenience store. After completing the call, Officer
Tucker decided to enter the store. Tucker frequented the store
and knew the clerks. Upon entering, Tucker "said put your hands
up" in a "friendly joking manner." Officer Tucker had his hands
in his pockets at the time, and none of the officers displayed a
weapon. When Tucker "said put your hands up," appellant, a
store customer, put his hands up above his shoulders, as did one
or two other customers.
Minutes later, Officer Tucker approached appellant and his
companion and "engaged [them] in a casual conversation" about
where they lived and what they were doing at the convenience
store. Officer Geck and the third officer were standing about
- 2 -
three feet behind Tucker at that time and did not participate in
the conversation.
Officer Tucker then asked appellant and his companion
whether "they had anything on their person that they wanted to
tell [him] about," and they responded that they did not. Tucker
asked appellant's companion if he minded if Tucker searched him,
to which appellant's companion responded that he did not mind.
After searching appellant's companion, Tucker asked appellant
the same question, and appellant, too, said, "yeah, I could
search him." As Tucker walked toward appellant to search him,
"[appellant] started searching himself and went to his right
pocket" and "started pulling out items." When he "pulled out a
large off-white rock-like substance, . . . [he] tried to put it
back in his pocket" in order "to conceal it." Tucker said,
"come on, let me see it, let me see it, and [appellant] pulled
it back out." Tucker then took the item away from appellant and
placed him in handcuffs. Tucker gave confusing testimony about
whether he obtained appellant's identification during the
encounter and, if so, when.
Appellant moved to suppress, contending his consent to the
search was not voluntary because he was subject to an illegal
seizure at the time he purportedly consented. In denying the
motion, the trial court found that when Officer Tucker said,
"Put your hands up . . . [,] it was evident from his tone of
- 3 -
voice that he did not expect anyone to comply" but that
appellant "did put his hands above his shoulders."
As far as [Officer Tucker] coming in and
saying put your hands up, that's all over
with. I mean, everybody had their hands
down. It's uncontradicted evidence he went
over and talked to these two men rather
friendly and nothing was said. It's just
something about can I search you?
[Appellant] could have said no.
It also found that during Tucker's subsequent conversation with
appellant, appellant produced his driver's license, and "[a]t
this point, Officer Tucker requested permission to perform a
patdown search of [appellant] for any weapons in order to insure
his safety." Appellant consented to the search and then
produced a "white rock like substance" that he admitted was
crack cocaine. The court said Officer Tucker did not have the
reasonable, articulable suspicion necessary to justify a
detention or pat-down search but concluded that appellant
consented to a search.
II.
ANALYSIS
"A seizure occurs when an individual is either physically
restrained or has submitted to a show of authority." McGee v.
Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 193, 199, 487 S.E.2d 259, 262 (1997)
(en banc). "Whether a seizure has occurred . . . depends upon
whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable
person would have believed that he or she was not free to
- 4 -
leave." Id. at 199-200, 487 S.E.2d at 262. Other factors
relevant under the "totality of the circumstances" analysis
include "the threatening presence of several officers, the
display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the
person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice
indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be
compelled." United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100
S. Ct. 1870, 1877, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497 (1980).
Whether a particular "consent to a search was in fact
voluntary or was the product of duress or coercion, express or
implied, is a question of fact to be determined from the
totality of all the circumstances." Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,
412 U.S. 218, 227, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2047-48, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854
(1973)). On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party, here the Commonwealth,
granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible
therefrom. See Commonwealth v. Grimstead, 12 Va. App. 1066,
1067, 407 S.E.2d 47, 48 (1991). "[W]e 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." McGee, 25 Va. App. at 198, 487
S.E.2d at 261. However, we review de novo the trial court's
application of defined legal standards such as probable cause
and reasonable suspicion to the particular facts of the case.
- 5 -
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S. Ct. 1657,
1659, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911 (1996).
Although the trial court, in its opinion, and the parties,
on brief, focused primarily on Officer Tucker's statement to the
occupants of the convenience store to "put [their] hands up," we
find the officer's retention of appellant's driver's license to
be another important factor in the totality-of-the-circumstances
analysis. 1 A request for identification made during an otherwise
consensual encounter does not, standing alone, convert the
encounter into a seizure. See, e.g., INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S.
210, 216, 104 S. Ct. 1758, 1762, 80 L. Ed. 2d 247 (1984).
However, in the case of the driver of a stationary automobile,
we have held "that 'what began as a consensual encounter quickly
became an investigative detention once the [officer] received
[the individual's] driver's license and did not return it to
him.'" Richmond v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 257, 261, 468
S.E.2d 708, 710 (1996) (quoting United States v. Lambert, 46
F.3d 1064, 1068 (10th Cir. 1995)).
Richmond turned on our conclusion that "[a] reasonable
person in [Richmond's] circumstances would not have believed
1
This approach is not barred by Rule 5A:18. Appellant
argued to the trial court that Officer Tucker's possible
retention of appellant's license when he requested permission
to search was a factor for consideration in the
totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. The trial court made
findings of fact on this issue but did not indicate what impact
it had on the court's ruling.
- 6 -
that he could terminate the encounter once the officer retained
the driver's license and returned to his police vehicle to run a
record check." Id. Although we observed that Richmond's
departure by car without his driver's license would have
violated Code § 46.2-104, which prohibits driving without a
license, this observation was not a dispositive factor in our
analysis. See id. Rather, as we subsequently clarified in
Piggott v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 45, 537 S.E.2d 618 (2000),
a case involving a passenger, by "retain[ing] [the passenger's]
identification [for a few minutes] while he ran a warrant check
. . . , [the officer] implicitly commanded [the passenger] to
stay." Id. at 49, 537 S.E.2d at 619. Under the totality of the
circumstances as they existed in Piggott, "[a] reasonable person
. . . would not have believed that he could terminate the
encounter and walk away." Id. (emphasis added); see also
Lambert, 46 F.3d at 1069 n.4; Salt Lake City v. Ray, 998 P.2d
274, 276-78 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (holding that first officer's
possession of pedestrian's i.d. to run warrant check when second
officer sought consent to search constituted seizure which
vitiated consent, noting that "critical time at issue [was]
. . . when [the pedestrian] consented to the search"). 2
2
We are aware of the Virginia Supreme Court's recent
decision in McCain v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___
(Apr. 20, 2001), but we conclude that it is factually
distinguishable from appellant's case. In McCain, the request
for identification occurred "without any show of force or
display of authority that would have led a reasonable person to
- 7 -
Here, the trial court found that appellant consented to the
search at a time when Tucker, a uniformed police officer whose
two similarly-clad partners stood nearby, retained possession of
appellant's identification. That same officer, only moments
before, had told all occupants of the convenience store to "put
[their] hands up." The trial court found as a fact that
appellant had responded to that statement by raising his hands
above his shoulders. The store clerks apparently knew Officer
Tucker and did not comply because they may have believed he was
joking. However, appellant did not know Officer Tucker, and
appellant responded in an objectively reasonable fashion by
attempting to comply with the command of a uniformed police
officer. When Tucker subsequently obtained appellant's driver's
license, questioned him about what he had "on [his] person," and
asked if he could search appellant, Tucker's actions, viewed in
their entirety, escalated the consensual encounter into a
seizure and vitiated appellant's consent to be searched. Thus,
the trial court erred in concluding that appellant validly
consented to the search and voluntarily removed from his pocket
believe that he was not free to leave the scene of the
encounter." Id. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___. Further, the
officer conducted a warrant check and returned McCain's driver's
license before seeking consent to search McCain's vehicle and
person. Id. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___. Finally, when the
officer said he needed to conduct a pat-down search for weapons,
McCain refused and walked away. Id. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___.
Under those circumstances, including McCain's refusal to submit
to the officer's show of authority, the Court held that McCain
was not seized. Id. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___.
- 8 -
the cocaine on which his conviction was based. Because
appellant's removal of the cocaine from his pocket stemmed from
the illegal seizure and de facto search, the exclusionary rule
required suppression of the cocaine.
For these reasons, we hold that the trial court's denial of
appellant's motion to suppress was erroneous. Therefore, we
reverse appellant's conviction and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
- 9 -