Carmas Jonah McLaughlin appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He contends the police did not have probable cause to search the vehicle he occupied and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We agree that the police did not have probable cause to search the vehicle. Therefore, we reverse the conviction.
*246I.
Officer Goins stopped a car because he noticed an equipment violation. As Officer Goins exited his vehicle, McLaughlin, the driver and sole occupant, leaned toward the passenger seat. When McLaughlin told Officer Goins he had a firearm, Officer Goins observed a semi-automatic pistol on the passenger seat and several compact disks (CDs) in the car.
Officer Goins suspected the CDs were “pirated,” because they were in a “poor quality made CD case with the labeling.” He requested assistance from two other officers that had received training concerning CDs. Minutes later, Officers Barker and Perkins arrived. Officer Barker testified that he saw CDs on the front passenger seat and on the floorboard of the car. He testified that “based on [his] training with the recording industry the thin cases and the homemade labels in the cases led [him] to believe they were bogus CDs.” He explained:
They were thin case CD’s and the labels on them were real blurry. You couldn’t really make out the reading on them that well. You could just look at them and tell that they were bogus.
Concluding that the CDs were illegitimate, the officers seized the CDs they saw and searched the car for others.
During that search, Officer Goins found two bags under the passenger seat. One bag was clear and held plant material that smelled like marijuana. The state laboratory later identified the substance as 3.79 ounces of marijuana. The other bag contained $324 in cash. The Commonwealth charged McLaughlin with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
At trial, McLaughlin filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the marijuana. The Commonwealth defended the police action as an enforcement under Code § 59.1-41.5. A private investigator with specialized training “in the detection of bogus recordings” testified on behalf of the Commonwealth, explaining his conclusion that the CDs were pirated. At the *247conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial judge denied the motion to suppress. In part, he ruled as follows:
Well, the officer saw in plain view CD’s, or at least the thin CD packaging material.... I think he had, at that point ... the officer sees what he thinks are these bogus CD’s, and apparently a fairly large number of these things. And once he gets into the vehicle they continue searching in those areas where they see more and more of these disks. I think the officer is under the totality of the circumstances here; once they saw what they believed to be and what turned out to be correctly identified as bogus CD’s—and I use the term “bogus” to include “pirated, counterfeit and bootleg.”
McLaughlin later testified that he did not know of the marijuana and money in the car. He said he did not own the car, but had borrowed it that day. He explained that he leaned over the passenger seat as Officer Goins approached in order to ensure that his gun was visible. The trial judge rejected McLaughlin’s testimony and convicted him of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute under Code § 18.2-248.1.
II.
McLaughlin appeals the trial judge’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. He contends the “only justification for the search was that [the officers] observed the cases were slimline and the packaging graphics/wording were blurry, which led them to believe the CDs were bogus.” In response, the Commonwealth argues that the officers had probable cause under Code § 59.1-41.5 to seize the CDs because they had a reasonable basis to believe the “CDs in McLaughlin’s car were bogus ... because of their slim cases and poor quality labels” and did not need a reasonable basis to believe the CDs were possessed for any particular purpose.
In our review, we must give deference to the trial judge’s factual findings and consider the evidence “in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party at *248trial.” Jackson v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 666, 672, 594 S.E.2d 595, 598 (2004). However, the constitutionality of a seizure involves questions of law and fact, and, thus, we must “independently decide whether, under the applicable law, the manner in which the challenged evidence was obtained satisfies constitutional requirements.” Id.
Code § 59.1-41.5 obligates “all law-enforcement officers, upon discovery, to confiscate all recorded devices that do not conform to the provisions of § 59.1-41.4.” Code § 59.1-41.4 provides, in part, that “every recorded device sold, rented or transferred or possessed for the purpose of sale, rental or transfer ... shall contain on its packaging the true name and address of the manufacturer.” In other words, police officers can seize recorded devices possessed for the purpose of sale, rental, or transfer that are not properly labeled with the manufacturer’s name and address.
“It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2037, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). To invoke the plain view doctrine, however, the police must have probable cause to believe the evidence seized was evidence of a crime or contraband. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 1153, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987). “[T]he Fourth Amendment’s requirement that the officer have probable cause to believe that the item is contraband before seizing it ensures against excessively speculative seizures.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 376, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 2137, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993).
[P]robable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. It merely requires that the facts available to the officer would “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief,” Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 [45 S.Ct. 280, 288, 69 L.Ed. 543] (1925), that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false.
*249Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1543, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983).
In determining whether probable cause exists, we are required to focus upon what the circumstances meant to trained police officers. Brown v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 414, 419, 620 S.E.2d 760, 762 (2005). Nevertheless, an officer’s determination of probable cause must be based on “ ‘objective facts.’ ” Derr v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 215, 220, 368 S.E.2d 916, 918 (1988) (quoting United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 808, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2164, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982)). “[Suspicion, or even ‘strong reason to suspect’ ” is not enough to constitute probable cause. See Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 101, 80 S.Ct. 168, 170, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959). Thus, applying the Texas v. Brown standard and the statute the officers purported to act upon in this case, we must ask whether the facts available to the police officers would warrant a person of “reasonable caution” to believe that the CDs were “possessed for the purpose of sale, rental or transfer” and did not have packaging with the manufacturer’s name and address.
Denying the motion to suppress, the trial judge found that “the officer saw in plain view CD’s, or at least the thin CD packaging material” and that he saw “a fairly large number of these things.” The judge also found that the officer “thought they were [bogus] based on what he could observe in plain view.” The objective facts establish that the officers saw CDs and CDs in “slimline” cases, a thinner version of the standard clear plastic “jewel case” used for CDs. The inserts on the CD cases denoting the contents were comprised of a relatively poor print quality. Officer Barker explained that the labels appeared “homemade.” By Officer Barker’s own testimony, he concluded they were “bogus” merely because he saw “thin case CDs and the labels on them were real blurry.”
Reversing a trial judge’s finding that the police had probable cause, the Supreme Court in Brown v. Commonwealth noted:
*250We have considered a number of instances in which an officer’s expertise and training made his observation of an item suspected to contain contraband a significant factor in the probable cause analysis. In none of these cases, however, has that fact alone supported a finding of probable cause when the suspicious item is also capable of legitimate use.
270 Va. at 420, 620 S.E.2d at 763. The Court explained “that for the last 25 years, [it] has consistently declined to find that probable cause can be established solely on the observation of material which can be used for legitimate purposes, even though the experience of an officer indicates that such material is often used for illegitimate purposes.” Id. at 420-21, 620 S.E.2d at 763.
Those principles are applicable in this case because, while the homemade appearance of a recording may lead a person to believe it is not fully labeled, no facts in the record suggest the CDs were possessed “for the purpose of sale, rental or transfer,” and thus in violation of Code § 59.1-41.4. Likewise, no facts in the record indicate the officers either believed or had any reason to believe the CDs were possessed for one of those purposes. As in Brown, we cannot find probable cause based solely on suspicious items that could be legitimate. The CD cases the officers saw are somewhat scruffy and scratched. None of the CD cases or individual CDs appear to be newly acquired or to have any of the usual indicia of items being held for sale. They contain no pricing labels, no cellophane wrapping, no boxes, and no customer lists. None of the CDs were duplicates of others. Indeed, the officer testified that the forty CDs seized “were all different.” These facts indicate the CDs were possessed for personal use instead of sale, rental, or transfer.
Many of the CDs the officers saw in the car can be purchased “blank” (that is, to be used for home recording) at a variety of retail stores that sell music recordings or office supplies. They have brand names such as “imation,” “memorex,” “staples:www.staples.com,” and “maxell.” That type of CD is purchased commercially and used by countless people who legitimately “burn” CDs for their personal use. Many of *251the CDs have words handwritten on them in black ink, such as “Da Band,” “JAZZ,” and “SLOW JAMS 3.” Indeed, the private investigator, who did not play any of the CDs, acknowledged that he had “seen completely legal slimline case burned CDs where bands will do their own thing and put out their own music.” He also explained:
DJ mixes they are often called, which is where you take several artists and you make a CD from that. They are done legitimately many times. The DJ mixes are ... we see a lot of that, and I would say that probably more than anything else that we see in illegal music are DJ mixes.... The DJ mix does not exist anywhere else except by the person that’s making it____ These I found to be either principally, if not all, there were a couple I wasn’t quite sure of; it’s possible there might have been one or two counterfeits because I wasn’t sure of the title, but all the rest are ... DJ mixes. And they all were what are called burned disks when a disk is made ... a compact disk is made.... These were all ... all of these were burned disks ... what we call burned disks----The recording industry as a whole does not burn disks; they press disks____These were all burned disks.
Although the private investigator concluded that the CDs he had not listened to were “pirated,” his testimony established that these primarily were “burned” disks that can be legitimately created. Likewise, slimline cases can be purchased in retail stores and, when used, often contain homemade labels or pictures to indicate the contents of the enclosed CDs. Simply put, this testimony is graphic illustration of the process a person with a legitimate home recorder would engage in when lawfully downloading music or creating a mix of music onto a “burned” CD.
In sum, the facts in this case, which also describe legitimate CDs, are insufficient to establish that the police had probable cause to seize the CDs. Due to the quality of the casing and print on the inserts, the CDs look homemade. They do not look like retail products sold by any major recording studio. However, a CD’s homemade appearance is not enough to *252warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that it is contraband. The officers’ view of the items did not give them reason to believe the CDs did not have the true manufacturer’s name and address and were “sold, rented or transferred or possessed for the purpose of sale, rental or transfer.” Code § 59.1-41.4.
The Commonwealth’s argument (that to lawfully seize the CDs the police did not need a reasonable basis to believe that the CDs were sold, rented, transferred, or possessed for one of those purposes) ignores the language of the statute limiting the types of recording devices that must be labeled. Code § 59.1-41.4 reads in its entirety as follows:
Ninety days after July 1, 1972, every recorded device sold, rented or transferred or possessed for the purpose of sale, rental or transfer by any manufacturer, distributor, or wholesale or retail merchant shall contain on its packaging the true name and address of the manufacturer. The term “manufacturer” shall not include the manufacturer of the cartridge or casing itself. The term “recorded device” means the tangible medium upon which sounds or images are recorded or otherwise stored, and includes any phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, videocassette, film or other medium now known or later developed on which sounds or images are recorded or otherwise stored.
The statute does not require manufacturer labeling on all recordings. It requires it on recorded devices “sold, rented or transferred or possessed for the purpose of sale, rental or transfer.” Id. For the police to have probable cause to seize an item in violation of the statute, they must have probable cause to believe that item violates the statute, not just believe the item might be homemade or inconsistent with a part of the statute.
We cannot simply ignore the language narrowing the statute to proscribe recording devices “sold, rented or transferred or possessed for the purpose of sale, rental or transfer.” Id. To do so would unacceptably broaden the statutory couplet of Code §§ 59.1-41.4 and 59.1-41.5 to obligate law enforcement *253officers to confiscate all recordings lacking identification of their manufacturers. An interpretation that ignores the limiting language impermissibly sweeps within the statute’s ambit a long list of legitimate, lawful items that may not typically be labeled with the manufacturer’s name and address: CDs legally created from music purchased and downloaded from music internet sites; “mixed” CDs or cassette tapes legally created for personal use by compiling songs from purchased CDs; CDs created as back-up for a computer hard drive, that may contain sounds or images; CDs created of digital photographs taken on a personal camera; personally produced CDs or cassette tapes of music; CDs created from music or images available without legal restrictions online; MPEG Audio Layer 3 devices (commonly referred to as MP3 players), which contain audio or video files transferred from a computer; a cassette tape recording of a meeting; and home videos.
The legislature created the code chapter at issue in order to deter infringements on intellectual property rights.1 As such, logic suggests that the legislature intended to tailor Code § 59.1-41.4 for its purpose of discouraging illegal recordings and did not broadly aim to discourage nondescriptive labels on all types of recordings. Indeed, during the hearing on the motion to suppress, the police officers did little to clarify in what specific way the CDs seemed illegitimate. One officer said they contained “pirated” music, another testified they were “bootleg” or simply described them as “bogus.” Neither officer had listened to or played any of the CDs. The private investigator testified that “illegal CDs are principally grouped into three areas”: counterfeit, which he defined as an illegal *254copy of an “actual CD in the marketplace”; bootleg, which he defined as an unauthorized recording of a concert; and pirated, which contains unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted work. However, none of the officers testified as to any facts or observations suggesting that the CDs they saw were not lawfully homemade.
By accepting the Commonwealth’s argument, we would subject to seizure lawfully “burned” CDs merely because they appear to a police officer to be not commercially produced. We hold that the statute does not support such a seizure and that, to lawfully seize items under Code § 59.1-41.5, the officers must have had probable cause to believe that the CDs were not properly labeled and that they were “sold, rented or transferred or possessed for the purpose of sale, rental or transfer.” Because the police officers lacked probable cause to seize the CDs and to search the car, the trial judge improperly admitted the evidence of the presence of marijuana in the car. See Matthews v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 1, 3, 235 S.E.2d 306, 306 (1977) (holding that the police officer did not have probable cause to search a brown paper bag because it was equally rational to believe the bag contained legal substances as to believe it contained contraband).
Accordingly, we hold that the trial judge erred in denying McLaughlin’s motion to suppress the evidence, and we reverse the conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. In view of this disposition, we need not consider whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
Reversed and dismissed.
. See Title 59.1, Trade and Commerce, Chapter 3.1. Only four statutes are in this chapter, in addition to the two statutes at issue in this case. All six statutes pertain to recorded devices. Code § 59.1-41.1 defines "owner." Code § 59.1—41.2 prohibits recording for profit a concert without the owner’s consent. Code § 59.1-41.3 prohibits selling or renting recorded devices that violate the chapter, or possessing them for such a purpose. Code § 59.1-41.6 lists the penalties for violating the chapter. Code § 59.1-41.2, regarding unauthorized concert recordings, particularly reveals the legislature’s concern about intellectual property rights.