Present: All the Justices
ELISA K. ROBINSON
v. Record No. 060417
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY
January 12, 2007
GEORGE F. ROBINSON
v. Record No. 060426
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
In these consolidated appeals, we consider whether a
warrantless search and seizure within the curtilage of a
private residence violated the Fourth Amendment either because
the investigating officer (1) did not act within the scope of
the implied consent for uninvited individuals, including law
enforcement, to enter the curtilage of the residence in order
to contact the occupants, or (2) did not have probable cause
and exigent circumstances under the facts presented.
FACTS
Our recitation of the facts is based both on a Joint
Stipulation (Stipulation) executed by the attorney for the
Commonwealth, Elisa K. Robinson (Elisa) and George F. Robinson
(George), and on the testimony of Corporal Scott Cox of the
Albemarle County Police Department (Officer Cox). On
appellate review, we are bound by the familiar principle that
"we must consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences
fairly deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, the prevailing party below." Rose v.
Commonwealth, 270 Va. 3, 6, 613 S.E.2d 454, 455 (2005).
According to the Stipulation, on August 16, 2002, Elisa
and George hosted a party for Elisa's son Ryan to celebrate
his sixteenth birthday. Elisa purchased food and beverages
for the party in the amount of $1,013.97, including $350.48
for alcoholic beverages. She also purchased "five [large]
trashcans for the purpose of icing down" the beverages.
Prior to the party, George and Elisa spoke with the
parents of some of the invited juveniles. Elisa told these
parents that she intended to collect the juveniles' car keys
and that she would "move [her] sports utility vehicle across
the driveway once all the guests had arrived to prevent the
juveniles from leaving" the party. Elisa did not tell any of
the parents she intended to serve alcoholic beverages.
Further, during the party, one juvenile overheard George
stating to someone on the telephone "that there was no alcohol
at the party."
Approximately thirty juveniles attended the party. The
trash cans containing the alcoholic beverages were placed in
the backyard behind the fence "so that they would not be
visible to any parent who brought their children to the
2
party." Elisa and George neither encouraged the juveniles to
consume alcoholic beverages nor discouraged them from doing
so. George, however, instructed several of the juveniles not
to drink near the pool "because he did not want [any] broken
glass in [the] pool."
Officer Cox testified that on the night of the party, the
Albemarle County Police Department received three telephone
calls reporting the possibility of juveniles consuming
alcoholic beverages at a party at the Robinsons' home. In
response to these calls, Officer Cox drove to the Robinson
home at around 11:00 p.m. in a marked police vehicle.
As Officer Cox approached the property, he observed
approximately 10 to 20 vehicles parked along the adjacent
public road. He also saw "two or three" vehicles parked on
the left side of the driveway. Based on these observations,
Officer Cox contacted other Albemarle County police officers
waiting in the vicinity and instructed them to "start heading
this way" because it "appears that there's a party."
When Officer Cox turned his vehicle into the driveway, he
could see the house, the front door and porch, and the front
yard, but he could not see the end of the driveway, the garage
area, or the backyard. As Cox proceeded up the driveway, he
observed several additional vehicles parked near the right
side of the driveway. He was also able to see, in front of
3
the house, a "small circular portion of the driveway" that
encircled a stand of trees. Instead of parking in the
circular portion of the driveway, Officer Cox drove his
vehicle along the main portion of the driveway, which
continued past the trees and led to the garage area on the
right side of the house. A path leading to the front door
intersected the driveway beyond the stand of trees but a few
feet before the garage area. A large bush was located
adjacent to the driveway immediately in front of this path.
Before Officer Cox reached the point where the path
intersected the driveway, he saw two individuals holding clear
beer bottles. Both were standing approximately seven to ten
yards "into the back yard" and appeared to be younger than 21
years of age. When the individuals saw Officer Cox's vehicle
they yelled "cops," dropped their beer bottles, and ran along
a fence line toward the woods behind the house.
Officer Cox then pulled his vehicle into the garage area
and parked on the concrete pad. From there, Officer Cox saw a
patio table covered with beer bottles as well as "[b]eer
bottles spread throughout the [back]yard." Officer Cox
stepped out of his vehicle, "yelled for [people] to stop
[running]," and "got on the radio, and . . . told everybody
that was arriving on the scene that the kids were running
4
east, past the house, into the woods." He then went into the
backyard to locate "the juvenile hosting the party."
Officer Cox testified that he wanted to locate the host
to "find out what was going on [and] find out who the people
were that were running away." He was "worried for their
safety" and "wanted to find out who they were, so [the police]
could contact parents." In the backyard, Officer Cox spoke
with one of the juveniles and, "based on that conversation,"
approached the back of the house. Through the sliding glass
door at the back of the house, Officer Cox saw George and
Elisa sitting at a kitchen table.
According to the Stipulation, when the other police
officers arrived at the Robinsons' home, they found four trash
cans in the backyard filled with alcoholic beverages, empty
alcoholic beverage bottles in the yard, and half-empty bottles
on the table and on the rear deck. Despite the Robinsons'
professed intentions to collect the car keys of all the party
guests and have them remain overnight, the Robinsons had only
collected five or six sets of keys. They also had not blocked
the driveway in order to prevent guests from leaving. While
the police were conducting their investigation on the
premises, Elisa told several of the juveniles to "swallow
vinegar in order to fool the Alcosensor." Elisa also
instructed one girl to "tell her parents that a boy had
5
spilled alcohol on her" to explain why she "tested positive"
on the Alcosensor. Nine of the juveniles at the Robinsons'
residence had "measurable levels" of alcohol in their systems
when the police arrived.
The Robinsons were arrested and each was charged with 16
counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor under
Code § 18.2-371. Both Elisa and George filed motions to
suppress the evidence obtained from Officer Cox's entry onto
their property, arguing that Officer Cox's conduct violated
the Fourth Amendment because he was not in a place that he was
legally entitled to be when he witnessed the illegal activity.
In a letter opinion, the trial court denied the
Robinsons' motions to suppress, finding as matters of fact
that Officer Cox "planned to enter the property to investigate
the allegations of underage consumption of alcohol," and that
he saw the juveniles with beer "[b]efore he reached the point
where the front walkway to the front door intersected with the
driveway." After finding that the driveway was not part of
the curtilage of the Robinsons' home, and therefore did not
implicate the Fourth Amendment, the trial court determined
that Officer Cox's presence on the driveway was lawful because
he had the right to approach a home and knock on the front
door to speak to an occupant. The trial court also found that
Officer Cox's warrantless entry into the backyard was
6
permissible because he "had the requisite probable cause,
which requires that an officer's knowledge of the facts and
circumstances are sufficient to justify a reasonable person to
think an offense is being committed." The trial court denied
the Robinsons' joint motion for reconsideration.
The trial court later granted the Commonwealth's motion
to terminate by nolle prosequi seven of the charges against
each of the Robinsons. Although the Robinsons stipulated that
the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions on the nine
remaining charges against each of them, they pleaded not
guilty to the charges, thereby preserving their position that
the evidence was illegally obtained and should have been
suppressed. The trial court found both the Robinsons guilty
and sentenced each of them to consecutive terms of six months'
imprisonment, with three months suspended, on each charge.
The Robinsons appealed their convictions to the Court of
Appeals, which consolidated the appeals and affirmed the
convictions in a decision by a three-judge panel. Robinson v.
Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 592, 622, 612 S.E.2d 751, 765
(2005). The Robinsons later sought and were granted a
rehearing en banc. Robinson v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 23,
24, 614 S.E.2d 667, 667 (2005).
Sitting en banc, the Court of Appeals held that the
Robinsons had impliedly consented to have the public,
7
including police officers, "enter the driveway and front
sidewalk" of their property, and that Officer Cox did not
exceed the scope of this consent either at the point he
observed the juveniles holding beer bottles or when he drove
his car onto the cement pad by the garage.1 Robinson v.
Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 533, 549-53, 557, 625 S.E.2d 651,
658-59 (2006). The Court of Appeals further held that Officer
Cox's subjective intent was "irrelevant under the
circumstances of this case." Id. at 555, 625 S.E.2d at 661.
The Court of Appeals rejected an argument made by George
that when Officer Cox saw the juveniles with beer bottles, he
should have "left the property or otherwise secured the
premises and then obtained a search warrant." Id. at 543, 625
S.E.2d at 656. The Court of Appeals concluded that there were
exigent circumstances, including possible destruction of
evidence and fleeing suspects, and that Officer Cox did not
manufacture these circumstances, because "the development of
probable cause and the creation of the exigencies were
virtually contemporaneous." Id. at 561-62, 625 S.E.2d at 665.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Robinsons' convictions. Id.
at 562, 625 S.E.2d at 665.
1
Upon rehearing en banc, the Commonwealth conceded that
the driveway was within the curtilage of the Robinsons' home
and this question was, therefore, not before the entire Court
of Appeals. Robinson, 47 Va. App. at 542, 625 S.E.2d at 655.
8
The Robinsons filed separate petitions for appeal. We
awarded both appeals and consolidated the cases for our
consideration.
DISCUSSION
We begin by reviewing principles established by the
United States Supreme Court regarding the Fourth Amendment
protection afforded residents and occupants of a dwelling
against unreasonable searches and seizures. The "Fourth
Amendment protects the curtilage of a house and . . . the
extent of the curtilage is determined by factors that bear
upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area
in question should be treated as the home itself." United
States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300 (1987). When government
agents conduct a search or seizure within protected areas of a
dwelling without a warrant such actions are presumptively
unreasonable, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586-87 (1980),
and unlawful unless they are supported by both probable cause
and exigent circumstances. Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635,
638 (2002).
The Supreme Court has not addressed what expectation of
privacy a resident of a dwelling has in those areas of the
curtilage, such as driveways and sidewalks, that are generally
used by the public to contact the resident. However, a number
of federal and state courts have held that a resident of a
9
dwelling impliedly consents to a police officer entering the
curtilage to contact the dwelling's residents. This implied
consent has the effect of deeming such an entry into the
curtilage a reasonable intrusion into an area otherwise
protected by an expectation of privacy under the Fourth
Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 458 F.3d 1201,
1204 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Taylor, 90 F.3d 903,
909 (4th Cir. 1996); Davis v. United States, 327 F.2d 301, 303
(9th Cir. 1964); State v. Christensen, 953 P.2d 583, 587
(Idaho 1998); City of Eugene v. Silva, 108 P.3d 23, 27 (Or.
Ct. App. 2005). Implied consent can be negated by obvious
indicia of restricted access, such as posted "no trespassing"
signs, gates, or other means that deny access to uninvited
persons. See, e.g., Christensen, 953 P.2d at 587-88.
We now turn to the specific issues raised by the
Robinsons in their appeals.
IMPLIED CONSENT
The Robinsons argue that the Court of Appeals erred in
holding that Officer Cox did not exceed the scope of implied
consent to enter the curtilage of their home. The Robinsons
do not challenge the doctrine of implied consent but, instead,
challenge the standards for its application articulated by the
Court of Appeals.
10
Elisa maintains that a police officer's subjective intent
at the moment of entry onto the curtilage of a dwelling is
relevant in determining whether the officer acted within the
scope of the officer's implied consent. Elisa contends that
"[o]ne impliedly consents only to the approach to the front
door to knock and make inquiry." Thus, she asserts, an
officer has implied consent "to go to the entrance of the home
only by the most direct route and only if he is acting in good
faith to contact the owners of the property for a purpose such
as asking questions of the occupants."
George concedes that Officer Cox had implied consent to
enter the driveway. George argues, however, that once Officer
Cox was on the property and "actively searching for evidence
of a crime within a constitutionally protected area," Cox's
"legitimate reason" for entering the property, to contact the
Robinsons, was "revoked," thereby rendering Cox's presence
unlawful. George further argues that implied consent could
not extend beyond the point where the path to the front door
intersected the driveway absent the development of "a new
legitimate reason."
Both Elisa and George urge us to adopt a bright line rule
that the scope of implied consent is limited to the most
direct path to the front door of a dwelling to "knock and
talk" with one of its residents. Elisa asserts that Officer
11
Cox's failure to comply with this rule rendered his initial
entry onto the curtilage unconstitutional. George argues that
Officer Cox's actions became illegal when, after lawfully
entering the property, he failed to proceed directly to the
front door.
In resolving these issues, we first consider whether an
officer's subjective intent is relevant to a determination of
whether the officer's entry onto the curtilage of a dwelling
was constitutional under the implied consent doctrine.
Neither the United States Supreme Court nor this Court has
addressed this question. We observe, however, that
established jurisprudence concerning the constitutionality of
police searches provides little, if any, support for
application of a subjective standard in determining the
constitutionality of an entry conducted pursuant to the
doctrine of implied consent.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected
any consideration of the subjective motivation of a law
enforcement officer in determining whether police searches
were constitutionally infirm and, instead, has relied on an
objective view of the facts and circumstances of each
particular case. See, e.g., Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S.
769, 771-72 (2001) (reversing granting of motion to suppress
based on officer's alleged "improper subjective motivation");
12
United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579, 584 n.3
(1983) (rejecting argument that search was unlawful because
officers' intent in boarding vessel was other than that
contemplated by statute which authorized officers to board to
examine vessel's documentation); Scott v. United States, 436
U.S. 128, 138 (1978) ("[T]he fact that the officer does not
have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons
which provide the legal justification for the officer's action
does not invalidate the action taken as long as the
circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action").2
The Supreme Court recently reiterated this position in a
case decided four months after the Court of Appeals issued its
opinion in the present case. In Brigham City v. Stuart, ___
U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1943 (2006), the Court was asked to
consider the constitutionality of a search conducted after
police officers went to a private residence in response to a
report of a loud party. When the officers arrived at the
residence, they heard shouting coming from inside the house,
2
The exception to this rule involves searches "undertaken
pursuant to a general scheme without individualized
suspicion," in which the Court has examined the "programmatic
purposes" of the action. See, e.g., City of Indianapolis v.
Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 45-46 (2000). In the present case, Elisa
argues that the police action at her home constituted a
"programmatic" search, thereby making Officer Cox's subjective
intent relevant. Because Elisa did not raise this argument to
trial court or the Court of Appeals, we do not address it
here. Rule 5:25.
13
proceeded down the driveway to investigate, and entered the
backyard after observing juveniles drinking alcoholic
beverages there. Once in the backyard, the officers observed,
through a screen door and a window, an altercation occurring
inside the house. Acting without a warrant, the officers
entered the residence in an attempt to halt the altercation.
The officers later arrested the individuals inside the house
for various offenses, including disorderly conduct and
contributing to the delinquency of a minor. ___ U.S. at ___,
126 S.Ct. at 1946.
The defendants moved to suppress all evidence obtained
after the officers entered the home, arguing that the
officers' warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment.
The defendants asserted that the "emergency aid" exception to
the warrant requirement was inapplicable because the officers
did not intend to assist injured individuals in the home, and
"were more interested in making arrests than quelling
violence." ___ U.S. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 1948.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument,
stating that, "[a]n action is 'reasonable' under the Fourth
Amendment, regardless of the individual officer's state of
mind, 'as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively,
justify [the] action.' . . . The officer's subjective
motivation is irrelevant." ___ U.S. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 1948
14
(quoting Scott, 436 U.S. at 138). Focusing solely on the
objective facts presented, the Court concluded:
It therefore does not matter here – even if their
subjective motives could be so neatly unraveled –
whether the officers entered the kitchen to arrest
respondents and gather evidence against them or to
assist the injured and prevent further violence.
Stuart, ___ U.S. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 1948.
Although the holding in Stuart was based on the
"emergency aid" exception to the warrant requirement, the
Court's rejection of a subjective intent analysis did not rely
exclusively on cases applying that particular exception. The
Court also relied on cases involving an officer's physical
examination of a bus passenger's "carry-on luggage," Bond v.
United States, 529 U.S. 334, 338 n.2 (2000), a traffic "stop"
and resulting seizure of drugs, Whren v. United States, 517
U.S. 806, 813 (1996), claims of excessive force, Graham v.
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989), and government wiretapping
and telephone surveillance, Scott, 436 U.S. at 138. See
Stuart, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. at 1948. And, as indicated
above, in several other cases the Court likewise has rejected
consideration of an officer's subjective intent. Thus, we do
not read the holding in Stuart as limited to application of
the emergency aid exception.
We conclude that the holdings in the above cases, when
considered collectively, counsel against consideration of a
15
police officer's subjective intent in determining the legality
of the officer's actions. Because a contrary interpretation
of these holdings would directly conflict with the Supreme
Court's recent guidance in Stuart, we hold that the Court of
Appeals did not err in concluding that Officer Cox's
subjective intent was irrelevant to a determination of whether
he exceeded the scope of the implied consent in conducting the
challenged search and seizures.
Our conclusion is not changed by other cases cited by the
Robinsons involving the implied consent doctrine: Rogers v.
Pendleton, 249 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 2001); Alvarez v. Montgomery
Cty., 147 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 1998); United States v. Taylor,
90 F.3d 903 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bradshaw, 490
F.2d 1097 (4th Cir. 1974); and Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318
F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2003). Although these cases state that an
officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by entering onto
private property for the limited purpose of contacting,
interviewing, or speaking with an occupant of the property,
the cases do not address the converse proposition advanced by
the Robinsons: that if an officer subjectively intends to do
something other than make these kinds of contacts, the
officer's entry onto private property constitutes a violation
of the Fourth Amendment. The subjective intent of the
officers when entering the premises was not at issue in any of
16
these cases. Moreover, the conclusion urged by the Robinsons
would conflict with the several decisions of the Supreme Court
that we have already noted.
We also observe that in the present case, the trial court
concluded that the officer's purpose in entering the
Robinsons' property was to investigate a report of juveniles
consuming alcoholic beverages. Because the Robinsons did not
assign error to this factual finding, we accept the trial
court's conclusion that Officer Cox's purpose was
investigatory in nature. An investigation may include, as
George's counsel agreed at the suppression hearing, contacting
the occupants of a residence and asking them questions. In
this case, before Officer Cox could contact the Robinsons,
intervening circumstances caused him to pursue a different
course of action.
Accordingly, we reject the Robinsons' suggestion that we
adopt a bright line rule holding that the implied consent
given by a resident of a dwelling is limited in all cases to
entry onto the premises to "knock and talk" to the resident,
and that any deviation from this purpose precludes application
of the implied consent doctrine. As the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated in Alverez when
rejecting the same bright line rule advocated by the
defendants in that case:
17
The textual "touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is
reasonableness." When applying this basic
principle, the Supreme Court has "consistently
eschewed bright-line rules, instead emphasizing the
fact-specific nature of the reasonableness
inquiry."
147 F.3d at 358 (citations omitted).
PROBABLE CAUSE AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
We next address an argument made by both Elisa and George
that when Officer Cox reached the path leading from the
driveway to the front door, he lacked probable cause and there
were no exigent circumstances to justify a search of the
backyard or the seizure of any evidence or person in that
location without a warrant. According to the Robinsons,
evidence thus obtained by Officer Cox after entering the
backyard or garage area was the result of an unconstitutional
search and should have been suppressed.3
On review, we will not disturb the factual findings of
the trial court unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the
evidence. Mercer v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 235, 243, 523
3
Elisa assigns error to the Court of Appeals' finding
that the plain view doctrine justified Cox's actions. George
assigns error to the trial court's holding on the "'plain view
doctrine,' as interpreted by the trial court." Our review of
the trial court's letter opinion, however, indicates that
although the trial court characterized its analysis as a
"plain view" inquiry, the court focused on the existence of
probable cause and exigent circumstances. Accordingly, while
we address the existence of probable cause and exigent
circumstances, we do not consider application of the plain
view doctrine.
18
S.E.2d 213, 217 (2000). The issue of whether an officer acted
with probable cause and under exigent circumstances, however,
is a mixed question of fact and law that we review de novo.
See Brown v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 414, 419, 620 S.E.2d 760,
762 (2005).
We conclude that the record supports the trial court's
factual finding that Officer Cox had not passed the path
leading to the front door when he saw juveniles in the
backyard holding beer bottles. We also hold that Officer Cox
acted with probable cause and under exigent circumstances when
he proceeded past the path and into the garage area and
backyard without a warrant.
1. Probable Cause
At the hearing on the Robinsons' motions to suppress, the
Commonwealth presented as exhibits photographs showing the
Robinsons' property from various vantage points along the
driveway. On direct examination, Officer Cox identified on
one of the exhibits a bush located immediately before the path
leading to the front door. He testified that when he was
"about at th[at] point" and still in his vehicle, he saw what
appeared to be juveniles holding beer bottles in the vicinity
of a pine tree in the backyard. On cross examination, Officer
Cox testified that although he was able to see people standing
by the pine tree before he reached the path to the front door,
19
he was unable to determine that they were juveniles holding
beer bottles until he actually reached the path. In response
to questions posed by the trial court, Officer Cox testified
that he was "at the bush" when he saw the two juveniles
holding beer bottles.
Because there is evidence in the record to support the
trial court's finding that Officer Cox had not passed the path
when he saw the juveniles holding beer bottles, we cannot say
the trial court's factual conclusion was plainly wrong.
Taking the finding as true, we therefore conclude that Officer
Cox had probable cause to enter the backyard, after having
observed a crime in progress, before he reached the path to
the front door. See Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820,
284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981)("[P]robable cause exists when the
facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge, and of
which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are
sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to
believe that an offense has been or is being committed.").
In order to proceed further without obtaining a warrant,
however, exigent circumstances were also required. Horton v.
California, 496 U.S. 128, 137 n.7 (1990)("[N]o amount of
probable cause can justify a warrantless search or seizure
absent 'exigent circumstances.' ")(quoting Coolidge v. New
Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 468 (1971)); see also, Payton, 445
20
U.S. at 587-88 ("[A]bsent exigent circumstances, a warrantless
entry to search for weapons or contraband is
unconstitutional."). Therefore, we consider the arguments
advanced by the Robinsons that exigent circumstances were not
present when Officer Cox entered the backyard.
2. Exigent Circumstances
On brief, both George and Elisa argue that Officer Cox
entered the backyard unlawfully because, even if he had
probable cause, there were no exigent circumstances. George
and Elisa further contend that, even if exigent circumstances
did exist, such circumstances were manufactured by Officer Cox
and thus did not justify his entry into the backyard.4 George
claims that at the moment when Officer Cox passed the path to
the front door and entered the garage area, he could not have
reasonably concluded that exigent circumstances were present
because the suspects had not yet seen him approaching. George
asserts Officer Cox entered the garage area for the express
purpose of causing a panicked reaction among the juveniles, a
4
Although Elisa presents this argument to this Court, the
Court of Appeals' en banc opinion notes that during oral
argument she conceded that "if Officer Cox was legitimately
present on the driveway, his subsequent entry into the
backyard would be permissible because the officer had both
probable cause and exigent circumstances." Robinson, 47 Va.
App. at 556 n.10, 625 S.E.2d at 662 n.10. However, because
George also claims that Officer Cox manufactured the exigency
in this case, we must consider this issue on appeal regardless
of any concession by Elisa.
21
reaction Officer Cox himself described as "the effect when you
flick on a light in a dark kitchen, and the cockroaches
scatter." George states this provocative conduct caused the
juveniles to panic and run and thereby created the exigent
circumstances Officer Cox used to justify his warrantless
entry.
A determination of whether exigent circumstances justify
a warrantless entry is not based on an analysis of the
circumstances considered in hindsight, but is focused on
review of the "circumstances as they reasonably appeared to
trained law enforcement officers to exist when the decision to
enter was made." Verez v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 405, 411, 337
S.E.2d 749, 753 (1985) (quoting Keeter v. Commonwealth, 222
Va. 134, 141, 278 S.E.2d 841, 846 (1981)). The test for
whether exigent circumstances were present is "fact-specific,"
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 100 (1990), and we have not
previously attempted to delineate a "final and comprehensive
list of all exigent circumstances which might justify a
warrantless entry." Verez, 230 Va. at 410, 337 S.E.2d at 753.
We have, however, recognized that the following factors have
been considered relevant by other courts:
(1) the degree of urgency involved and the time
required to get a warrant; (2) the officers'
reasonable belief that contraband is about to be
removed or destroyed; (3) the possibility of danger
to others, including police officers left to guard
22
the site; (4) information that the possessors of the
contraband are aware that the police may be on their
trail; (5) whether the offense is serious, or
involves violence; (6) whether officers
reasonably believe the suspects are armed; (7)
whether there is, at the time of entry, a clear
showing of probable cause; (8) whether the officers
have strong reason to believe the suspects are
actually present in the premises; (9) the likelihood
of escape if the suspects are not swiftly
apprehended; and (10) the suspects' recent entry
into the premises after hot pursuit.
Id. at 410-11, 337 S.E.2d at 753 (citations omitted).
Officer Cox testified that after the juveniles observed
him in his vehicle, they yelled "cops," dropped their beer
bottles, and began running toward the woods behind the house.
When Officer Cox pulled his car into the garage area, he could
still see "kids running towards the woods." He could also see
patio furniture covered with beer bottles, "[b]eer bottles
spread throughout the yard, and kids running away."
Officer Cox stepped out of his vehicle and "yelled for
everybody to stop," but "[n]obody did." He then entered the
backyard to locate the juvenile hosting the party. Officer
Cox indicated that his intent was to "find out what was going
on," and that he was concerned about the juveniles' safety and
"wanted to find out who they were, so [the police] could
contact parents."
Based on this testimony, we conclude that exigent
circumstances justified Officer Cox's entry into the garage
23
area and the backyard. At that time, he had already observed
the juveniles consuming alcoholic beverages at the party. Had
Officer Cox left the property to obtain a warrant after the
juveniles began to run from the yard, there is a high
probability that evidence of the crimes would have been
destroyed by the time he returned. Moreover, given the number
of cars parked on the street and in the driveway, Officer Cox
could reasonably have believed that a number of juveniles in
attendance may have been inebriated and could have injured
themselves or others, either by running into the woods at
night or by attempting to drive away from the residence.
These factors constituted exigent circumstances and justified
Officer Cox's warrantless entry into the backyard.5
We find no merit in the argument that Officer Cox
manufactured the exigency. As discussed earlier, Officer
Cox's testimony establishes that he first identified juveniles
5
Other courts have determined that exigent circumstances
may be created by unsupervised juveniles who are under the
influence of alcohol. See, e.g., Radloff v. City of Oelwein,
380 F.3d 344, 348 (8th Cir. 2004) ("Exigent circumstances
existed both because of the loud noise created by the party
and because of the threat to public safety if the juveniles
left the house in cars while under the influence of
alcohol."); Huset v. City of Roseville, No. 05-295, 2006 US
Dist. LEXIS 60165, *12 (D. Minn. 2006) (finding that exigent
circumstances existed when officers found juveniles drinking
at a party, and noting " 'it would have been unreasonable
. . . to quarantine the juveniles' cars during the period of
time [it] would have taken to obtain a warrant' ") (quoting
Radloff, 380 F.3d at 348).
24
holding beer bottles when he was in his vehicle at a point
before the driveway intersected the path to the front door,
and that the juveniles observed him and began to run away when
he was still "approximately in [that] location."
Although there is no direct testimony regarding the
period of time that elapsed between Officer Cox's sighting of
the juveniles and the time that they, in turn, observed him
and began to run, Officer Cox's testimony suggests that any
intervening time period was negligible. As the Court of
Appeals stated, the "development of probable cause and the
creation of exigencies were virtually contemporaneous."
Robinson, 47 Va. App. at 561-62, 625 S.E.2d at 665. Given
that there was no significant period of time between the
moment Officer Cox first saw illicit activity and the
occurrence of the ensuing exigencies, we agree with the Court
of Appeals' holding that Officer Cox did not have a meaningful
opportunity to leave the Robinsons' property to obtain a
warrant before proceeding further.
As other courts have recognized, the lack of such
opportunity to secure a search warrant strongly counsels
against a conclusion that the police manufactured exigent
circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Rico, 51 F.3d 495,
502-03 (5th Cir. 1995) (rejecting manufactured exigency
argument because officers "clearly lacked sufficient time
25
between the point at which the circumstances that the agents
claim motivated them to enter [one] residence and the point at
which probable cause to enter [a second] residence
developed"); United States v. Webster, 750 F.2d 307, 327 (5th
Cir. 1984) ("Our first concern in analyzing a claim of
manufactured exigency is whether agents could have obtained a
search warrant prior to the development of the exigent
circumstances upon which they relied."). To suggest that an
officer under the present circumstances was required to leave
the property to obtain a warrant or to approach the front door
to question the occupants ignores the reality of the
situation, namely, that the evidence of juveniles consuming
alcohol on the premises would have been destroyed or otherwise
compromised, and that the juveniles and possibly other
motorists could have been injured, in the absence of immediate
and direct action. Accordingly, we reject the Robinsons'
arguments that Officer Cox's warrantless search was undertaken
in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed, we will affirm the judgment of
the Court of Appeals.
Record No. 060417 Affirmed.
Record No. 060426 Affirmed.
26