Carter v. Com.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 0374-88-2,0374-88-2 |
| Citation | 9 Va.App. 310,387 S.E.2d 505 |
| Parties | William Alexander CARTER v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Patricia L. Harrington, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert B. Condon, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Mary Sue Terry, Atty. Gen., Mildred B. Cain, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee.
Present: BENTON, COLE and DUFF, JJ.
William A. Carter was convicted by a judge sitting without a jury of possession of cocaine. He asserts that the trial judge erred in refusing to suppress evidence and statements obtained as a result of a warrantless search of his person. We agree and reverse the conviction.
Officer Eugene Provost was the only witness who testified at the suppression hearing. Provost testified that he received information from Detective P.H. Brunson that an informant had reported that a black male, dressed in a black and grey jacket and jeans, was selling drugs on the northwest corner of Second and Clay streets. Provost testified that Brunson described the informant and said the informant was reliable. However, Provost was never told the informant's name.
Provost and Officer R.T. Mayo proceeded to the area and saw Carter, who matched the informant's description. Carter was standing on the street corner amid a group of approximately six persons. While waiting for assistance, Provost and Mayo observed the group from half a block away but perceived no unusual behavior. After additional units arrived, Provost approached Carter, placed him against a wall, and patted him for weapons. Provost found no indication of weapons. At that point, Mayo indicated to Provost that Carter was "definitely the party." After Provost "searched Carter and didn't find anything," Mayo "said again, 'that's definitely the party.' " Provost then discovered a zippered pocket in the sleeve of Carter's jacket. A search of the pocket revealed packets of white powder, subsequently found to be cocaine.
The Commonwealth concedes that the search of Carter's person exceeded the limits of a Terry stop, but argues that the information provided by the informant, coupled with the officers' observations, established probable cause to arrest Carter. The Commonwealth further argues that the search of Carter's person was valid as incident to his lawful arrest. See Wright v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 188, 278 S.E.2d 849 (1981). Thus, we are asked to determine whether, at the time Provost conducted the search which revealed the cocaine, he had probable cause to believe that an offense had been committed which would have justified arresting Carter. We conclude that he did not.
" '[T]he test of constitutional validity [of a warrantless arrest] is whether at the moment of arrest the arresting officer had knowledge of sufficient facts and circumstances to warrant a reasonable man in believing that an offense has been committed.' " DePriest v. Commonwealth, 4 Va.App. 577, 583-84, 359 S.E.2d 540, 543 (1987) (quoting Bryson v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 85, 86-87, 175 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1970)). Probable cause to arrest must exist exclusive of the incident search. Bryson, 211 Va. at 87, 175 S.E.2d at 251. So long as probable cause to arrest exists at the time of the search, however, it is unimportant that the search preceded the formal arrest if the arrest " 'followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search.' " Wright, 222 Va. at 193, 278 S.E.2d at 852-53 (quoting Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2564, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980)).
Aside from Provost's statement at the suppression hearing that Brunson told him that the tip came from a reliable informant, the record is silent concerning the reliability of the informant or the officer's experience with respect to the informant. Brunson did not testify at the suppression hearing. Provost testified that he himself had no prior dealings with the informant and that Brunson did not identify the informant. Provost was, therefore, not in a position to give competent testimony concerning the existence of the informant, the informant's reliability, or the informant's basis of knowledge.
The Commonwealth argues that in this case, as in Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), the details of the informant's tip, combined with the officer's observations and verification of those details, provided the necessary probable cause to arrest Carter. We disagree. Significantly, in Draper, the record established that the informant's "information had always been found accurate and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. Com.
...because Officer Reardon had probable cause to arrest appellant prior to conducting the search. See, e.g., Carter v. Commonwealth, 9 Va.App. 310, 312, 387 S.E.2d 505, 506 (1990).2 Where an anonymous informant provides a detailed, predictive tip and police officers are able to corroborate sus......
-
Debroux v. Com., Record No. 2737-98-1.
...search preceded the formal arrest if the arrest `followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search.'" Carter v. Commonwealth, 9 Va.App. 310, 312, 387 S.E.2d 505, 506-07 (1990) (quoting Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2564, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980)) (other citation ......
-
Dodd v. Com., 2653-06-4.
...known by the officers about Dodd. "Probable cause to arrest must exist exclusive of the incident search." Carter v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 310, 312, 387 S.E.2d 505, 506 (1990); see also Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253, 261-62, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 1436, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 I believe that it is s......
-
McGuire v. Com.
...142 (1964); see also United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 423, 96 S.Ct. 820, 827-28, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976); Carter v. Commonwealth, 9 Va.App. 310, 312, 387 S.E.2d 505, 506 (1990). "Probable cause exists where `the facts and circumstances within [the arresting officers'] knowledge and of w......
-
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion: arrests, seizures, stops and frisks
...five days earlier; officer patted suspect down for weapons, then cuffed him, searched him and seized drugs. • Carter v. Commonwealth , 387 S.E.2d 505 (Va. 1990). No probable cause where informant told police that person matching defendant’s description was selling drugs; police saw defendan......
-
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion: arrests, seizures, stops and frisks
...ive days earlier; oficer patted suspect down for weapons, then cuffed him, searched him and seized drugs. Carter v. Commonwealth , 387 S.E.2d 505 (Va. 1990). No probable cause where informant told police that person matching defendant’s description was selling drugs; police saw defendant ......
-
Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion: Arrests, Seizures, Stops and Frisks
...ive days earlier; oficer patted suspect down for weapons, then cuffed him, searched him and seized drugs. Carter v. Commonwealth , 387 S.E.2d 505 (Va. 1990). No probable cause where informant told police that person matching defendant’s description was selling drugs; police saw defendant ......
-
Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion: Arrests, Seizures, Stops and Frisks
...place ive days earlier; o൶cer patted suspect down for weapons, then cu൵ed him, searched him and seized drugs. Carter v. Commonwealth , 387 S.E.2d 505 (Va. 1990). No probable cause where informant told police that person matching defendant’s description was selling drugs; police saw defend......