Hodnett v. Com., Record No. 2565-98-3.

Docket NºRecord No. 2565-98-3.
Citation530 S.E.2d 433, 32 Va. App. 684
Case DateJune 27, 2000
CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia

530 S.E.2d 433
32 Va.
App. 684

Lafayette Scott HODNETT,
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

Record No. 2565-98-3.

Court of Appeals of Virginia, Salem.

June 27, 2000.


530 S.E.2d 434
S. Jane Chittom, Appellate Counsel (Elwood Earl Sanders, Jr., Appellate Defender; Public Defender Commission, on briefs), for appellant

Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present COLEMAN and FRANK, JJ., and HODGES, Senior Judge.

FRANK, Judge.

Lafayette Scott Hodnett (appellant) appeals his conviction of operating a motor vehicle after having been adjudicated an habitual offender in violation of Code § 46.2-357(B). On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred: 1) in denying his motion to suppress because his continued detention, once he produced identification, was an unlawful seizure; and 2) in finding the evidence sufficient to support his conviction. We disagree and affirm the conviction.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 19, 1998, Officer Moorefield of the Danville Police Department was on special assignment with the Danville Emergency Response Team. He was in a van with other team members on Riverside Drive when he saw from the van's open side door a small, light blue vehicle beside the van. The driver, who was the only occupant in the vehicle, was a black male wearing a black skull cap. Officer Moorefield thought he recognized the driver as Gary Hodnett, an individual for whom the police had outstanding warrants. The police van had to stop at a traffic light, and Moorefield lost sight of the blue car. However, he was able to see the letters ZDK on the car's license plate and radioed a police dispatcher with a description of the vehicle and the partial license plate number. The dispatcher issued a "be-on-the-lookout-for" to the other police units on duty.

Officer Crawford of the Danville Police Department had heard the "be-on-the-lookout-for" call earlier that evening. While he was observing traffic at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Mount Cross Road, a car matching the description issued by the dispatcher drove past him. A man wearing a neon green shirt and a black skull cap was driving the car, and a female rode in the front passenger seat. Crawford pulled onto Riverside Drive but was unable to get behind the car due to other traffic. Then, Crawford was forced to stop at a traffic light for approximately fifteen to twenty seconds but watched the blue car turn into a shopping center. Crawford testified that he was in a position at the traffic light to see any pedestrians crossing Riverside Drive in the vicinity of the shopping center. The only person he saw that evening wearing a neon green shirt and skull cap was appellant.

Crawford drove into the shopping center and saw the blue car parked in a parking space in front of a Subway restaurant. A black male wearing a neon green shirt and a black skull cap was between two and five feet from the driver's side door of the car and was walking toward the Subway. The man entered the Subway, and the female passenger remained in the car. She joined him in

530 S.E.2d 435
the Subway within minutes. The couple was in the Subway for approximately ten to fifteen minutes. When they exited the Subway, they walked on the sidewalk toward the end of the building, away from the blue car. Crawford approached the couple when they turned the corner of the building into an alley. Crawford asked the man for identification. The man produced a Virginia identification card showing that he was Lafayette Scott Hodnett. Crawford stated that he thought the man he was stopping was Gary Hodnett. Crawford told appellant that he stopped him because an off-duty officer had seen him earlier in the evening and thought he was Gary Hodnett. Appellant said, "Everybody always thinks I'm Gary, but that's my brother."

Detective Jones, along with other officers, arrived on the scene as back-up, and Crawford took appellant's identification card to the police car to check appellant's driving status. Jones talked with appellant while Crawford was in the police car.

Crawford testified that he checked appellant's driving status because, based on his past experience, when a driver presents an identification card, they typically are not licensed. The driving status check showed that the identification number belonged to Lafayette Scott Hodnett and that he was an habitual offender. Crawford then placed appellant under arrest for driving after having been declared an habitual offender. During the drive to the magistrate's office, appellant told Crawford that he had seen the off-duty officer in the van on Riverside Drive earlier in the evening.

Appellant testified that he walked across the shopping center parking lot from a Wendy's restaurant to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Jackson v. Com., Record No. 3238-01-1.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • July 29, 2003
    ...S.E.2d at 378. B. The Fourth Amendment "does not proscribe all seizures, only those that are `unreasonable.'" Hodnett v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 684, 690, 530 S.E.2d 433, 436 (2000) (quoting Welshman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 20, 30, 502 S.E.2d 122, 126-27 (1998) (en banc)); see also Ham......
  • Jackson v. Com., Record No. 3238-01-1.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • February 4, 2003
    ...S.E.2d at 378. B. The Fourth Amendment "does not proscribe all seizures, only those that are `unreasonable.'" Hodnett v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 684, 690, 530 S.E.2d 433, 436 (2000) (quoting Welshman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 20, 30, 502 S.E.2d 122, 126-27 (1998) (en banc)); Hamlin v. Co......
  • Barkley v. Com., Record No. 2885-01-2.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • February 11, 2003
    ...we disagree. The Fourth Amendment "does not proscribe all seizures, only those that are `unreasonable.'" Hodnett v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 684, 690, 530 S.E.2d 433, 436 (2000) (quoting Welshman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 20, 30, 502 S.E.2d 122, 126-27 (1998) (en banc)); see also Hamlin v......
  • Middlebrooks v. Com., Record No. 1484-07-1.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • August 5, 2008
    ...[Middlebrooks] to stay." Piggott v. Commonwealth, 34 Va.App. 45, 49, 537 S.E.2d 618, 619 (2000) (citing Hodnett v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 684, 691-92, 530 S.E.2d 433, 436 (2000)). Thus, pursuant to the totality of the circumstances, including Sergeant Dimitry's use of compelling language,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Jackson v. Com., Record No. 3238-01-1.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • July 29, 2003
    ...S.E.2d at 378. B. The Fourth Amendment "does not proscribe all seizures, only those that are `unreasonable.'" Hodnett v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 684, 690, 530 S.E.2d 433, 436 (2000) (quoting Welshman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 20, 30, 502 S.E.2d 122, 126-27 (1998) (en banc)); see also Ham......
  • Jackson v. Com., Record No. 3238-01-1.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • February 4, 2003
    ...S.E.2d at 378. B. The Fourth Amendment "does not proscribe all seizures, only those that are `unreasonable.'" Hodnett v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 684, 690, 530 S.E.2d 433, 436 (2000) (quoting Welshman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 20, 30, 502 S.E.2d 122, 126-27 (1998) (en banc)); Hamlin v. Co......
  • Barkley v. Com., Record No. 2885-01-2.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • February 11, 2003
    ...we disagree. The Fourth Amendment "does not proscribe all seizures, only those that are `unreasonable.'" Hodnett v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 684, 690, 530 S.E.2d 433, 436 (2000) (quoting Welshman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 20, 30, 502 S.E.2d 122, 126-27 (1998) (en banc)); see also Hamlin v......
  • Middlebrooks v. Com., Record No. 1484-07-1.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • August 5, 2008
    ...[Middlebrooks] to stay." Piggott v. Commonwealth, 34 Va.App. 45, 49, 537 S.E.2d 618, 619 (2000) (citing Hodnett v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 684, 691-92, 530 S.E.2d 433, 436 (2000)). Thus, pursuant to the totality of the circumstances, including Sergeant Dimitry's use of compelling language,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT