Jones v. Com., No. 0606-96-1

• Docket Nº: No. 0606-96-1
• Citation: 24 Va.App. 519, 484 S.E.2d 125
• Case Date: April 15, 1997
• Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia

Page 125

484 S.E.2d 125 24 Va.App. 519 Timothy M. JONES
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record No. 0606-96-1. Court of Appeals of Virginia,
Norfolk. April 15, 1997.

Damian T. Horne (Horne, West & McMurtrie, P.C., on brief), for appellant.

John K. Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: BAKER, WILLIS and BRAY, JJ.

WILLIS, Judge.

Timothy M. Jones was convicted of possession of cocaine. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence. Specifically, he argues that the police officers lacked reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot when they stopped his car.

On the afternoon of July 14, 1995, Gloucester County Deputy Sheriff Hicks and Investigator Jones were on patrol in a white, unmarked Ford Bronco. A compact car driven by Jones approached them from behind at a high speed. As Jones' car came alongside the Bronco, the passenger in the front seat of the car motioned to two others in the rear. They all looked at the two officers and one man gestured as though he were shooting a gun. Jones' car then took position immediately behind and to the right of the officers' Bronco, and remained there. Although the officers accelerated to seventy miles per hour and slowed to fifty miles per hour, Jones maintained a constant position, refusing to pass and staying behind and to the right of the Bronco. At a stoplight, Jones maintained this position rather than stopping alongside the Bronco. The vehicles proceeded in this fashion for twenty-five [24 Va.App. 521] minutes. Hicks concluded that Jones sought to ensure that his car "was always at an advantage to [Hicks'] vehicle."

Three weeks earlier, a confidential informant had told the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department of a "contract" to murder

Page 126

Hicks and Jones in retaliation for a prior arrest. Hicks stated that several informants had confirmed the existence of the contract and had reported that money had been paid for this purpose. Hicks also testified that Jones "looked very familiar to one of the ones that [they] arrested [in the incident that gave rise to the contract on him and Jones.]"

Hicks and Jones decided to "follow-up" on the reported contract and to identify the persons in the vehicle. Upon entering York County, they obtained assistance from York County officers, who stopped Jones' vehicle. Investigator Donnelly obtained consent to search Jones for drugs and weapons and discovered a pipe containing crack cocaine. Jones was then arrested for possession of cocaine.

Jones has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress constituted reversible error. Fore v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 1007, 1010, 265 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1980). Generally on appeal,...