Sidney v. Com., Record No. 092313.

Docket NºRecord No. 092313.
Citation280 Va. 517, 702 S.E.2d 124
Case DateNovember 04, 2010
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
702 S.E.2d 124
280 Va. 517


Allen Edward SIDNEY, Jr.
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.


Record No. 092313.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

Nov. 4, 2010.

702 S.E.2d 126

Daniel W. Hall, Senior Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Benjamin H. Katz, Assistant Attorney General (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: All the Justices.

OPINION BY Justice LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR.

280 Va. 519

Acting on an anonymous tip that there were arrest warrants outstanding for an individual who was at a particular location, police officers conducted an investigative traffic stop of the defendant's vehicle. In this appeal, we consider whether the tip provided reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.

Allen Edward Sidney, Jr. was indicted in the Circuit Court of the City of Petersburg for possession of cocaine in violation of Code § 18.2-250. Sidney was also charged with possession of marijuana in violation of Code § 18.2-250.1. Thereafter, Sidney filed a motion to suppress, claiming the stop of his vehicle, which resulted in his arrest and recovery of the illegal drugs, violated his rights as secured under

280 Va. 520
the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution of Virginia.* Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the motion. Sidney entered a conditional guilty plea to the charges, preserving for appeal the issues raised in his motion to suppress. Code § 19.2-254.

Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, a judge of that Court denied Sidney's petition for appeal in an unpublished order. Sidney v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2125-08-2 (August 19, 2009). For the reasons stated in that order, a panel of the Court subsequently denied Sidney's petition for appeal. Sidney v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2125-08-2 (October 19, 2009). We awarded Sidney this appeal.

BACKGROUND

Under familiar principles of appellate review, we will state "the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court, and will accord the Commonwealth the benefit of all reasonable inferences fairly deducible from that evidence." Murphy v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 568, 570, 570 S.E.2d 836, 837 (2002)(applying this principle in a case involving a motion to suppress evidence). The evidence presented at the suppression hearing showed that on December 14, 2007, Petersburg police officer Dustin Sloan received a radio dispatch that an anonymous "tip" had been called in to police headquarters. The tip reported that Sidney was at 1300 Patterson Street, driving a tan Jeep Cherokee with wood grain side paneling, and that there were outstanding warrants in the city for his arrest. The tip described Sidney as a black male, approximately 5'7? or 5'9? tall.

Upon arriving at 1300 Patterson Street, Officer Sloan observed a vehicle matching the tip's description parked in the driveway. Officer Sloan, who had never seen Sidney before, observed a man in the driver's seat of the vehicle. Officer Sloan "ran" the vehicle's license plate and discovered it was registered to Sidney's mother.

Meanwhile, Officer J.W. Schmidt was dispatched to 1300 Patterson Street "to locate a wanted subject" named "Allen Edward Sidney" for whom there were outstanding arrest warrants. The dispatcher

280 Va. 521
described Sidney as a black male, with brown eyes and black hair, 5'3? tall, weighing 165 pounds, and with a birth date of "5-26-1974." The dispatcher also informed Officer Schmidt about a tan Jeep Cherokee with "30-day tags" in the driveway of 1300 Patterson Street.

While Officer Sloan waited for backup officers to arrive, the vehicle exited from the driveway and proceeded northbound on Patterson Street. As the vehicle drove past him, Officer Sloan saw the driver's head and arms. Officer Sloan notified backup officers

702 S.E.2d 127
and followed the vehicle. After backup officers joined him, Officer Sloan stopped the vehicle on the suspicion that the driver was wanted on outstanding arrest warrants.

Officer Schmidt then approached the driver's side of the vehicle and asked the driver for his license and the vehicle registration. After identifying Sidney as the driver, Officer Schmidt radioed dispatch and confirmed that Sidney was the wanted subject. Officer Schmidt then informed Sidney of the outstanding warrants and placed him under arrest. A search incident to Sidney's arrest uncovered cocaine and marijuana.

At the suppression hearing, Officer Sloan testified that he had determined what the warrants were for prior to stopping the vehicle driven by Sidney, but could not recall if they were for felonies or misdemeanors. Upon questioning by the circuit court, Officer Sloan admitted that he had not personally checked the police database to confirm that there were outstanding warrants for Sidney's arrest. Officer Sloan explained that the dispatcher on duty verifies the existence of outstanding warrants. He further explained that dispatch does not tell the officers in the field what the warrants are for, only that they exist. Officer Schmidt corroborated this testimony when he testified without objection that dispatch had advised him that outstanding warrants existed for Sidney's arrest. In denying the motion to suppress, the court ruled that the dispatcher's knowledge of the existence of the outstanding warrants could be imputed to the officers.

DISCUSSION

Sidney contends that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the circuit court's denial of his motion to suppress...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 practice notes
  • Tuma v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0919–10–2.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • June 12, 2012
    ...that could have led to a devastating impeachment of Hoyle's credibility undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.Id. at 663, 702 S.E.2d at 124 (emphasis added). In Bly, therefore, the suppression of evidence that the confidential informant had a substantial motive to fabricate drug......
  • Williams v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0603-18-2
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • January 14, 2020
    ...probable cause.71 Va.App. 476 The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. E.g., Sidney v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 517, 522, 702 S.E.2d 124 (2010). Nonetheless, during a traffic stop, "an officer may need to take certain negligibly burdensome precautions in or......
  • Secret v. Commonwealth, Record No. 170540
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • October 11, 2018
    ...his suppression motion was reversible error. Branham v. Commonwealth , 283 Va. 273, 279, 720 S.E.2d 74 (2012) ; Sidney v. Commonwealth , 280 Va. 517, 522, 702 S.E.2d 124 (2010) ; Harris v. Commonwealth , 276 Va. 689, 695, 668 S.E.2d 141 (2008). The trial court’s ultimate factual finding tha......
  • Collins v. Commonwealth, Record No. 151277
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • September 15, 2016
    ...retrospective review and we are only concerned with those “facts known to the officer at the time” of the search. Sidney v. Commonwealth , 280 Va. 517, 525, 702 S.E.2d 124, 129 (2010). However, as the Court of Appeals noted below, the fact that Collins had changed into motorcycle clothes an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
52 cases
  • Tuma v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0919–10–2.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • June 12, 2012
    ...that could have led to a devastating impeachment of Hoyle's credibility undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.Id. at 663, 702 S.E.2d at 124 (emphasis added). In Bly, therefore, the suppression of evidence that the confidential informant had a substantial motive to fabricate drug......
  • Williams v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0603-18-2
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals of Virginia
    • January 14, 2020
    ...probable cause.71 Va.App. 476 The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. E.g., Sidney v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 517, 522, 702 S.E.2d 124 (2010). Nonetheless, during a traffic stop, "an officer may need to take certain negligibly burdensome precautions in or......
  • Secret v. Commonwealth, Record No. 170540
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • October 11, 2018
    ...his suppression motion was reversible error. Branham v. Commonwealth , 283 Va. 273, 279, 720 S.E.2d 74 (2012) ; Sidney v. Commonwealth , 280 Va. 517, 522, 702 S.E.2d 124 (2010) ; Harris v. Commonwealth , 276 Va. 689, 695, 668 S.E.2d 141 (2008). The trial court’s ultimate factual finding tha......
  • Collins v. Commonwealth, Record No. 151277
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • September 15, 2016
    ...retrospective review and we are only concerned with those “facts known to the officer at the time” of the search. Sidney v. Commonwealth , 280 Va. 517, 525, 702 S.E.2d 124, 129 (2010). However, as the Court of Appeals noted below, the fact that Collins had changed into motorcycle clothes an......
  • 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