Trent v. Com.
Decision Date | 10 April 2001 |
Docket Number | Record No. 0425-00-3. |
Citation | 35 Va. App. 248,544 S.E.2d 379 |
Parties | Elroy Lee TRENT v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
David P. Baugh, Richmond, for appellant.
(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Thomas M. McKenna, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.
Present: FITZPATRICK, C.J., ELDER, J., and OVERTON, Senior Judge.
Elroy Lee Trent (appellant) appeals from his bench trial conviction for possession of cocaine, in violation of Code § 18.2-250. On appeal, he contends the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress because the drug roadblock at which he was apprehended was either unconstitutional per se or unconstitutional as conducted. We hold the roadblock was unconstitutional per se, and we reverse and dismiss appellant's conviction.
At a hearing on a defendant's motion to suppress, the Commonwealth has the burden of proving the challenged action did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. See Simmons v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 200, 204, 380 S.E.2d 656, 659 (1989)
. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, here the Commonwealth, granting to its evidence all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Commonwealth, v. Grimstead, 12 Va.App. 1066, 1067, 407 S.E.2d 47, 48 (1991). "[W]e are bound by the trial court's findings of historical fact unless `plainly wrong' or without evidence to support them," McGee v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 193, 198, 487 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1997) (en banc), but we review de novo the trial court's application of defined legal standards to the particular facts of the case, Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996).
In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000), the United States Supreme Court held that a "checkpoint program" with "the primary purpose of interdicting illegal nar cotics ... contravenes the Fourth Amendment." Id. 531 U.S. at ___-___, 121 S.Ct. at 453-54. The Court reasoned as follows:
Id., 531 U.S. at ___, 121 S.Ct. at 455; see also id., 531 U.S. at ___ n. 2, 121 S.Ct. at 457 n. 2 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Copeland v. Com.
...but review the ultimate question of law, the application of the inevitable discovery doctrine, de novo. See Trent v. Commonwealth, 35 Va.App. 248, 250, 544 S.E.2d 379, 380 (2001). First, it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence recovered from Copeland would have been discovered by law......
-
Tomlin v. Commonwealth
..."review de novo the trial court's application of defined legal standards to the particular facts of the case," Trent v. Commonwealth , 35 Va. App. 248, 250, 544 S.E.2d 379 (2001) (citation omitted), we defer to the trial court's factual findings unless they are "plainly wrong or without evi......
-
State v. Mack
......Lidster, 319 Ill.App.3d 825, 254 Ill.Dec. 379, 747 N.E.2d 419 (2001); Trent v. Commonwealth, 35 Va.App. 248, 544 S.E.2d 379 (2001); Buchanon v. Commonwealth, 200 Ky.App. LEXIS 1255, 2001 WL 1555654, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Dec. 7, ......
-
Wilkins v. Com., Record No. 2973-00-1.
...but review the ultimate question of law, the application of the inevitable discovery doctrine, de novo. See Trent v. Commonwealth, 35 Va.App. 248, 250, 544 S.E.2d 379, 380 (2001). See also Williams, 467 U.S. at 444 n. 5, 104 S.Ct. 2501 (inevitable discovery should be proven by a preponderan......