Warlick v. Com.

Decision Date14 October 1974
CourtVirginia Supreme Court
PartiesJim Edward WARLICK v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

Page 746

208 S.E.2d 746
215 Va. 263
Jim Edward WARLICK
Supreme Court of Virginia.
Oct. 14, 1974.

Enos Richardson, Jr., Fredericksburg, for plaintiff in error.

James E. Kulp, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.


I'ANSON, Chief Justice.

Defendant, Jim Edward Warlick, was charged in an indictment with breaking and entering in the nighttime a certain drug store with intent to commit larceny therein. Defendant waived trial by jury and was found guilty as charged and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude his confession and other statements made to the police as a result of an illegal search of his home.

Page 747

The evidence shows that during the evening of November 27, 1972, the Metro Drug Store, in Fredericksburg, Virginia, was broken into and a quantity of controlled drugs was stolen. For several hours prior to the breaking and entering a yellow [215 Va. 264] automobile with a black top, bearing Texas license plates, was seen cruising the area. At approximately 10:30 that night two persons saw the car parked near the drug store with no one in it, and one of the witnesses recorded its license plate number. After the car had left, the two witnesses went to the store to investigate and found that it had been broken into. The police were notified and given the license plate number of the automobile.

Upon checking with the Texas authorities, it was learned that the car was registered in the name of Roy Warlick, later determined to be the defendant's father. A search warrant was obtained, and several police officers went to the Warlick home around 4:00 a.m. on November 28th.

After gaining admittance to the Warlick home, one of the officers told Roy Warlick that the Metro Drug Store had been broken into and entered; that certain controlled drugs had been taken; that his automobile had been seen at the scene; and that they had a warrant to search his home. During this time the defendant, who had been asleep in an upstairs bedroom, came downstairs and told the officers that he had been driving his father's car that night. Shortly thereafter two vials of drugs were found by Officer Arline in a coat in defendant's bedroom closet. Defendant was then placed under arrest and given the Miranda warnings. Although advised that the bottles had Metro Drug Store labels on them, defendant stated that he did not know anything about the break-in or the drugs.

While on the way to police headquarters defendant was questioned about the breakin, and he again denied any knowledge of it. When they reached the police station, defendant was again advised of his constitutional rights before he was questioned by one of the officers. The two bottles of drugs were placed on a desk in the 'booking' room where defendant was being interrogated. Defendant still denied any knowledge of the break-in. He was later taken to another room where there was less confusion, and another officer conducted the questioning. The two vials of drugs were also brought into the room. Defendant volunteered the information that he had been in trouble over drugs in Texas. However, he did not admit any culpability as to the breaking and entering of Metro Drug Store. When asked by the second questioning officer where the other stolen drugs were hidden, defendant did not respond. Defendant [215 Va. 265] was asked how he would feel if some children got hold of the drugs. He then told the officer where the other drugs were hidden and led them to a field where they were recovered. He never admitted, however, that he had broken into and entered the drug store.

Defendant testified that he took the officers to the cache of drugs of his own free will, and that the reason he did so was to prevent them from falling into the hands of children. In reply to a question whether he had made the decision to sacrifice himself to prevent the possibility of children finding the drugs, he stated that he had and that he knew he was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Kyer v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 3 de maio de 2005
    ...by the police of an earlier unconstitutional search or seizure. Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488, 83 S.Ct. at 418; Warlick v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 263, 266, 208 S.E.2d 746, 748 (1974). Consent following an unconstitutional act, however, can still be valid if it is "sufficiently an act of free wil......
  • Burns v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 2 de março de 2001
    ...entirely dissipated. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 491, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Warlick v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 263, 266, 208 S.E.2d 746, 748 (1974). As will be discussed in subsequent sections of this opinion, Burns was not in custody when he voluntarily spoke w......
  • Foltz v. Commonwealth of Va..
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 5 de abril de 2011
    ...an independent source” or “evidence where the connection has become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.” Warlick v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 263, 266, 208 S.E.2d 746, 748 (1974). Here, we hold that the exclusionary rule does not bar the eyewitness testimony of the officers who witnessed a......
  • Evans v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 17 de setembro de 2015
    ...see no need to address the attenuation principle as it relates to consensual searches. See generally Warlick v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 263, 267, 208 S.E.2d 746, 749 (1974) (finding connection between the illegality and consensual confession “so attenuated ... as to dissipate the taint”). In ......
  • 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