COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Annunziata and Senior Judge Duff 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2292-96-4 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. 

 FEBRUARY 11, 1997 

YULALEYA JOYNER 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 

Alfred D. Swersky, Judge 

 John K. Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on briefs), for appellant. 

 Jeffrey T. Barbour, Assistant Public 

Defender, for appellee. 

 After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the 

trial judge ruled that the police unlawfully seized Yulaleya 

Joyner and sustained Joyner's motion to suppress evidence 

obtained as a result of that seizure. The Commonwealth appeals 

from that ruling, see Code § 19.2-398(2), and contends that the 

seizure was not unlawful and that Joyner's statements were not 

the product of an illegal search and seizure. We affirm the 

ruling. 

 Under the usual standards of review, "[w]e view the evidence 

in the light most favorable to [Joyner], the prevailing party 

below, and we grant all reasonable inferences fairly deducible 

from that evidence." Commonwealth v. Grimstead, 12 Va. App. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

1066, 1067, 407 S.E.2d 47, 48 (1991). So viewed, the evidence, 

in pertinent part, proved that eighteen Alexandria police 

officers and United States postal inspectors were watching an 

apartment building and monitoring a controlled delivery of 

marijuana to apartment 102, one of twelve apartments in the 

building. The officers had intercepted a parcel containing 

marijuana that had been mailed to that apartment, equipped the 

parcel with an electronic monitor, and obtained a warrant to 

search apartment 102. 

 While the package was being delivered, the officers observed 

a man watching the delivery from an automobile. After the 

delivery, the man went into the building and exited a few minutes 

later carrying the package of marijuana that was delivered to 

apartment 102. The officers, some of whom were in uniform, 

arrested the man as he left the building. Approximately five 

minutes after the man was arrested, numerous officers, openly 

displaying their badges, rushed to the building with guns drawn. 

 As the officers rushed to the building, Joyner and another 

woman were walking out of the building. Joyner testified that 

one of the officers grabbed her arm and told her and the other 

woman that they had to remain in place until the officers "found 

out what was going on, who they needed to . . . hold, or arrest." 

 Detective Erwin then approached Joyner, who was twelve feet away 

from the front door of the building, and asked her for her name 

and other identification. 
- 3 - 

 The trial judge ruled that the officers had seized Joyner 

and that they lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion to do 

so. We agree. 

 "A 'stop' or 'detention' occurs when the 'circumstances 

. . . amount to a show of official authority such that "a 

reasonable person would have believed he was not free to 

leave."'" Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 363, 365, 398 

S.E.2d 690, 691 (1990) (citations omitted). "[W]henever a police 

officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk 

away, he has 'seized' that person." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 

16 (1968). 

 When one officer grabbed Joyner's arm and told her to remain 

where she was and the other officer began to question Joyner 

about her identity, Joyner was seized. Furthermore, when the 

officers seized Joyner, the officers had no objective basis to 

conclude that Joyner was involved in criminal activity. See

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979). 

 The evidence, thus, supports the trial judge's ruling that 

Joyner was unlawfully seized. Because the cocaine in her 

possession and the statements she subsequently made were obtained 

as a result of the unlawful seizure, the trial judge did not err 

in sustaining the motion to suppress. See Commonwealth v. Ealy, 

12 Va. App. 744, 754, 407 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1991). Accordingly, 

we affirm the ruling. 

 Affirmed.