COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Overton 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

ANN MARIE GRANT 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1565-95-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 FEBRUARY 25, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE 

James F. Ingram, Judge 

 Stacey W. Moreau (Williams, Stilwell, 

Morrison, Williams and Light, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Ann Marie Grant appeals her convictions of transporting 

marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. 

 She contends that the search and seizure by the police violated 

her Fourth Amendment rights. We disagree and affirm. 

 The Danville Police Department received information that a 

passenger listed as "J. Manning" would possibly be carrying drugs 

on the 11:30 p.m. train from New York to Danville. As each 

passenger detrained, a police officer asked if he could see that 

passenger's boarding pass. At this request, the appellant Ann 

Marie Grant volunteered her boarding pass. It read "J. Manning." 

 The officer then asked if he could search Grant's bags. Grant 

replied, "Yes," and made no other comments or protests. The 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

search revealed a large quantity of marijuana. 

 The Fourth Amendment is not intended to "eliminate all 

contact between the police and the citizenry, but 'to prevent 

arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials 

with the privacy and personal security of individuals.'" United 

States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553-54, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497, 100 

S. Ct. 1870 (1980) (quoting United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 

U.S. 543, 544 (1976)). Consensual encounters between police and 

individuals have no Fourth Amendment implications unless they are 

accompanied by such "coercion or show of force or authority by 

the officer . . . that would cause a person . . . reasonably to 

have believed that he or she was required to comply [and was] not 

free to leave." Commonwealth v. Satchell, 15 Va. App. 127, 131, 

422 S.E.2d 412, 414 (1992); see Greene v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. 

App. 606, 610, 440 S.E.2d 138, 140 (1994); Wechsler v. 

Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 162, 171, 455 S.E.2d 744, 748 (1995). 

 The facts here disclose an entirely consensual encounter. 

The officer approached Grant by himself, in plainclothes, without 

displaying a firearm. He identified himself, explained his 

intentions, and requested to see Grant’s boarding pass. He then 

requested to search her luggage. We find nothing in the police 

operation that would suggest coercion or intimidation. 

Throughout this encounter Grant consented to each request, 

demonstrating no desire to leave and no objection to the 

officer’s questions or the search. 
- 3 - 

 The appellant voluntarily cooperated with the officer and 

consented to the officer's questions and search. She at no time 

withdrew her consent nor did she limit the scope of the search. 

Her Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. 

 Affirmed.