COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Bumgardner and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued by teleconference 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2497-00-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 MARCH 15, 2001 

ERIC RANDAL NORMAN AND 

 CHRISTOPHER LANE WALTON 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY 

William H. Shaw, III, Judge 

 Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General 

(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 Joseph R. Caprio (Michael T. Soberick; 

Dusewicz & Soberick, P.C., on brief), for 

appellees. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.

Eric Randal Norman and Christopher Lane Walton filed 

motions to suppress evidence seized during execution of a search 

warrant. The trial court granted the motions and suppressed use 

of the evidence in proving burglary and grand larceny by the 

defendants. The Commonwealth contends the evidence was 

admissible because the good faith exception to the exclusionary 

rule applied. We agree, and reverse the ruling. 
 Captain Bruce A. Boles was investigating a burglary and 

larceny at the home of Robert C. Pitts in Middlesex County on 

January 21, 2000. On March 21, 2000, a deputy told him the 

television set stolen from Pitts's home was in a wooded area in 

the rear of the defendants' residence in King & Queen County. 

Two days later, Captain Boles obtained a warrant1 to search the 

defendants' residence for items stolen January 21. It also 

authorized a search for any pawn tickets or sales receipts that 

indicated a transfer of any of the stolen property. The 

defendants moved to suppress the evidence recovered during the 

search. 

 The trial court ruled the affidavit did not establish 

probable cause for a search warrant of the residence. It 

characterized the affidavit as more than "bare bones" but found 

it "so lacking in probable cause" that the good faith exception 

was not applicable. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). 

The trial court suppressed the evidence found pursuant to the 

 1

 The affidavit recited these facts: 

On Tuesday, 03-21-00 at approximately 

3:20 pm I [Captain Boles] spoke with King & 

Queen County Deputy Sheriff Tommy Atkinson 

by telephone regarding identification of a 

television which he had located in a wooded 

area in the rear of the residence of Eric 

Norman . . . in King & Queen County, 

Virginia. Atkinson told me that [the] 

serial number [on the television] matches 

the television stolen from the residence of 

Robert Pitts. 

- 2 -
warrant but admitted the television found "in a wooded area in 

the rear" of the residence. 

 Ordinarily, an officer executing a search warrant "cannot 

be expected to question the magistrate's probable-cause 

determination or his judgment that the form of the warrant is 

technically sufficient." Leon, 468 U.S. at 921. The good faith 

exception does not apply if (1) there is evidence the magistrate 

abandoned his judicial role, (2) the magistrate was misled by 

information in the affidavit, (3) the warrant was so lacking in 

indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its 

existence unreasonable, or (4) the warrant was so facially 

deficient that an officer could not have reasonably assumed it 

was valid. Leon, 468 U.S. at 923. 

The Commonwealth did not appeal the ruling that the 

affidavit did not provide probable cause for a search warrant. 

The parties agree that only the third exception of Leon could 

apply in this case. The issue is whether the officer could 

reasonably presume the warrant was valid. Atkins v. 

Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 462, 464, 389 S.E.2d 179, 180 (1990). 

Colaw v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 806, 810-11, 531 S.E.2d 

31, 33 (2000), refused to apply the good faith exception where 

an informant provided sketchy information about a drug party to 

be held at a residence. The affidavit was "bare bones" and 

contained nothing more than conclusory declarations about a 

- 3 -
future event. It failed to provide a basis for the informant's 

knowledge and did not even state when the party would be held. 

Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 646, 652, 472 S.E.2d 

649, 652, aff'd en banc, 23 Va. App. 696, 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996), 

reversed an application of the good faith exception. The police 

observed the defendants cultivating marijuana in a field in 

Dinwiddie County. They obtained a search warrant for the 

defendants' home in Hopewell. The affidavit failed to provide a 

nexus between the marijuana found in Dinwiddie and the residence 

in Hopewell. "[T]he affidavit gave absolutely no indication 

that the fruits of the criminal activity would probably be 

found" at the defendants' residence. 22 Va. App. at 653-54, 472 

S.E.2d at 653. 

In this case, the trial court found that the search warrant 

was supported by more than a "bare bones" affidavit. The 

information was not a conclusory declaration about a future 

event at some unspecified time. It was a clear and succinct 

statement of fact by a deputy sheriff who had identified the 

precise television taken during the burglary. The deputy found 

it in the woods behind the defendants' house. The officer 

investigating the burglary compiled the information during his 

continuing investigation of the burglary. The information came 

from a deputy sheriff, not from an unconnected tip by an unknown 

informer. A reasonable officer could infer that the stolen 

television hidden in the woods behind a house was connected to 

- 4 -
the house or the people in it. The location of the stolen 

television provided a nexus between the information in the 

affidavit and the place to be searched. The television itself 

was admitted into evidence. 

 "[T]he exclusionary rule is designed to deter police 

misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and 

magistrates." Leon, 468 U.S. at 916. Evidence seized pursuant 

to a warrant should be suppressed "on a case-by-case basis and 

only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the 

purposes of the exclusionary rule." Leon, 468 U.S. at 918. If 

none of the evils to be avoided in Leon are present, the 

evidence should be admitted. Polston v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 

500, 504, 498 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1998); Derr v. Commonwealth, 242 

Va. 413, 422, 410 S.E.2d 662, 667 (1991). 

As in Leon, the information in the affidavit provided 

"evidence sufficient to create disagreement among thoughtful and 

competent judges as to the existence of probable cause." 468 

U.S. at 926. The trial court found deficiencies in timeliness 

of the information and the lack of detail about the proximity 

and association of the woods with the house, but that was detail 

for the magistrate to assay. We conclude the warrant was 

sufficiently descriptive that the officer could reasonably 

presume it was valid. He acted in good faith in executing the 

- 5 -
warrant and acted within its scope. Accordingly, the good faith 

exception applied, and the evidence is admissible. 

Reversed and remanded.

- 6 -