COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Bray and Overton 

Argued by Teleconference 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

v. Record No. 0392-96-2 

JOANNA RODRIGUEZ 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

-and- JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 AUGUST 6, 1996 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

v. Record No. 0393-96-2 

PLACIDO JEFFREY NUNEZ, A/K/A 

 PLACIDO JEFFREY 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY 

James E. Kulp, Judge 

 Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on briefs), for appellants. 

 Jeffrey L. Everhart (Rice & Everhart, on 

brief), for appellee Joanna Rodriguez. 

 J. Bradley Davis (Davis & Morgan, on brief), 

for appellee Placido Jeffrey Nunez, a/k/a 

Placido Jeffrey. 

 On appeal from the trial court's suppression of evidence 

found upon the search of a motel room, the Commonwealth contends 

that the trial court erred in holding that the occupant's consent 

to the search was coerced by the police. We disagree and affirm 

the judgments of the trial court. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 I. 

 As a threshold issue, the Commonwealth contends that Ms. 

Rodriguez lacks standing to object to the officers' search of the 

room because she was not the registered occupant. We reject this 

argument. As stipulated by the Commonwealth's Attorney, Ms. 

Rodriguez was a lawful occupant of the room. As such, she had a 

reasonable expectation of privacy. See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 

U.S. 91, 98-100 (1990). 

 II. 

 [I]n reviewing a trial court's ruling on a 

suppression motion, we consider the evidence 

in the "light most favorable to . . . the 

prevailing party below," . . . and the 

decision of the trial judge will be disturbed 

only if plainly wrong. 

Hetmeyer v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 103, 105, 448 S.E.2d 894, 

896 (1994). 

 While noting that it found no "misbehavior" on the part of 

the police, the trial court held that their persistence "went 

beyond reason, and that they overbore the rights of the 

defendants in this case." The trial court found that Nunez's 

consent to the entry of the police into the motel room was not 

voluntary. The record supports this holding. 

 When Officer Koushel first approached the motel room, he 

could see a light inside. Upon his initial knock on the door, 

the light was extinguished. Nunez peered through the window. 

Koushel gave his name and displayed his badge. The occupants of 

the room did not open the door. The police telephoned the room 
- 3 - 

twice. At the first call, the telephone receiver in the room was 

lifted but no one spoke. The receiver was then replaced. The 

second call was unanswered. Only after the officers had knocked 

on the door repeatedly for fifteen minutes did Nunez open the 

door and admit them to the room. This record supports a finding 

that by extinguishing the light, refusing to talk on the 

telephone, and failing to open the door, the occupants of the 

room expressed their unwillingness to talk to or admit the 

officers. Thus, the record supports the trial court's conclusion 

that the officers' repeated and persistent demand for entry 

overbore the ability of the room's occupants to resist that 

demand. See United States v. Wilson, 953 F.2d 116 (4th Cir. 

1991). 

 The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. 

 Affirmed.