COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Humphreys and Clements 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

JEFFREY LYNN COFFEY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2912-01-3 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 JANUARY 28, 2003 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AUGUSTA COUNTY 

Thomas H. Wood, Judge 

 Frank A. Mika for appellant. 

 Margaret W. Reed, Assistant Attorney General 

(Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 The trial court convicted Jeffrey Lynn Coffey of possession 

of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm while in 

possession of drugs. He contends the magistrate lacked probable 

cause to issue the search warrant for his residence. He also 

maintains the evidence was insufficient to prove he possessed 

methamphetamine. Finding no error, we affirm. 

When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we 

consider evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth. Fore v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 1007, 1010, 265 

S.E.2d 729, 731 (1980). Augusta County deputies accompanied 

Waynesboro police officers to execute an arrest warrant and 

 

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

designated for publication.
- 2 - 

search warrant. The city warrant charged felony embezzlement 

and authorized a search of the defendant's home, which was in 

the county. 

During a search incident to the arrest, the officers 

discovered a vial of marijuana on the defendant's person. The 

defendant consented to a search of his house for drugs and told 

the officers his safe contained additional marijuana. On top of 

the safe the officers found a vial of marijuana and a baggie 

with an off-white powder that they later determined to be .38 

grams of methamphetamine. Inside the safe the officers found 

more marijuana. The defendant admitted the marijuana and safe 

were his, but denied possessing the methamphetamine. 

The defendant contends the affidavit for the search warrant 

was insufficient because it did not establish the informer's 

reliability or show why evidence of the embezzlement would be 

found in his residence. The zone vice-president for Cmart 

convenience stores, who was responsible for investigating 

embezzlements, investigated the loss of $15,000 from the 

Waynesboro store that the defendant managed. He determined 

several recorded bank deposits had never been made and the 

defendant had under-reported gas sales and had altered the 

store's books. The defendant's job included verifying the 

accuracy of store receipts. The company's investigator reported 

his findings to Waynesboro police. A police investigator 

corroborated the report by interviewing other store employees, 
- 3 - 

and then prepared an affidavit recounting the facts developed by 

the store and the police. A magistrate issued a felony arrest 

warrant charging embezzlement and a search warrant for the 

defendant's residence. 

In determining whether an affidavit is sufficient to 

support the issuance of a search warrant, we look to the 

totality of circumstances and give "great deference . . . to the 

magistrate's finding of probable cause." Derr v. Commonwealth, 

242 Va. 413, 421, 410 S.E.2d 662, 666 (1991). Our role is to 

"ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for . . . 

conclud[ing] that probable cause existed." Illinois v. Gates, 

462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted). 

We conclude the affidavit provided ample basis for the 

magistrate to find probable cause that the defendant committed 

embezzlement and that a search of his residence would uncover 

evidence of that offense. The source of the information was the 

company vice-president responsible for investigating 

embezzlements. The investigating police officer corroborated 

the company's investigation. The magistrate could reasonably 

believe the investigator's information and could reasonably 

infer that the defendant would have evidence of the embezzlement 

at his home. 

The search was lawful for two additional reasons. The 

officer's reliance on the search warrant came within the good 
- 4 - 

faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Polston v. 

Commonwealth, 255 Va. 500, 504, 498 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1998). 

Finally, the officers were lawfully present in the defendant's 

house while executing an arrest warrant issued on probable 

cause. They discovered marijuana on the defendant's person and 

obtained his consent to search his residence for other drugs. 

The defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to 

prove possession of methamphetamine. The Commonwealth must show 

the defendant was aware of both the presence and character of 

the drug and that it was subject to his dominion and control. 

Drew v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 471, 473, 338 S.E.2d 844, 845 

(1986). 

The defendant owned the house. He kept a locked safe in 

the closet of his master bedroom. He kept his guns in a gun 

cabinet and the keys to the cabinet in that room. He knew the 

combination to the safe and opened it for the police. He told 

the police he kept additional marijuana in the safe, and they 

found marijuana inside the safe. They also found it on top of 

the safe along with methamphetamine. The trial court had 

photographs of the room when assessing the testimony about the 

defendant's relationship with the master bedroom. 

The defendant's proximity to the drug and ownership of the 

premises are circumstances to consider in determining whether he 

exercised dominion and control over the drug and "necessarily 

knows of the presence, nature and character of a substance that 
- 5 - 

is found there." Burchette v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 432, 

435, 425 S.E.2d 81, 83 (1992). In addition, "possession need 

not be exclusive." Josephs v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 87, 99, 

390 S.E.2d 491, 497 (1990). The facts and circumstances of this 

case support a reasonable inference that the defendant knew of 

the presence and character of the methamphetamine and exercised 

dominion and control over it. 

The defendant argued his nephew had been sleeping in the 

master bedroom while renovating the adjoining bathroom. He 

suggested that the methamphetamine might belong to the nephew 

because he was high when the officers arrived. The inferences 

drawn from proven facts are factual matters to be determined by 

the fact finder, and the trial court rejected that inference. 

Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 1, 12-13, 492 S.E.2d 826, 

832 (1997). "An hypothesis of innocence must arise from the 

evidence rather than from the imagination of defense counsel." 

Goins v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 442, 467, 470 S.E.2d 114, 130 

(1996). The trial court also rejected the defendant's testimony 

that he did not own the methamphetamine. Black v. Commonwealth, 

222 Va. 838, 842, 284 S.E.2d 608, 610 (1981); Sandoval v. 

Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995). 

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. 

 Affirmed.