COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Senior Judge Baker*

Argued by teleconference 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION** BY 

v. Record No. 0867-98-1 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

 AUGUST 18, 1998 

GEORGE GRIFFIN 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

H. Thomas Padrick, Jr., Judge 

 John H. McLees, Jr., Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 James R. McKenry (Heilig, McKenry, Fraim & 

Lollar, on brief), for appellee. 

 George Griffin (defendant) was before the trial court on 

indictments alleging possession of cocaine with intent to 

distribute, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and 

distribution of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. Defendant 

moved the court to suppress evidence related to the offenses, 

complaining of a warrantless, unlawful search and seizure. 

Following an ore tenus hearing on defendant's motion, the court 

concluded that the existence of probable cause required police to 

proceed by search warrant and granted defendant's motion. The 

Commonwealth appeals pursuant to Code § 19.2-398, and we reverse 

 

 *Judge Baker participated in the hearing and decision of 

this case prior to the effective date of his retirement on July 

31, 1998 and thereafter by his designation as senior judge 

pursuant to Code § 17-116.01. 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

the order. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record, and a 

recitation of the attendant facts is unnecessary to our 

disposition of this appeal. 

 Guided by well established principles, we view the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below, 

defendant in this instance, granting all reasonable inferences 

fairly deducible therefrom. See Commonwealth v. Grimstead, 12 

Va. App. 1066, 1067, 407 S.E.2d 47, 48 (1991). "Questions of 

. . . probable cause to make a warrantless search are subject to 

de novo review on appeal. 'In performing such analysis, we are 

bound by the trial court's findings of historical fact unless 

"plainly wrong" or without evidence to support them.'" Archer v. 

Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 1, 8, 492 S.E.2d 826, 830 (1997) 

(citations omitted). 

 The facts are not in dispute and it is uncontroverted that 

police had probable cause to believe that defendant possessed 

cocaine at the time of the challenged search and seizure. Under 

such circumstances, a warrantless arrest of defendant, together 

with an incidental search and seizure of his person, was lawful. 

Lovelace v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 575, 582-83, 500 S.E.2d 

267, 271 (1998); Code § 19.2-81. Contrary to defendant's 

contention, Detective Savino's intentions in undertaking the 

search "play no role in ordinary, probable cause Fourth Amendment 

analysis." Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996); 
- 3 - 

Lovelace, 27 Va. App. at 584, 500 S.E.2d at 271. Similarly, it 

is of no moment that defendant's arrest followed the search 

"[w]here, as here, the product of the search was not essential to 

probable cause to arrest" and was quickly followed by such 

arrest. Wright v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 188, 192, 278 S.E.2d 

849, 852-53 (1981). 

 Accordingly, we reverse the order suppressing the subject 

evidence and remand for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 

 Reversed and remanded.