COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges O’Brien, Fulton and Callins

Argued at Richmond, Virginia

JAMAR A. MEREDITH, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS

 JAMAR ANTOINE MEREDITH

MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY

v. Record No. 1006-22-2 JUDGE JUNIUS P. FULTON, III

JANUARY 30, 2024

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND

W. Reilly Marchant, Judge

Meghan Shapiro, Senior Appellate Attorney (Jennifer T. Stanton, 

Senior Appellate Attorney; Indigent Defense Commission, on 

briefs), for appellant.

Susan Hallie Hovey-Murray, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. 

Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Jamar A. Meredith appeals the decision of the trial court denying his motion to suppress 

evidence found during the warrantless search of his clothing, which an emergency room nurse gave 

to police after treating Meredith for a gunshot wound. Finding no error, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

“On appeal of the denial of a motion to suppress, we view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth.” Joyce v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 9, 13 (2020) (quoting 

Carlson v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 749, 757 (2019)). On July 15, 2020, Meredith drove 

himself to a community hospital after sustaining a gunshot wound. Hospital staff removed his

clothing to provide treatment and placed his personal effects in an open brown paper bag in his 

treatment room.

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).

UNPUBLISHED
- 2 -

Detective Kevin Hyde arrived at the hospital to investigate the shooting shortly after 

midnight. He found Meredith in an emergency ward treatment room with “three or four” other 

people, including hospital personnel. When Hyde questioned Meredith about the shooting, he gave 

a “run-around story” and initially refused to provide information beyond revealing that that he was 

shot in Richmond. After Detective Hyde ended the interview, a nurse gave him the brown paper 

bag containing Meredith’s bloody clothing, which had been cut from his body during the 

administration of emergency medical care. Hyde did not ask for the clothes; rather, the nurse gave 

him the bag as he was leaving. At that point, Hyde did not know whether appellant was a victim or 

a perpetrator of any crime. 

Detective Hyde then examined Meredith’s vehicle, which was parked about 30 yards from 

the hospital entrance. Meredith’s identification card and bank card were on the bloody driver’s seat. 

In addition, Hyde saw a black semi-automatic handgun in plain sight between the driver’s seat and 

the door. Detective Hyde opened the unlocked door and seized the handgun. He then took 

Meredith’s bloody clothes to police headquarters to place them in the forensics dry room. While 

checking the clothes’ pockets, Detective Hyde found a tic tac container holding a “gray powdery 

substance” later determined to be Eutylone, a Schedule I controlled substance. 

Meredith moved to suppress the Eutylone, alleging that Detective Hyde obtained it in 

violation of the Fourth Amendment. At the suppression hearing, Detective Hyde testified that there 

had been three homicides and five shootings in Richmond on the night Meredith was shot. When

Hyde arrived at the hospital, Meredith was being treated in an emergency ward treatment room, 

with the door open, and medical staff already had cut off and removed his clothes. When the nurse 

handed him the brown bag, he could not see into the bag but was aware that it contained Meredith’s 

clothing. The door to Meredith’s treatment room remained open while Hyde was there. 
- 3 -

The trial court denied Meredith’s motion to suppress, finding that Meredith “did not have a

reasonable expectation of privacy in the hospital or in the bag of ripped, bloody clothing voluntarily 

given to the Officer by the medical staff.” Following the trial court’s ruling, Meredith entered a 

conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the trial court’s judgment on his motion to 

suppress. 

ANALYSIS

“When this Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, ‘the appellant bears 

the burden of showing that the ruling, when the evidence is considered most favorably to the 

Commonwealth, constituted reversible error.’” Scott v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 452, 458 

(2018) (quoting Sanders v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 734, 743 (2015)). “[A]n appellate court 

must give deference to the factual findings of the circuit court and give due weight to the inferences 

drawn from those factual findings; however, the appellate court must determine independently 

whether the manner in which the evidence was obtained meets the requirements of the Fourth 

Amendment.” Moore v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 30, 36 (2018) (alteration in original) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Robertson, 275 Va. 559, 563 (2008)).

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides “[t]he right of the people 

to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and 

seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “‘[T]he touchstone’ of Fourth Amendment analysis has been 

‘the question whether a person has a “constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of 

privacy.”’” Sanders, 64 Va. App. at 743 (quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 177 

(1984)). “Determining whether particular action by law enforcement constitutes a search for 

purposes of the Fourth Amendment involves a two-pronged test.” Id. at 744. “First, a defendant 

must show ‘that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched.’” Id. (quoting 

Rideout v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 779, 786 (2014)). “Second, he must prove that his 
- 4 -

expectation is objectively ‘reasonable’ based on ‘a source outside of the Fourth Amendment.’” Id.

(quoting Rideout, 62 Va. App. at 786). A “defendant may establish such a source by reference to 

either: (1) ‘concepts of real or personal property law’ or (2) ‘understandings that are recognized and 

permitted by society.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 408 (2012)).

Meredith argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress based on the

court’s “finding [that] there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in Mr. Meredith’s clothing.” 

He maintains that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy “in his hospital room clothing” 

because he was in a private hospital room and did not consent to any search. He also argues that 

Detective Hyde directed the hospital nurse to give him the bloody clothing even though Hyde did 

not suspect that Meredith was the perpetrator of any offense. Thus, Meredith insists that a warrant 

was required to search his clothing and no exception to the warrant requirement applied. 

In contrast, the Commonwealth argues that Meredith was not actually in a private hospital 

room, but a public room located in the emergency ward. Further, the Commonwealth disagrees 

with Meredith’s characterization that Detective Hyde directed the nurse to hand over Meredith’s 

clothing; the Commonwealth asserts that the record demonstrates that the nurse offered the bag 

containing Meredith’s clothing to Detective Hyde after removing the clothing during the 

administration of medical care to Meredith. This, the Commonwealth argues, did not even 

constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. We agree with the Commonwealth, to an extent.

However, the Commonwealth’s arguments on brief do not sufficiently address the privacy interests 

that Meredith asserts in the pockets of his clothing. Nevertheless, we affirm, holding that the trial 

court’s ruling below was right for a different reason.

Meredith primarily relies on two cases to support his argument: Morris v. Commonwealth, 

208 Va. 331 (1967), and this Court’s unpublished opinion in Spaulding v. Commonwealth, No. 

0394-15-1, 2016 WL 489803 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2016). 
- 5 -

Meredith relies on Morris in asserting that he had a privacy interest in the hospital room he 

was treated in. Meredith’s reliance on Morris is unpersuasive. In Morris, the defendant was shot 

during an altercation near a dance hall, apparently by his own .22 caliber pistol firing accidentally in 

his pocket, and “went to the hospital for treatment where he remained several days.” 208 Va. at 

333. The day after Morris arrived at the hospital, a police officer arrived and “asked a registered 

nurse on duty there to give him [the defendant]’s clothes.” Id. The nurse removed the clothes from 

the “wardrobe in the room which had been assigned to [the defendant],” while he was sedated and 

asleep, and gave them “to the officer.” Id. The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s hospital 

room, which he “had been assigned . . . and paid for,” was equivalent to a hotel room and “may not 

lawfully be entered without a search warrant.” Id. at 334 (citing United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 

48, 51-52 (1951)). Further, the Supreme Court later clarified that a search and seizure had, in fact, 

taken place, given the private nature of the room and the fact that the officer directed the nurse to 

retrieve Morris’s clothes. See Craft v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 258, 262 (1980) (reviewing the 

facts and holding of Morris).

Morris hinged on the fact that the defendant had a private hospital room that was assigned to 

him and in which he was receiving long term care over multiple days. 208 Va. at 334. By contrast, 

we have held that when a defendant is in an open treatment room in a hospital emergency ward, he 

does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy that would require a search warrant. See 

Matthews v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 412, 415 (1999). In Matthews, the defendant, suspected

of abduction, was in a car accident and “was placed in a treatment room within the emergency ward 

so that intravenous fluids could be administered.” Id. at 413. Police arrived and entered Matthew’s 

treatment room where they read him his Miranda1rights, questioned him, and “[w]ith his consent

. . . seized his clothing and personal effects.” Id.

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
- 6 -

On appeal, Matthews “contend[ed] that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights 

when they entered the emergency ward treatment room . . . [and that] all evidence subsequently 

seized from the room was illegally obtained and should have been suppressed.” Id. at 414. This 

Court found that Matthews did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the “emergency 

ward treatment room.” Id. In distinguishing Morris, we emphasized that the room was dedicated 

“for the provision of emergency ward treatment” and not dedicated to long term care, the door was 

open, members of the defendant’s family were in the room, and medical personnel freely entered 

and left the room to provide care. Id. The defendant’s “contention that the room was separate from 

the emergency ward and was private [wa]s without evidentiary support. The room was a part of the 

emergency ward and, as such, afforded Matthews no expectation of privacy.” Id. at 415 (emphasis 

added). Here, just as in Matthews, Meredith had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the room 

itself. Meredith’s treatment room was part of the emergency ward, its door was open, other people 

were present in the room, and there was no indication that anyone objected to Detective Hyde’s 

presence there. See id. Therefore, Meredith had no privacy interest in the emergency ward 

treatment room, itself. This does not end the analysis, however, as Meredith also argues that he had 

a separate privacy interest in his clothing. 

Turning to Meredith’s clothing, itself, we agree with Meredith that, pursuant to Spaulding, 

he retained a privacy interest in the pockets of his clothing. Spaulding is an unpublished case,2

which addressed the discovery of narcotics as the result of a search of the defendant’s pants pocket 

in a moving ambulance while the defendant was conscious. Spaulding, slip op. at 2, 2016 WL 

489803, at *1. Spaulding itself stated that “[a]s the parties are fully conversant with the record in 

this case and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, this opinion recites 

2

“[U]npublished opinions are merely persuasive authority and not binding precedent.” 

English v. Quinn, 76 Va. App. 80, 88 n.9 (2022). While Spaulding “will not be received as 

binding authority,” consideration of it “is permitted as informative.” Rule 5:1(f).
- 7 -

only those facts and incidents of the proceedings as are necessary to the parties’ understanding of 

the disposition of this appeal.” Spaulding, slip op. at 2 n.1, 2016 WL 489803, at *1 n.1. In 

concluding that the Commonwealth had failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness of a 

warrantless search, the Court there stated: 

In the present case, the Commonwealth failed to provide any 

facts to support a constitutional basis for the warrantless search of 

appellant’s pants’ pockets. The parties agreed to resolve the case on 

the merits, on a stipulated record. This stipulated record is absolutely 

devoid of facts presenting any exception to the warrant requirement 

applicable to Officer Stephens’s search of appellant’s pants’ pockets.

. . . Simply stated, the Commonwealth cannot overcome the 

presumption of unreasonableness of a warrantless search based on 

the record before us.

Spaulding, slip op. at 4, 2016 WL 489803, at *2. Spaulding was therefore cabined to its distinct 

facts, or lack thereof, in the record of that case. Nevertheless, we agree with Meredith that 

Spaulding stands for the proposition that an individual retains a privacy interest in the pockets of his 

clothing, notwithstanding that the clothing may have been removed by medical personnel during the 

administration of emergency medical care. Cf. United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 226, 242-46 (4th 

Cir. 2012) (holding that the victim of a crime who was not arrested as a suspect “retains a privacy 

interest in his or her DNA material” found on clothing removed from him or her during the 

administration of emergency medical care and that “even if [the clothing] is lawfully in police 

custody[,] . . . the extraction of [the] DNA sample from [the] clothing and the creation of [a] DNA 

profile constituted a search for Fourth Amendment purposes,” and therefore implicates the 

defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights).

The Commonwealth argues that Craft should control our analysis, over Spaulding, because

the holdings of the two cases are inherently irreconcilable and Craft is a published Supreme Court 

case. We disagree, as we do not read the holdings in Spaulding and Craft as inconsistent. In Craft, 

the defendant attempted to rob the owner of a convenience store but was shot twice by the owner 
- 8 -

during the attempted robbery. 221 Va. at 260. The owner described his assailant as wearing an “old 

flowered shirt.” Id. The defendant voluntarily admitted himself to the hospital to receive medical 

treatment for his gunshot wounds. Id. at 260-62. During the administration of medical care, 

medical personnel cut away the defendant’s clothing—a distinct floral-patterned shirt containing 

“two bullet holes”—and also removed a bullet from the defendant’s torso. Id. The surgeon who 

operated on the defendant thereafter asked the investigating officer whether they wanted to keep the 

clothes and bullet as potential evidence of a crime. The officer responded in the affirmative. 

During the subsequent criminal proceeding against the defendant, the Commonwealth sought to 

introduce the bullet and his clothing in order to connect the defendant to the attempted robbery and 

shooting earlier in the night, and the defendant sought to suppress the bullet and his clothing on 

Fourth Amendment grounds. Id. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion. Id. 

In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Supreme Court held that “[a] person admitting 

himself to an emergency room has little expectation of privacy.” Id. at 262. Further, “[w]hen [the 

defendant] voluntarily presented himself in the emergency room of the hospital he impliedly 

consented to be given necessary medical attention.” Id.

[T]he removal of the defendant’s clothing by hospital personnel was 

incident to his examination[,] . . . [n]o search by the officers was 

[therefore] required or effected[,] . . . [t]he articles lawfully came into 

the possession of [medical personnel,] and . . . there was no reason 

why they should not have been delivered to and received by [law 

enforcement]. 

Id. at 263. The Court went on to cite to Commonwealth v. Storella, 375 N.E.2d 348 (Mass. App. Ct. 

1978), for the proposition that “the doctor who removed the bullet and turned it over to the police 

was not acting as an agent of the police but merely as a private citizen cooperating with the police 

by turning evidence of crime over to them,” that “[i]t has long been settled that the Fourth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution applies only to searches and seizures taken by or at 

the direction of the State,” and that “evidence obtained illegally by private parties and turned over to 
- 9 -

the police is not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Craft, 221 Va. at 263 (quoting

Storella, 375 N.E.2d at 350).

The distinction between Craft and Spaulding is therefore apparent: in Craft, the clothing 

itself was used as evidence to connect the defendant to the attempted robbery earlier that night; but

in Spaulding, the clothing was not the item that the defendant sought to suppress, but rather the 

contraband discovered inside the clothing. Therefore, the appropriate question in Craft was whether 

the clothing itself was lawfully obtained by the police, whereas the appropriate question in 

Spaulding (and in the instant case) is whether the contraband discovered inside the clothing was 

obtained lawfully. The clothing in Craft was not seized by a state actor, but a private citizen. 

Therefore, no seizure actually occurred, and the police lawfully came into possession of the 

clothing. But in Spaulding, though the police officer lawfully possessed the clothing for similar 

reasons as in Craft, the officer’s subsequent search of the pockets of the victim’s clothing was an 

unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. 

Just as in Craft, Meredith also consented to the removal of his clothing, and medical 

personnel gave his clothing to Detective Hyde. “The removal of [Meredith’s] clothing by hospital 

personnel was incident to his examination and treatment.” Craft, 221 Va. at 263. “No search by the 

officers was required or effected” because “the clothing . . . w[as] not hidden or concealed. The 

articles lawfully came into the possession of [the doctor] and, under the circumstances of this case, 

there was no reason why they should not have been delivered to and received by the officers.” Id. 

Meredith claims that “police intentionally asked for Mr. Meredith’s clothes” and that “they 

were not volunteered to the officers like the clothes in Craft.” That argument is belied by the 

record. Detective Hyde explicitly testified that he did not tell the nurse to “give [him the] clothes.” 

Instead, the nurse gave the clothes to him unsolicited as he was “just leaving.” Although Meredith 

cites to certain ambiguous or contradictory statements in the record implying that Detective Hyde 
- 10 -

expressly asked for the clothes, we view the evidence on appeal “in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth.” Joyce, 72 Va. App. at 13 (quoting Carlson, 69 Va. App. at 757). In addition, it is 

well-established that the trial court, not this Court on appeal, may accept or discard all or part of the 

testimony as it thinks proper, and resolve any inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony. Juniper v. 

Commonwealth, 271 Va. 362, 415 (2006) (citing Shelton v. Mullins, 207 Va. 17, 22 (1966)). As 

the trial court’s conclusion that a nurse gave the clothes to Detective Hyde unsolicited is supported 

by the record, that finding is binding on appeal.

However, notwithstanding the fact that Detective Hyde lawfully came into possession of 

Meredith’s clothing, Meredith still retained a privacy interest in the pockets of his clothing, per 

Spaulding. Meredith is correct that unlike himself, the defendant in Craft “never argued he had a 

privacy interest in his clothing.” In Craft, the Supreme Court explicitly held that “[t]he removal of 

[the defendant’s] clothing and the removal of the bullet were necessary incidents” to the treatment, 

and “[a]s evidence of criminal agency the clothing and bullet were seizable objects, and under the 

facts of this case were appropriate objects to be voluntarily surrendered by the doctor who was in 

lawful control thereof.” 221 Va. at 264 (citing Ritter v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 732 (1970)). 

However, the character and significance of the clothing in Craft is different than that of Meredith’s 

clothing, here. The clothing in Craft was itself probative evidence of a crime, and the 

Commonwealth relied on the clothing itself in connecting Craft to the attempted robbery. In 

contrast, here, the Commonwealth went a step further, by seeking to introduce the contraband found 

inside Meredith’s clothing. Because the police did not obtain a warrant before searching the 

pockets of Meredith’s clothing, the Commonwealth must show either that the warrantless search 

was reasonable and supported by an exception to the warrant requirement or that the exclusionary 

rule is inappropriate under the circumstances.
- 11 -

The Commonwealth argues that even if the search was unreasonable, the exclusionary rule 

should not apply. Citing Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011), the Commonwealth argues 

on brief that because “Detective Hyde did not engage in any purposeful misconduct or gross 

negligence . . . [and therefore] excluding the evidence recovered from the bloody clothing [would 

provide] no deterrent effect.” The Commonwealth further cites Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 

135, 141 (2009), for the proposition that “the exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies 

only where it ‘result[s] in appreciable deterrence.’”

In Herring, a police officer, reasonably relying on a belief that “there [wa]s an outstanding 

arrest warrant” for the defendant based on “a negligent bookkeeping error by another police 

employee,” arrested the defendant, searched him incident to that arrest, and ultimately discovered 

contraband on his person. Id. at 137. The defendant “moved to suppress the evidence on the 

ground that his initial arrest had been illegal because the warrant had been rescinded,” but the trial 

court denied the motion. Id. at 138. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, stating 

that “[t]he extent to which the exclusionary rule is justified by . . . deterrence principles varies with 

the culpability of the law enforcement conduct.” Id. at 143. The Court in Herring then went on to 

hold that:

To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently 

deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently 

culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice 

system. As laid out in our cases, the exclusionary rule serves to deter 

deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some 

circumstances recurring or systemic negligence. The error in this 

case does not rise to that level.

Id. at 144. In other words, because the mistake made by the police officer in Herring was the result 

of negligence not attributable to any systemic police practices but was instead an anomalous event, 

the exclusionary rule did not apply. 
- 12 -

In Davis, the Court applied the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, noting again 

that “[t]he rule’s sole purpose . . . is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations” and that “the 

deterrence benefits of exclusion ‘var[y] with the culpability of the law enforcement conduct’ at 

issue.” 564 U.S. at 236, 238 (alteration in original) (quoting Herring, 555 U.S. at 143). There, a 

police officer reasonably relied on binding judicial precedent from the Eleventh Circuit in effecting 

a search. Id. at 239. The Davis Court upheld the search, holding that:

Although the search turned out to be unconstitutional under [future 

Supreme Court precedent], all agree that the officers’ conduct was in 

strict compliance with then-binding Circuit law and was not culpable 

in any way. . . . 

Under our exclusionary-rule precedents, this acknowledged 

absence of police culpability dooms [the appellant’s] claim. Police 

practices trigger the harsh sanction of exclusion only when they are 

deliberate enough to yield “meaningfu[l]” deterrence, and culpable 

enough to be “worth the price paid by the justice system.” The 

conduct of the officers here was neither of these things. The officers 

who conducted the search did not violate [the appellant’s] Fourth 

Amendment rights deliberately, recklessly, or with gross negligence. 

Nor does this case involve any “recurring or systemic negligence” on 

the part of law enforcement. The police acted in strict compliance 

with binding precedent, and their behavior was not wrongful. Unless 

the exclusionary rule is to become a strict-liability regime, it can 

have no application in this case.

Id. at 239-40 (third alteration in original) (quoting Herring, 555 U.S. at 144). 

In the present case, Detective Hyde testified that “when there is a (sic) bloody clothes,” it is 

“standard procedure” to “take them to the forensic floor[,] . . . put them in a dry room[,] . . . [and] 

open them up [and] . . . go through them . . . [to ensure that there isn’t] anything that shouldn’t be in 

there.” We are skeptical of the Commonwealth’s reliance on Herring and Davis,

3

given the 

seemingly intentional and systemic nature of Detective Hyde’s search of the pockets of Meredith’s 

3 For the sake of clarity, we note that we refer here to the United States Supreme Court 

decision, Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011), not the Fourth Circuit case mentioned 

supra, United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2012).
- 13 -

clothing. However, we need not address those arguments, as we affirm the trial court’s ruling below

based on a different exception to the warrant requirement.4

The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Gravitt, 484 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1973), recognized that 

“when the police take custody of any sort of container—be it an automobile, suitcase, or any other 

thing in which property may be stored—it is reasonable to search the container to itemize the 

property to be held by the police.” Id. at 378 (citing United States v. Boyd, 436 F.2d 1203 (1971)). 

This type of “inventory search” is permissible on the ground that “the underlying principle [is] that 

the [F]ourth [A]mendment proscribes only unreasonable searches.” Id. (citing United States v. 

Lipscomb, 435 F.2d 795, 800 (5th Cir. 1970)). The rationale explicated by the Fifth Circuit in 

Gravitt was that “[a]n inventory is . . . necessary both to preserve the property of the 

[individual] . . . and to forestall the possibility that the [individual] may later claim that some item 

has not been returned to him.” Id. (quoting Lipscomb, 435 F.2d at 800).

Virginia has recognized the propriety of inventory searches performed by police officers, 

sometimes dubbed the “‘community caretaker’ exception.” See Williams v. Commonwealth, 42 

Va. App. 723, 730 (2004). In Williams, this Court, applying the exception to the search of a 

suspect’s vehicle, stated that:

Under the community caretaker exception, the police may 

conduct a warrantless inventory search of a vehicle provided the 

following conditions are met: 1) the vehicle must be lawfully 

4 We affirm the trial court based on the “right result for the wrong reason” doctrine. “The 

‘right result for the wrong reason’ doctrine has been a part of the law of Virginia for well over a 

century.” Spinner v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 384, 391 (2019) (citing Schultz v. Schultz, 51 Va. 

358, 384 (1853)). “We have long said that ‘[w]e do not hesitate, in a proper case, where the 

correct conclusion has been reached but the wrong reason given, to sustain the result and assign 

the right ground.’” Banks v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 612, 617 (2010) (alteration in original) 

(quoting Eason v. Eason, 204 Va. 347, 352 (1963)); see also Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 

572, 582 (2010) (“An appellate court is not limited to the grounds offered by the trial court in 

support of its decision, and it is ‘entitled to affirm the court’s judgment on alternate grounds, if 

such grounds are apparent from the record.’” (quoting MM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 

F.3d 523, 536 (4th Cir. 2002))). This is in keeping with the principle of deciding cases on the 

best and narrowest grounds. See Vandyke v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 723, 731 (2020).
- 14 -

impounded; 2) the impoundment and subsequent search must be 

conducted pursuant to standard police procedures; and 3) the 

impoundment and subsequent search must not be a pretextual 

surrogate for an improper investigatory motive.

Id. at 731.

In upholding the search conducted by police there, this Court reasoned that the same policy 

considerations outlined in Gravitt justified the search—those policy considerations being: “the 

protection of the owner’s property while it remains in police custody,” “the protection of police 

against claims or disputes concerning lost or stolen property,” and the “protection of the public and 

the police from physical danger.” Id. at 730 (citing Reese v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 1035, 1039 

(1980)). Here, the same policy considerations justify the search conducted by Detective Hyde, and 

his search complied with the three requirements set out in Williams: (1) the clothing was “lawfully 

[obtained]”; (2) the search was “conducted pursuant to standard police procedures”; and (3) the 

search was not “a pretextual surrogate for an improper investigatory motive.” Id. at 731. Therefore, 

pursuant to the inventory exception, the search conducted by Detective Hyde was reasonable.

CONCLUSION

The trial court properly denied Meredith’s motion to suppress, as Meredith did not have a 

reasonable expectation of privacy in the emergency ward treatment room he was treated in, the 

police lawfully came into possession of his clothing, and the subsequent search of the pockets of his 

clothing was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.