COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Lemons and Frank 

Argued by teleconference 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0418-99-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 JULY 20, 1999 

SCOTT HUNTER HORTON 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS 

Robert W. Curran, Judge 

 Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General 

(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Ruth M. 

McKeaney, Assistant Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellant. 

Erin J. Goodman (George Holton Yates & 

Associates, P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 On appeal from an order suppressing evidence obtained in 

the search of a vehicle, the Commonwealth contends that the 

search was lawful because it was incident to the arrest of the 

vehicle's occupants. We agree and reverse the judgment of the 

trial court. 

 "We view the evidence in a light most favorable to . . . 

the prevailing party below, and we grant all reasonable 

inferences fairly deducible from that evidence." Commonwealth 

v. Grimstead, 12 Va. App. 1066, 1067, 407 S.E.2d 47, 48 (1991). 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
On July 15, 1998, police officers executed a search warrant 

at a residence in Newport News. During the search, Officer Bell 

and Detective Price received telephone calls from Robert and Amy 

Price (the Prices), inquiring about the purchase of drugs. The 

officers encouraged the couple to come to the house. 

 Soon thereafter, a Ford Bronco driven by Scott Hunter 

Horton arrived and parked on the public street in front of the 

residence. The Prices, who were passengers in the Bronco, got 

out and walked up to the house. They were met on the porch by 

Detective Price, who was posing as a drug dealer. The three 

spoke for a moment and then entered the house, where the 

officers identified themselves and arrested the Prices. 

 Upon the Prices' arrest, Detective Price approached the 

Bronco, identified himself to Horton, explained the situation, 

and requested permission to search the vehicle. Horton replied, 

"I'd rather you did not." At the same time, Sergeant Trawitzki 

approached the vehicle and informed Horton that he was going to 

search the vehicle's passenger compartment incident to the 

Prices' arrest, but that Horton was free to leave. 

 Upon searching the vehicle, the officers found in the rear 

passenger seat a backpack belonging to Horton that contained 

drugs. Horton was charged with possession of marijuana with 

intent to distribute, in violation of Code § 18.2-248.1, and 

possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 

Code § 18.2-248. 

- 2 -
 Holding that the warrantless search of the Bronco violated 

Horton's Fourth Amendment rights, the trial court granted his 

motion to suppress as evidence the drugs found in the search. 

The Commonwealth argues that the search was lawful because it 

was incident to the arrest of occupants of the vehicle. We 

agree. 

[W]hen a policeman has made a lawful 

custodial arrest of the occupant of an 

automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous 

incident of that arrest, search the 

passenger compartment of that automobile. 

New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460 (1981). This rule applies 

whether the occupant arrested is the driver or a passenger. See

United States v. Ortiz, 63 F.3d 952, 954 (1995). 

 The Prices were placed under lawful custodial arrest after 

they attempted to purchase drugs from the police officers. 

Immediately prior to their arrest, they had been passengers in 

the Bronco driven by Horton. The issue raised in this appeal is 

whether the search of the Bronco was made "as a contemporaneous 

incident of" the Prices' arrest. We hold that it was. 

 The fact that the Prices were taken into custody before the 

search does not alter the foregoing rule. See Glasco v. 

Commonwealth, 257 Va. 433, 438-39, 513 S.E.2d 137, 140 (1999). 

"A police officer may search the passenger 

compartment of an automobile incident to the 

lawful custodial arrest . . . even if the 

arrestee has been separated from his car 

prior to the search." 

- 3 -
Id. at 438, 513 S.E.2d at 140 (citation omitted). In Glasco, 

the police officer initiated contact after Glasco had exited his 

vehicle and was walking toward a house across the street. The 

police searched the vehicle after arresting Glasco and securing 

him in the rear of a police cruiser. 

"[O]fficers may conduct valid searches 

incident to arrest even when the officers 

have secured the suspects in a squad car and 

rendered them unable to reach any weapon or 

destroy evidence." 

Id. at 439, 513 S.E.2d at 140 (citation omitted). 

 In White v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 446, 482 S.E.2d 876 

(1997), White had pulled into a driveway and begun walking 

rapidly away from his car before the police officer initiated 

contact with him. Upholding the search of White's car, we said: 

Subsequent to his custodial arrest, the 

passenger compartment of the vehicle of 

which he had been a "recent occupant" was 

searched, producing a plastic bag containing 

crack cocaine. The search was performed 

pursuant to a lawful custodial arrest and 

was contemporaneous with the arrest. 

Id. at 451, 482 S.E.2d at 878. 

 The search of Horton's vehicle flowed immediately and 

without temporal disruption from the Prices' arrest. Because 

the Prices were occupants of the vehicle and the search was a 

contemporaneous incident of their arrest, the search was lawful, 

and the trial court erred in granting Horton's motion to 

suppress. 

- 4 -
 The judgment of the trial court is reversed. 

 Reversed.

- 5 -