COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges McClanahan, Beales and Senior Judge Willis 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

ROLAND McKINLEY CHRISTIAN, III 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY 

v. Record No. 2468-08-3 JUDGE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN 

 MARCH 23, 2010 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY 

Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge 

 Melvin L. Hill for appellant. 

 Craig W. Stallard, Assistant Attorney General (William C. Mims, 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

Roland McKinley Christian, III appeals from his convictions for felony eluding and driving 

on a suspended license, subsequent offense, and argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to 

suppress. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 Roanoke County Police Officer D.A. Tribble observed Christian operating his motorcycle 

on Cove Road in excess of the speed limit and a high-speed chase ensued. Officer Tribble followed 

Christian onto Peters Creek Road and onto Interstate 581, but lost sight of Christian when Christian 

exited the interstate. Minutes later, Detective Thompson located Christian on Cove Road and 

detained him until Officer Tribble arrived. Officer Tribble placed Christian under arrest and 

transported him to the Roanoke County magistrate’s office. 

 Prior to trial, Christian filed a motion to suppress “the arrest” on the grounds Officer Tribble 

arrested him in the City of Roanoke, which was outside his jurisdiction as a Roanoke County 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 -

officer, and because Officer Tribble took him to the Roanoke County magistrate rather than the City 

of Roanoke magistrate.1 The trial court denied the motion, and Christian was convicted in a bench 

trial of felony eluding and driving on a suspended license, subsequent offense. 

 Christian seeks redress for what he contends was an unlawful arrest. But as we pointed out 

in Arrington v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 635, 638-39, 674 S.E.2d 554, 556 (2009), the proper 

vehicle for enforcing rights violated by an illegal search or seizure is through suppression of 

evidence obtained during the search or seizure. Although Christian filed a motion to suppress, he 

never identified any evidence he sought to exclude from trial. In fact, at oral argument before this 

Court, Christian conceded he was not seeking to suppress any evidence.2

 Therefore, having 

identified no evidence to suppress, it was not error for the trial court to deny his motion to suppress. 

 1

 The evidence established the chase took place on the boundary line of Roanoke County 

and the City of Roanoke and the arrest took place in the City of Roanoke, at least two miles from 

the county line. Although Christian relies on Code § 19.2-77 to support his contention Officer 

Tribble arrested him outside his territorial jurisdiction, that section provides an exception to the 

statutory jurisdictional restrictions placed upon police officers where the officer is in “close 

pursuit” of the subject and the subject flees from the officer attempting to make an arrest. See

Boatwright v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 169, 171 n.3, 647 S.E.2d 515, 516 n.3 (2007). The 

Commonwealth does not contend this section applies and does not seek application of this 

exception. Indeed, as Christian asserts and as the trial court found, this was not a “close pursuit” 

within the meaning of the statute. The territorial jurisdiction of the officer is instead set forth in 

Code § 19.2-249 (not cited by Christian), which allows the officer to make an arrest within 300 

yards of the boundary of the county for offenses occurring on the boundary of a county and a city 

or within 300 yards thereof. Our holding makes it unnecessary to determine whether this statute 

was violated, and if it was, whether the arrest was nevertheless a valid citizen’s arrest, see Tharp 

v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 487, 490, 270 S.E.2d 752, 754 (1980). 

2

 Even if Christian sought to exclude evidence obtained during his arrest, “Virginia law 

does not, as a general matter, require suppression of evidence obtained in violation of state law.” 

Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, ___ (2008); see also Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 646, 

651, 472 S.E.2d 649, 652 (holding that exclusion is not an appropriate remedy when a state 

statute is violated “‘absent an express statutory provision for suppression’” (quoting Troncoso v. 

Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 942, 944, 407 S.E.2d 349, 350 (1991))), aff’d on reh’g en banc, 23 

Va. App. 696, 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996). Christian alleges no constitutional violation and the only 

statute he relies upon, Code § 19.2-77, is inapplicable and, in any event, contains no express 

provision for suppression. 
- 3 -

 For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 Affirmed.