COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Ju dges McClanahan, Beales and Senior Judge Willis Argued at Salem, Virginia

ROLAND McKINLEY CH RISTIAN, III MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2468-08-3 JUDGE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN MARCH 23, 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT C OURT OF ROANOK E COUNTY Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge Melvin L. Hill for appellant. Craig W. Stallard, Assistant A ttorney General (William C. Mims, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Roland McKinley Christian, III appeals from his convictions for felo ny eluding and driving on a suspended license, subsequent of fense, 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 Christia n 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 Thom pson located Christia n on Cove Road and

detained him until Officer Tribble arrived. Officer Tribble placed Chri stian under arrest and transported him to the Roanoke County magistrate’s office. Prior to trial, Christ ian filed a motion to suppress “the a rrest” on the ground s Officer Tribble arrested him in the City of Ro anoke, which wa s outside his jurisdiction as a Roanoke County

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - officer, and because Officer Tribble took him to the Roanok e County magistrate ra ther than the City of Roanoke magistrate. 1 The trial court denied the motion, and Christian was convicted in a bench trial of felony eluding an d driving on a suspended li cense, subsequent offense.

Christian seeks redress for what he contends wa s 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 illeg al 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 so ught to exclude from tria l. In fact, at oral argument before this Court, Christian conceded he was no t seeking to suppress any evidence. 2 Therefore, having identified no evidence to suppress, it was not error for th e trial court to deny hi s 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 a rrest 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 jurisd iction, 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 th is section applies and does not seek application of this exception. Indeed, as Christian asserts and as th e trial court found, this wa s 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 allo ws 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 arre st was nevertheless a va lid 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 eviden ce obtained during his arrest, “Virginia law does not, as a general matter, requ ire 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 provi sion 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 a lleges no constitutional violation and the only statute he relies upon, Code § 19.2-77, is inappli cable and, in any event, contains no express provision for suppression.- 3 - For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of th e trial court.

Affirmed.