COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Senior Judge Cole 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

RONALD LEE HARRIS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1943-94-2 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. 

 OCTOBER 31, 1995 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HALIFAX COUNTY 

Charles L. McCormick, III, Judge 

 Buddy A. Ward, Public Defender (Office of the 

Public Defender, on brief), for appellant. 

 Thomas C. Daniel, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Ronald Lee Harris was tried without a jury and convicted of 

felonious larceny in violation of Code § 18.2-96 and former Code 

§ 19.2-297. On this appeal, Harris contends the trial judge 

erred in finding that officers did not seize him in violation of 

the Fourth Amendment. We affirm the trial judge's refusal to 

suppress evidence. 

 The evidence proved that at 11:00 p.m. on June 15th, a 

complainant telephoned the police to report a suspicious person 

on Chalmers Street. The complainant identified himself and 

reported the person was wearing dark pants, white t-shirt, black 

cap and a black pouch on his side. While driving to Chalmers 

Street, Sergeant McKinney and Officer Logan saw Harris one and a 

half blocks away from the complainant's house. Harris wore biker 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

shorts, a white tank top, training bra, cap, and tennis shoes. 

Harris was running. 

 Officer Logan stepped out of the police car and called 

Harris. Officer Logan was in uniform and had his revolver in his 

holster. Harris stopped running and talked to Logan. As Logan 

talked to Harris, McKinney continued onto Chalmers Street where 

he spoke with the complainant. 

 When McKinney rejoined Logan, they asked Harris about a 

black bag or pouch around his waist. Harris said he found the 

bag on the street. When the officers asked if they could see the 

bag, Harris handed the bag to the officers and said it was not 

his. The officers looked in the bag and saw clothes, including 

undergarments, in the bag. After the officers saw the contents, 

they asked Harris if they could keep the bag. Disclaiming 

ownership, Harris allowed the officers to keep the bag. The 

officers departed with the bag. Logan estimated that he spent 

approximately ten to fifteen minutes with Harris before they 

parted. 

 Earlier that same evening, Ann Snead had hung clothes on a 

line to dry in her backyard. The following morning she noticed 

that a number of articles were missing, including several 

undergarments. She called the police. Sergeant McKinney 

arrested Harris for larceny. Snead identified the undergarments 

from the bag as items taken from her clothesline. 

 Harris' counsel moved to suppress the evidence and alleged 
- 3 - 

that the police conducted an unlawful Terry stop. The trial 

judge denied the motion. The trial judge's ruling does not 

disclose whether the judge upheld the police action as a valid 

Terry stop or a consensual search and seizure. 

 Not every encounter between the police and public is a 

seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Baldwin v. Commonwealth, 243 

Va. 191, 195, 413 S.E.2d 645, 647 (1992). The principle is well 

established that "law enforcement officials do not violate the 

Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the 

street or in another public place . . . [and] putting questions 

to him if the person is willing to listen." Florida v. Royer, 

460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983)(plurality opinion)(citations omitted). 

 In Baldwin, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that 

officers who were investigating a complaint did not seize the 

accused when the officer called the accused to his car. The 

Court ruled that no Fourth Amendment seizure occurred because the 

encounter did not involve "the threatening presence of several 

officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical 

touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or 

tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's 

request might be compelled.'" Baldwin, 243 Va. at 199, 413 

S.E.2d at 649 (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 

554 (1980)). 

 The evidence in this case does not prove that Logan 

compelled Harris to stop. The evidence does not prove the 
- 4 - 

officers used force or any other coercive means. The evidence 

proves only that Harris responded to Logan's call and spoke with 

the officer. Although Harris stopped when the policeman called 

to him, no evidence proved that he was forced to stop and talk. 

The record does not establish that a reasonable person in Harris' 

position would have believed he was not free to leave. 

 The officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by taking 

custody of the bag. When they asked Harris about the bag, he 

said that he found it. Harris' disclaimer of ownership and 

assent to the officers' custody of the bag negates his claim of 

an unlawful seizure. See Wechsler v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 

162, 172-73, 455 S.E.2d 744, 749 (1995). 

 For these reasons, we hold that the trial judge did not err 

in refusing to suppress the evidence. We therefore affirm the 

conviction. 

 Affirmed.