COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Haley and Senior Judge Annunziata 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

MARRON FRANKLIN ANTHONY NOWLIN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY 

v. Record No. 3050-05-4 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA 

 DECEMBER 12, 2006 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 

Lisa B. Kemler, Judge 

 Joan C. Ruff, Senior Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. 

 Karri B. Atwood, Assistant Attorney General (Robert F. McDonnell, 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

Appellant, Marron Franklin Anthony Nowlin (Nowlin), was convicted of possession of 

cocaine. He appeals his conviction and argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to 

suppress because the police conducted a warrantless strip and body cavity search. Finding no 

error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

BACKGROUND

On appeal of the denial of a motion to suppress, we consider the evidence adduced at 

both the suppression hearing and the trial, DePriest v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 577, 583, 359 

S.E.2d 540, 542-43 (1987), and we view that evidence in the light most favorable to the 

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

(1991). “[W]e are bound by the trial court’s findings of historical fact unless ‘plainly wrong’ or 

without evidence to support them,” McGee v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 193, 198, 487 S.E.2d 

 *

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

259, 261 (1997) (en banc), but we review de novo the trial court’s application of defined legal 

standards such as reasonable suspicion and probable cause to the particular facts of the case, see

Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996). 

 On March 26, 2005, Officers Seth Weinstein and Kha Le were dispatched to an 

apartment building after Nowlin’s wife contacted the police, informing them Nowlin was armed 

and under the influence of drugs. Prior to arriving at the scene, Weinstein learned there was an 

outstanding warrant against Nowlin. 

Weinstein apprehended Nowlin, handcuffed him, and placed him in his police cruiser, 

intending to transport him to the police station for booking. Another officer on the scene 

informed Weinstein that Nowlin’s wife reported Nowlin was concealing cocaine in his buttocks 

area. 

 Weinstein and Le took Nowlin to an area hidden from public view. Weinstein pulled 

Nowlin’s pants and underwear straight out from his body and shined a flashlight in the area. 

Weinstein observed a clear plastic bag protruding several inches from between Nowlin’s 

clenched buttocks. Based on his experience and the information received from Nowlin’s wife, 

Weinstein suspected the bag contained narcotics. Le reached into Nowlin’s pants, grabbed the 

protruding portion of the bag, and removed the item. The bag contained eleven rocks of crack 

cocaine. 

ANALYSIS

 Nowlin argues he was subjected to an impermissible, warrantless strip and body cavity 

search. 

We note that the Fourth Amendment proscribes only “unreasonable searches and 

seizures,” McNair v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 559, 563, 513 S.E.2d 866, 868 (1999) (en 

banc), not reasonable ones. A standard “not capable of precise definition or mechanical 
- 3 -

application,” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979), reasonableness hinges on the facts of 

each case. Depending upon the circumstances, reasonableness may permit police officers to 

conduct warrantless searches ranging from “a generalized search of the person to the more 

intrusive strip search or body cavity search.” Hughes v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 447, 455, 

524 S.E.2d 155, 159 (2000) (en banc). 

 “A strip search generally refers to an inspection of a naked 

individual, without any scrutiny of his body cavities. A visual 

body cavity search extends to a visual inspection of the anal and 

genital areas.” Commonwealth v. Thomas, 429 Mass. 403, 708 

N.E.2d 669, 672 n.4 (1999). “A ‘manual body cavity search’ 

includes some degree of touching or probing of body cavities.” 

Cookish v. Powell, 945 F.2d 441, 444-45 n.5 (1st Cir. 1991). 

McCloud v. Commonwealth, 35 Va. App. 276, 282-83, 544 S.E.2d 866, 868-69 (2001). 

Strip Search

 In McCloud, this Court declined to treat a search as an improper strip search when the 

evidence established that the officers only “pulled back [McCloud's] underwear in the front.” 35 

Va. App. at 279, 544 S.E.2d at 867. There, we noted that “[w]e have found no cases, nor has 

appellant cited any, that include ‘arranging’ of the suspect’s clothing in a definition of ‘strip 

search.’” Id. at 282, 544 S.E.2d 868. Similarly, in this case, Weinstein pulled back the 

waistband of appellant’s underwear and looked inside, immediately spotting the bag containing 

narcotics. 

Nowlin’s reliance on Kidd v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 433, 565 S.E.2d 337 (2002), 

is misplaced. In Kidd, the officer conducting the search “[l]ook[ed] into Kidd’s underwear for 

drugs” and “inspect[ed] Kidd’s partially-naked body.” Id. at 446, 565 S.E.2d at 343. In this 

case, the evidence indicates that the officers could not see Nowlin’s genitals or anus when 

pulling back his underwear. Thus, as in McCloud, and unlike in Kidd, the officers did not view 

Nowlin’s genital or anal area and he simply was not subjected to a “strip search.” 
- 4 -

Body Cavity Search

In Hughes, upon which Nowlin relies, we held Hughes was subjected to a visual and 

physical body cavity search when the police 

had Hughes bend over to expose his anus, enabling [the officer] to 

visually inspect the anus. The visual search became more intrusive 

when [the officer] “told” Hughes to cough in order to expand the 

officer’s view of the anus and an even more intrusive physical 

body cavity search when [the officer] removed the plastic bag from 

Hughes’ anal cavity. 

Hughes, 31 Va. App. at 455-56, 524 S.E.2d at 159. 

 In this case, Weinstein and Le merely looked into Nowlin’s underwear and immediately 

observed a bag protruding several inches from Nowlin’s clenched buttocks, not his anal cavity. 

The officers neither viewed nor touched Nowlin’s anus or anal cavity. Instead, Le touched only 

the protruding portion of the bag and removed the item from Nowlin’s underwear. Therefore, 

the officers did not subject Nowlin to either a visual or physical body cavity search. 

Exigent Circumstances

 Nowlin properly notes that “a warrantless search involving a bodily intrusion, even 

though conducted incident to a lawful arrest, violates the Fourth Amendment unless (1) the 

police have a ‘clear indication’ that evidence is located within a suspect’s body and (2) the police 

face exigent circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Gilmore, 27 Va. App. 320, 330-31, 498 S.E.2d 

464, 469 (1998). However, Nowlin’s argument that the search in this case failed to meet these 

two conditions is unavailing under the facts of this case, as no strip or body cavity search 

occurred. 

 For the reasons noted above, the trial court did not err by denying Nowlin’s motion to 

suppress the evidence obtained during the search incident to his arrest. Therefore, we affirm the 

decision of the trial court. 

Affirmed.