Case Name: James Patrick Carson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court: Supreme Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1992-09-18
Citations: 244 Va. 293
Docket Number: Record No. 911887
Parties: James Patrick Carson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 244
Pages: 293–299

Head Matter:
James Patrick Carson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Record No. 911887
September 18, 1992
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Whiting, Lacy and Hassell, JJ, and Poff, Senior Justice
Roger Allan Inger for appellant.
Thomas C. Daniel, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Opinion:
JUSTICE COMPTON
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In March 1989, defendant James Patrick Carson was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary, and to a fine, upon conviction by the trial court, sitting without a jury, of possession of cocaine and marijuana, both with intent to distribute. Subsequently, a panel of the Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, affirmed the convictions. Carson v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 497, 404 S.E.2d 919 (1991). Thereafter, the Court of Appeals granted a rehearing en banc and affirmed the convictions for the reasons stated in the panel opinion. Four judges, including the Chief Judge, dissented. Carson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 280, 410 S.E.2d 412 (1991).
We awarded the defendant this appeal to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred: in ruling that the approach of the motor vehicle in which the defendant was riding and the questioning by the police officer did not constitute an unreasonable seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; in ruling that the initial stop of the motor vehicle did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights; in ruling that seizure of the contraband fell within the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement; and, in ruling that the search of the trunk of the defendant's automobile was lawful as a search based on probable cause, not a search incident to an arrest.
We have considered these questions and, for the reasons articulated in the Court of Appeals' opinion, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.