Title: Brown v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 050639
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: November 4, 2005

Present:  Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and 
Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J. 
 
TAVARES LAMONT BROWN 
 
v.  Record No. 050639     OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY 
 
 
 
November 4, 2005 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA  
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
In this appeal we determine whether, based on the 
totality of the circumstances, a police officer had probable 
cause to arrest an individual seen holding a hand-rolled 
cigarette. 
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 
 
Officer Edward C. Lambert, III's supervisor instructed 
him to patrol a particular block of Lakeview Avenue in 
Richmond, Virginia, because of several recent shootings and a 
homicide in the area.  One morning while patrolling the area, 
Officer Lambert observed a red automobile parked in an alley 
in a manner that would not allow a wide emergency vehicle to 
pass through the alley.  Officer Lambert got out of his patrol 
car and, as he approached the vehicle, four men standing 
nearby quickly walked away in different directions.  When he 
reached the red car, Officer Lambert saw the defendant, 
Tavares Lamont Brown, asleep in the passenger seat holding a 
partially-burned, hand-rolled cigarette in one hand and a 
lighter in the other.  Officer Lambert woke Brown up, took the 
 
2
items out of his hands, and asked him to step out of the 
vehicle.  The record does not reflect Officer Lambert observed 
any drug related items in the vehicle or around Brown.  
Further, Officer Lambert testified that he later smelled the 
cigarette and "did not believe it to be marijuana" because "it 
smelled like tobacco." 
A subsequent search of Brown's pockets produced a folded 
$5.00 bill.  Laboratory tests showed that the hand-rolled 
cigarette and the folded money contained traces of cocaine and 
heroin, respectively. 
 
Brown was charged with possession of cocaine and 
possession of heroin, violations of Code § 18.2-250.  He filed 
a motion to suppress the evidence arguing that it "was 
obtained during a warrantless and unlawful search."  At the 
suppression hearing, Officer Lambert testified that Brown was 
seized "when [Officer Lambert] approached the vehicle and saw 
the hand[-]rolled item in his hand."  Officer Lambert further 
testified that, based on his 19 years of law enforcement 
experience during which he saw over 100 hand-rolled cigarettes 
each containing a controlled substance, he "knew" Brown's 
hand-rolled cigarette contained a controlled substance.  On 
cross-examination, Officer Lambert agreed that some people 
roll their own tobacco cigarettes. 
 
3
At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the trial 
court denied Brown's motion to suppress, finding Officer 
Lambert had probable cause to search Brown: 
In looking at the totality of the circumstances and 
looking at the car blocking an alley, four males 
standing near the car and then dispersing when the 
police officer shows up, the fact that this 
gentleman is sound asleep in the car at 7:30 a.m. 
in the morning, the fact that this officer 
testified that the smoking item in his experience 
of more than hundreds of times he's encountered the 
situation it has never contained just tobacco, his 
strong belief about the fact that it contained an 
illegal substance, I believe he had probable cause 
to arrest this individual and any search subsequent 
to that arrest was legal and valid. 
 
In a bench trial, the trial court found Brown guilty on 
both charges and sentenced him to a total of 20 years 
imprisonment with 16 years and 6 months suspended.  The Court 
of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial court's judgment.  
Brown v. Commonwealth, No. 0160-04-2 (February 22, 2005).  
Brown then appealed to this Court. 
DISCUSSION 
Brown argues here, as he did in the trial court and Court 
of Appeals, that Officer Lambert did not have probable cause 
to arrest him and, therefore, the evidence of cocaine and 
heroin should have been suppressed as the fruit of an 
unconstitutional search. 1 
                     
1 We note that Officer Lambert searched Brown before 
officially arresting him.  This does not affect our probable 
 
4
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 
safeguards the privacy and security of individuals against 
arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.  Camara v. 
Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528 (1967).  Searches and 
seizures may be conducted in compliance with the Fourth 
Amendment if they are reasonable.  Elkins v. United States, 
364 U.S. 206, 222 (1960).  Searches and seizures conducted 
pursuant to a particularized warrant based on probable cause 
as adjudged by a magistrate are reasonable.  See Massachusetts 
v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 987-91 (1984); McDonald v. United 
States, 335 U.S. 451, 455-56 (1948).  Because law enforcement 
will not always be in a position to secure a warrant prior to 
detaining or searching persons suspected of criminal activity, 
searches and seizures based on probable cause that the 
individual is engaged in criminal activity are also reasonable 
for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.  Whren v. United States, 
517 U.S. 806, 819 (1996); United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 
411, 423-24 (1976). 
Whether an officer has probable cause to arrest an 
individual in the absence of a warrant is determined under an 
objective test based on a reasonable and trained police 
                                                                
cause analysis because a search conducted before an arrest is 
not invalid if probable cause to arrest the person existed at 
the time of the search.  See Italiano v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 
334, 336, 200 S.E.2d 526, 528 (1973). 
 
5
officer's view of the totality of the circumstances.  See 
Parker v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 96, 106, 496 S.E.2d 47, 53 
(1998).  On appellate review, we give deference to the 
historical facts determined by the trial court, but we review 
de novo whether the legal standard of probable cause was 
correctly applied to the historical facts.  Jackson v. 
Commonwealth, 267 Va. 666, 672, 594 S.E.2d 595, 598 (2004); 
see Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996).  To 
determine whether probable cause exists, we "will focus upon 
'what the totality of the circumstances meant to police 
officers trained in analyzing the observed conduct for 
purposes of crime control.' "  Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 
816, 820-21, 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981) (quoting Hollis v. 
Commonwealth, 216 Va. 874, 877, 223 S.E.2d 887, 889 (1976)).
 
In this case, the probable cause requirement arose when 
Officer Lambert approached the car and saw the hand-rolled 
cigarette, the point at which the parties agree Brown was 
seized. Thus, the circumstances relevant to the probable cause 
determination are the position of the red car in an alley in 
an area Officer Lambert had been instructed to patrol, the 
dispersal of four men when Officer Lambert approached the red 
car, finding of Brown asleep in the car at 7:30 a.m. with a 
partially-burned, hand-rolled cigarette in his hand, and the 
strong belief of Officer Lambert that the hand-rolled 
 
6
cigarette contained a controlled substance based on his prior 
experience with hand-rolled cigarettes. 
The red car's position and the dispersal of the four men 
could indicate criminal activity under some circumstances; 
however, here, the basis for such indication could no longer 
be supported when Officer Lambert found Brown asleep in the 
car.  Brown was not engaged in any activity implicating the 
position of the car or the other men.  The Court of Appeals 
also referred to the area as a "high crime" area, but this 
characterization and the directive to patrol the area were 
based on a recent history of violent crimes and, again, 
provided no support to the proposition that the sleeping Brown 
was engaged in such activities. 
Officer Lambert's experience with controlled substances 
and his observation of a hand-rolled cigarette in Brown's hand 
undoubtedly support Officer Lambert's suspicion that Brown may 
have been engaged in criminal activity.  We have considered a 
number of instances in which an officer's expertise and 
training made his observation of an item suspected to contain 
contraband a significant factor in the probable cause 
analysis.  In none of these cases, however, has that fact 
alone supported a finding of probable cause when the 
suspicious item is also capable of legitimate use. 
 
7
In Matthews v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 1, 2, 235 S.E.2d 
306, 306 (1977), an officer stopped Matthews for speeding and 
observed a "pack of cigarette wrapping papers" and a "folded 
brown paper bag."  We held the officer did not have probable 
cause to look inside the bag because the connection he made 
between the bag and the cigarette wrapping papers "was not 
combined with any other circumstance which might have 
justified a rational belief that the bag contained contraband 
drugs."  Id. at 3, 235 S.E.2d at 307.  Similarly, in Harris v. 
Commonwealth, 241 Va. 146, 154, 400 S.E.2d 191, 196 (1991), we 
rejected the Commonwealth's argument that an officer had 
probable cause to open a film canister found during a valid 
investigatory stop and pat down because the officer recognized 
it as a container often used to hold drugs.  We observed that 
although in the officer's experience people kept drugs in film 
canisters, law-abiding citizens used film canisters for 
legitimate purposes, and we concluded that no probable cause 
existed because the only other evidence to support a finding 
of probable cause in that case was a report from an informant 
who was not shown to be reliable.  Id. 
We have found that the requisite probable cause for a 
warrantless search of a vehicle existed based on the police 
officer's belief that a hand-rolled cigarette held by a 
passenger contained marijuana combined with the passenger's 
 
8
actions in attempting to hide or get rid of the hand-rolled 
cigarette.  Hollis, 216 Va. at 877, 223 S.E.2d at 889.  In 
Lawson v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 354, 355, 228 S.E.2d 685, 686 
(1976), the officer testified that he observed a yellow bag 
that "looked like a 'nickel bag of marijuana.' "  We concluded 
that the totality of the circumstances supported a finding of 
probable cause to arrest a passenger in a vehicle because 
officers observed the driver and passenger repeatedly pass the 
yellow bag between them and the passenger locked the car door 
as the officers approached the car.  Id. at 357-58, 228 S.E.2d 
at 687. 
These cases show that for the last 25 years, this Court 
has consistently declined to find that probable cause can be 
established solely on the observation of material which can be 
used for legitimate purposes, even though the experience of an 
officer indicates that such material is often used for 
illegitimate purposes.  To support a finding of probable 
cause, such observations must be combined with some other 
circumstance indicating criminal activity.  This requirement 
is consistent with that of many other jurisdictions that have 
considered the issue.  See, e.g.,  United States v. Anderson, 
401 F.Supp. 996, 1000 (E.D. Tenn. 1975) (officer did not have 
probable cause to arrest upon observing a " 'home-made 
looking' cigarette in the ashtray" of a car because he "had no 
 
9
way of knowing at that instant whether it contained tobacco, 
corn-silks, 'rabbit-tobacco', [sic] marijuana or a myriad of 
other combustible substances");  Thomas v. Superior Court, 99 
Cal. Rptr. 647, 652 (Ct. App. 1972) (presence of hand-rolled 
cigarette insufficient to form probable cause without 
"evidence of other circumstances such as attempted concealment 
of the item, the defendant's distinctive manner of smoking it, 
the odor of burned marijuana, the defendant's evasiveness or 
abnormal physical condition, an admission by the defendant, or 
the arresting officer's expertise on the subject"); Caplan v. 
State, 531 So.2d 88, 91-92 (Fla. 1988) (the mere observation 
of a hand-rolled cigarette without more cannot constitute 
probable cause); People v. Wright, 400 N.E.2d 731, 733-34 
(Ill. App. Ct. 1980) (mere observation of a hand-rolled 
cigarette does not without additional circumstances furnish 
reasonable cause to arrest the suspect or seize the item); 
State v. Ball, 471 A.2d 347, 353 (N.H. 1983) ("To transform 
mere suspicion about the contents of the hand-rolled cigarette 
into a reasonable belief based on probable cause, the officer 
must articulate additional corroborating facts."); see also 2 
Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.6(b), at 317-18 (4th 
ed. 2004). 
Because Officer Lambert's strong suspicion that the hand-
rolled cigarette in Brown's possession contained contraband 
 
10
was not sufficient by itself to establish probable cause to 
arrest Brown, and because as explained above, the other 
relevant circumstances could not support a reasonable 
conclusion that the sleeping Brown was engaged in criminal 
activity, the conclusion that the totality of the 
circumstances established probable cause to arrest Brown was 
error.2 
CONCLUSION 
Considering the totality of the circumstances, Officer 
Lambert did not have probable cause to arrest and search Brown 
and, thus, the trial court erred in denying Brown's motion to 
suppress the evidence.  Accordingly, we will reverse the 
judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacate Brown's convictions, 
and remand the case to the Court of Appeals with direction to 
remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings, 
if the Commonwealth be so advised. 
Reversed and remanded. 
                     
2 The Commonwealth also argues that even if Officer 
Lambert lacked probable cause, the evidence could have been 
admitted under the doctrine of inevitable discovery.  The 
Commonwealth did not raise this argument below, and we will 
not consider an alternative argument raised for the first time 
on appeal.  See Eason v. Eason, 204 Va. 347, 352, 131 S.E.2d 
280, 283 (1963).