Opinion ID: 1262799
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Search of the Pouch

Text: Beavers next assigns error to the trial court's refusal to suppress the use of Mrs. Lowery's rings, discovered during the search of Beavers's home, as evidence. He argues that Detective Davis exceeded the scope of the search warrant when he opened the pouch in which the rings were found. The search warrant authorized the police to look for bloodstained white medical gauze tape. The warrant included this item because Mrs. Hodges told the investigating officer that her attacker had cut his hand when he broke a window to gain access to her home, and that he had used some gauze strips from her medicine cabinet to bind the wound. At the time Davis found the pouch, the officers had found none of the items listed on the search warrant. Davis testified that: The gauze tape is why I opened that pouch.... Gauze tape could have been anywhere. Relying on Holloman v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 947, 275 S.E.2d 620 (1981), and Lugar v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 609, 202 S.E.2d 894 (1974), Beavers argues that the search for gauze tape cannot justify the opening of a small purse. Beavers's reliance is misplaced. In Lugar and Holloman, it was physically and logically impossible that the items sought could have been in the areas searched. In Holloman, the officers acknowledged that real small paper bags could not have contained the alcoholic beverages that were the legitimate subjects of the search. 221 Va. at 949, 275 S.E.2d at 622. Similarly, the officers searching for an individual in Lugar went beyond the scope of the search warrant when searching in bank bags, trash containers or other spaces which obviously could not hide a man. 214 Va. at 612, 202 S.E.2d at 897. Detective Davis's belief that the pouch may have contained the gauze was reasonable, based on the size of the pouch and the physical characteristics of gauze, which allow it to be greatly compressed. See Blair v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 483, 489, 303 S.E.2d 881, 886 (1983). Accordingly, the trial court properly rejected Beavers's contention that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant.