Opinion ID: 1058139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: On November 15, 2007, Officers K.S. Mitchell and T.C. Clements of the Lynchburg Police Department arrested Banks in the City of Lynchburg pursuant to multiple warrants that had been issued the previous day as a result of an investigation of an attempted robbery and shooting. Although the warrants listed Banks' address as 505 Jones Street, the officers ultimately found him at a home located on 820 Brook Street. When they arrived at the home, Officer Mitchell knocked on the front door, and a woman answered. Officer Mitchell asked her whether Banks was in the home, and she motioned to the upstairs. Officers Mitchell and Clements, along with another officer, then entered the home and started up the stairs. Upon reaching the top step, they encountered another woman. When they asked her where Banks was, she pointed to a bedroom and called out his name. Banks then emerged from the bedroom, and the officers took him into custody in the doorway. At the time of his arrest, Banks was wearing a long-sleeved t-shirt and mesh shorts, but no shoes or socks. Officer Mitchell testified that it was a rather cold day, so he asked Banks, who had been handcuffed, if he wanted to grab his shoes or a jacket before going outside to the patrol car. According to Officer Mitchell, Banks responded, yes, and the officers escorted him back to the bedroom. Upon stepping inside, however, Banks told the officers that his shoes were in his car. Officer Mitchell then led Banks outside, collected his shoes, and placed him in the patrol car. While Officer Mitchell was accompanying Banks outside, Officer Clements remained upstairs talking with a woman who had been in the bedroom with Banks. Officer Clements did not hear Officer Mitchell ask Banks if he wanted a jacket, and Officer Clements didn't ask [Banks] anything about that. Nonetheless, Officer Clements decided to get Banks one because he was inappropriately dressed for the weather, which Officer Clements described as 45 degrees, [with] 20 to 25-mile-an-hour winds. Officer Clements asked the woman in the bedroom if Banks had a jacket, and she pointed to one that was hanging on the top of the closet door. Officer Clements grabbed the jacket and began searching its pockets for anything dangerous. As soon as [he] put [his] hand into the right pocket, [he] felt the butt of a gun. He then immediately pulled his hand out, looked inside, and saw a revolver. At that point, Officer Clements notified Officer Mitchell, and he seized the jacket and gun. Banks was indicted on multiple charges, including two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. Prior to trial, Banks moved to suppress the jacket and gun, claiming that they were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the officers had no authority to reenter and search the bedroom after his arrest. At the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth advanced four arguments for why Banks' motion should be denied: (1) Banks lacked standing to challenge the seizure; (2) Banks' state of undress created an exigency justifying the seizure; (3) the seizure was pursuant to a search incident to a lawful arrest; and (4) the gun would have been inevitably discovered. The circuit court addressed each of the Commonwealth's arguments. First, it ruled that Banks had standing because he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bedroom. Second, it found no evidence that the officers would have inevitably discovered the gun. Third, it concluded that the seizure did not arise out of a search incident to a lawful arrest. Lastly, it considered whether Banks' inappropriate dress presented an exigency justifying the seizure of the jacket and, relying on United States v. Gwinn, 219 F.3d 326 (4th Cir.2000), held that it did. Accordingly, the circuit court denied Banks' motion. Banks was then tried without a jury and convicted of one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. [] The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the denial of Banks' motion to suppress. Banks v. Commonwealth, Record No. 3059-08-3, 2009 WL 3734058 (Nov. 10, 2009). It did so, however, on a ground that was neither argued by the Commonwealth nor considered by the circuit court. Accepting Officer Mitchell's version of events, the Court of Appeals first found that Banks agreed he wanted a jacket and shoes and, therefore, consented to the retrieval of the jacket from his bedroom, which he willingly re-entered with the officers. Id., slip op. at 4, 2000 WL 966029. The Court of Appeals then considered whether Banks' consent was valid and, after finding no evidence in the record of involuntariness or exploitive, unconstitutional conduct, concluded that it was. The Court of Appeals thus held that the seizure of the jacket was lawful under the Fourth Amendment as authorized by Banks' consent. Id., slip op. at 4-5, 2000 WL 966029. We awarded Banks this appeal.