Opinion ID: 1308443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Suppression of Property Seized in Japan.

Text: Bunch contends that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress a diamond and setting purportedly belonging to Thomas that was seized in a search of Bunch's barracks in Japan pursuant to a search warrant issued by a military commander. Bunch claims that the warrant was issued on the basis of his statement to Investigator Cahill that the ring was in Japan, a statement the trial court ruled inadmissible because made after Bunch had requested and been denied the assistance of counsel in Japan. Hence, Bunch concludes, because the ring was the fruit of the poisonous tree, it should have been excluded from evidence. The trial court, however, made this specific finding with respect to the property seized in Japan: [Cahill] didn't use a statement in order to get the search warrant or any acknowledgement from the defendant. He used other information. On brief, Bunch mentions this finding, but does not question its correctness. The finding is supported by the evidence and will not be disturbed here. Stamper v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 260, 268, 257 S.E.2d 808, 814-15 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 972, 100 S.Ct. 1666, 64 L.Ed.2d 249 (1980). In connection with the search in Japan, Bunch also complains that he was not permitted to inspect the affidavit that supported the issuance of the search warrant. We fail to find in the record, however, any request by Bunch to inspect the affidavit or any ruling by the trial court concerning the matter. We will not notice the point now. Rule 5:21.