Court Opinion

ID: 9561578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:12:20.531944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:58.037307
License: Public Domain

Gordon, J.,
Dissenting.
The trial court held that the warrant did not authorize a search of the Ritter’s mailbox, and the Commonwealth did not assign cross-error. So, as the majority tacitly concedes, a search of the mailbox and a seizure of articles found there would have been unauthorized.
But the majority holds that there was no search of the mailbox or seizure of the package addressed to Ritter. I assume this holding is based upon the premise that Ritter’s mother freely and without compulsion looked into the mailbox and handed over the package.
Ritter’s mother knew that the officers came to search for narcotics under the authority of a search warrant. During the search of the home they asked her whether any package had been received, and she apparently answered no. Finding no package in the home, the officers then asked Ritter’s mother if she had collected the mail. She answered no, walked to the mailbox with the officers, and removed the package addressed to Ritter and handed it to the officers.
Looking in the mailbox was part of an overall search of the premises, ostensibly made under the authority of a search warrant. And Ritter’s mother did not, I believe, look freely and without compulsion. Rather, I must conclude that Ritter’s mother looked into the mailbox and handed over the package because she knew that the officers would look and seize what was found, if she did not. This conclusion, that her actions resulted from coercion, appears dictated by Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed. 2d 797 (1968). See also Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 205, 169 S.E.2d 580 (1969).
Since I would reverse on the ground that the package was illegally seized and therefore its contents were improperly admitted into evidence, I do not reach the other questions.