Court Opinion

ID: 9626408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:11:00.21607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:54.793603
License: Public Domain

ELDER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority argues that scrutiny of the initial Terry stop of appellant is unnecessary because, “even assuming arguendo that the stop and frisk was improper, the ultimate search and arrest of White was based on probable cause provided by Nesselroade.” However, the legality of the initial stop is germane to the Fourth Amendment analysis of this case because it determines whether or not the items seized prior to and at the time of the subsequent arrest are “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
*244I would hold that the initial stop of appellant by Officers Soyers and Riley was unlawful and that references to the evidence obtained from it, a stocking cap and $581 in cash, should have been suppressed. I would also hold that Officer Nesselroade’s subsequent arrest of appellant, though based on probable cause, was made possible by the initial illegal seizure, and that references to the pager obtained during the search incident to this arrest should have been excluded under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Finally, I would hold that the erroneous admission of this evidence was not harmless.
First, I would hold that the initial Terry stop of appellant was illegal and that the evidence acquired from it should have been suppressed. The record indicates that the three officers drove toward a group of males congregated in a semicircle on property adjacent to a street. The officers heard someone yell a slang-term for “police” and watched as the group quickly dispersed. The officers pulled over to the curb and pursued on foot various members of the group. The record does not establish that Officers Soyers and Riley saw appellant run from the scene. Instead, the record indicates that Officers Soyers and Riley had chased other members of the group when they came upon appellant sitting on steps behind a nearby residence. When the officers noticed appellant, Officer Soyers “had him stand up and patted him down for weapons.” The patdown uncovered the stocking cap filled with cash. The officers then radioed the dispatcher to run a check for any outstanding warrants relating to appellant. When Officer Nesselroade, who was in a different location, overheard the request for a warrant check on his radio, he contacted Officers Soyers and Riley, told them that he had “the dope” dropped by appellant, and asked them to bring appellant to the front side of the residence.
Based on this record, I would hold that Officers Soyers and Riley lacked a reasonable articulable suspicion to stop and frisk appellant. See Gregory v. Commonwealth, 22 Va.App. 100, 105, 468 S.E.2d 117, 120 (1996) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1884-85, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)) *245(stating that “[a] police officer may lawfully stop and frisk an individual if the officer possesses a reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that the individual is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity”). At the time Officers Soyers and Riley initially stopped appellant, they had no knowledge that appellant was related to the group previously gathered near the street. The record indicates that these officers were not aware of any facts that distinguished appellant from a neighborhood resident who was casually sitting on steps behind a residence.
The majority relies on the imputed knowledge of Officer Nesselroade to justify the decision of Officers Soyers and Riley to bring appellant to Officer Nesselroade for arrest. However, this reasoning cannot validate the initial stop and frisk of appellant, which was completed before Officers Soyers and Riley communicated with Officer Nesselroade. Fourth Amendment cases dealing with the “collective knowledge” of police officers require that police officers actually communicate with each other before knowledge will be imputed from one to another.
In Jacques v. Commonwealth, this Court held that an officer’s suspicion that the defendant was engaged in drug activity was reasonable after the officer had received “an official police broadcast that a vehicle fitting the description of [the defendant’s] was wanted in connection with two serious crimes.” 12 Va.App. 591, 593-94, 405 S.E.2d 630, 631 (1991). In United States v. Laughman, the Fourth Circuit held that officers making an arrest need not be personally aware of the factual basis of probable cause if “the officer who orders an arrest or search has knowledge of facts establishing probable cause.” 618 F.2d 1067, 1072-73 (1980), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925, 100 S.Ct. 3018, 65 L.Ed.2d 1117 (1980) (emphasis added). In both cases, the officer with actual knowledge of the factual basis of probable cause or reasonable suspicion communicated with the arresting or searching officer before the arrest or search occurred.
*246In this case, however, the stop and search of appellant was unlawful because, although Officer Nesselroade had reasonable suspicion to stop appellant, he did not communicate the basis of his suspicion to Officers Soyers and Riley until after appellant had been seized and searched. Officer Nesselroade’s reasonable suspicion was based on his observation of a “large white piece of something” falling from appellant’s hand as appellant fled the scene and Officer Nesselroade’s subsequent identification of the object as crack cocaine. However, the record indicates that Officer Nesselroade did not communicate these observations to Officers Soyers and Riley until after these two officers had stopped and frisked appellant and called in their warrant check. Thus, Officer Nesselroade’s knowledge could not be imputed to Officers Soyers and Riley to justify the initial seizure of appellant, and the trial court erred when it admitted references to the stocking cap and money taken from appellant during this unlawful activity.
I would also hold that the reference to the pager found on appellant’s person after appellant was arrested by Officer Nesselroade should have been suppressed because it was “fruit of the poisonous tree.” See Walls v. Commonwealth, 2 Va.App. 639, 651-52, 347 S.E.2d 175, 182 (1986). The record indicates that after Officer Nesselroade overheard the other officers’ request for a warrant check, he radioed the other officers to bring appellant to him. Officer Nesselroade then arrested and searched appellant. During this search, Officer Nesselroade discovered a pager on appellant’s person. Although appellant’s pager was obtained during a search incident to arrest, appellant’s arrest was the direct “fruit” of his unlawful seizure by Officers Soyers and Riley. Thus, the pager should have been excluded because its discovery resulted from “the unlawful act,” Warlick v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 263, 265, 208 S.E.2d 746, 748 (1974), and because it was not obtained “by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).
Finally, I would hold that the erroneous admission of the evidence regarding the cash and the pager was not harmless *247beyond a reasonable doubt. See Lavinder v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 1003, 1005, 407 S.E.2d 910, 911 (1991) (holding that constitutional error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). Without this evidence, the remaining proof of appellant’s intention to distribute cocaine is less than overwhelming. First, the amount of crack cocaine possessed by appellant was relatively small, only 1.54 grams. See Dukes v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 119, 122, 313 S.E.2d 382, 384 (1984) (stating that a “relatively small quantity of [drugs] in the defendant’s possession warrants the inference that it was for [the defendant’s] personal use”). In addition, the record indicates that an electronic scale and “crack shavings” were found in appellant’s car at the scene. However, the record does not conclusively prove that appellant either owned or used the scale. The Commonwealth did not introduce evidence of appellant’s fingerprints on the scale, and appellant said in his post-arrest statement to Officer Nesselroade that the scale belonged to someone else. Based on this evidence, a reasonable fact finder could have concluded that the scale belonged to one of the other individuals who fled the scene when the officers appeared.
The remaining evidence of appellant’s intent to distribute cocaine was his post-arrest statement to Officer Nesselroade that he knew the techniques of weighing crack cocaine and that he was familiar with its current market price. However, a reasonable fact finder could have concluded that appellant had obtained this knowledge through his experience as a buyer of crack cocaine rather than as a seller. See Wilson v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 213, 223-24, 429 S.E.2d 229, 235-36 (1993), aff'd en banc, 17 Va.App. 248, 436 S.E.2d 193 (1993) (holding that non-constitutional error was not harmless when evidence regarding intent to distribute cocaine supported the conclusion that the defendant was only a user of the drug).
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.