Court Opinion

ID: 9616305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:45:30.406347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:57.181522
License: Public Domain

Benton, J.,
concurring and dissenting.
*442I concur with the majority that the evidence in this record does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the marijuana was manufactured “not for their use.” Code § 18.2-248.1(c). Accordingly, I would reverse that conviction. However, I would overturn the trial judge’s refusal to suppress the evidence, and I would reverse each of the convictions because of the unlawful, warrantless entry by the police into the residence of Douglas Clayton and Vicki Jean Reynolds.
“[T]he Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980).
It is axiomatic that “the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” And a principal protection against unnecessary intrusions into private dwellings is the warrant re- • quirement imposed by the Fourth Amendment on agents of the government-who seek to enter the home for purposes of search or arrest. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Court has recognized as “a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law[,]’ that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.”
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 748-49 (1984) (citations and footnote omitted). “[Exceptions to the warrant requirement are ‘few in number and carefully delineated,’ and . . . the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate qn urgent need that might justify warrantless searches. . . .” Id. at 749-50 (citation omitted). ‘‘[I]n each case a determination must be made whether the law enforcement officers had probable cause at the time of their warrantless entry to believe that cognizable exigent circumstances were present.” Keeter v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 134, 141, 278 S.E.2d 841, 846, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1053 (1981). Contrary to the majority opinion, I believe that application of these principles to the evidence in this case demonstrates that the entry by the police was unreasonable and without justification.
The record establishes that on the afternoon of June 18, 1986, Deputy Sheriff Gary Vitek received information concerning a suspicious man in the vicinity of the home of Douglas and Vicki *443Reynolds. Based upon the description of the man and his vehicle, Vitek stopped Mark Fogg, who had driven some distance from the residence. Fogg admitted to Vitek that he had broken into “Doug Reynolds’ residence” and taken the stereo equipment and guns that Vitek observed in his vehicle. Vitek radioed for Investigator Bailey’s assistance and awaited his arrival.
Bailey arrived at the scene of the arrest thirty to forty minutes later. Bailey questioned the burglar and then drove to the Reynolds’ residence with the burglar in his vehicle. Vitek also drove to the Reynolds’ residence. Vitek testified that after they arrived at the residence, Bailey and the burglar sat in Bailey’s vehicle and had a conversation. He further testified that the three of them then went directly into the Reynolds’ residence. The burglar corroborated this testimony.
Bailey, however, testified that he and the burglar inspected the exterior of the residence, including the window where the burglar had entered the residence. Bailey testified that he did not know where Vitek was during this inspection. The burglar denied inspecting the exterior of the residence with Bailey.
Neither Vitek nor Bailey attempted to contact either of the owners of the residence. They also did not contact any neighbors or the operator of a store across the intersection from the residence.
Both officers and the burglar entered the residence through the door that the burglar had left open in his departure. There is no suggestion that once inside the residence they looked for victims. When the officers entered the residence they did not go from room to room. Instead, they walked from the back door directly “through the house to a porch located at the front of the house.” Bailey led the way followed by the burglar and then Vitek. Vitek could not recall whether the burglar was handcuffed; however, Bailey testified “I don’t believe he was.” The burglar testified that when they reached the sun room Bailey said that the plants on the floor were “pot plants.” Bailey testified that the burglar pointed to the plants and identified them as marijuana.
The burglar testified that he “went back to Mr. Bailey’s car and sat” after the officers saw the marijuana plants “and they came back outside, took my statement on tape.” Bailey then contacted *444Investigators Chenault and Hines for assistance.
The two vice squad investigators arrived at the residence approximately one hour later. They entered the residence, removed the potted plants, and placed them on the hood of a police vehicle. Bailey then left the burglar with Vitek and proceeded across the intersection to the country store in an attempt, for the first time, to locate the homeowners. Vicki Reynolds was contacted and was informed that her residence had been burglarized and that the police were waiting for her to identify the stolen property. Meanwhile, one of the investigators telephoned the Hanover Commonwealth’s attorney for advice concerning the further search of the residence. It was decided that when Vicki Reynolds arrived, the officers would attempt to obtain her consent for any further search of the residence. If this consent was refused, the officers were to obtain a search warrant.
The Commonwealth argues that emergency or exigent circumstances existed because the officers reasonably believed that a threat to life or property existed. This evidence fails to establish the existence of either an emergency or exigent circumstances. Moreover, the evidence amply demonstrates that neither officer could have reasonably perceived that such existed. Their objective conduct, in fact, belies any suggestion that they believed that emergency or exigent circumstances existed.
The officers did not unholster their guns as they entered the residence. The officers also did not knock or announce their presence. Vitek testified that the reason they did not knock and announce themselves before entering was that they did not feel that anyone was inside. Vitek also testified that they had entered the house because “they were looking for the entrance and looking for the — to secure the residence to see if it was safe.” Bailey testified: “I didn’t expect anybody to be there. I went to secure the building.” Because, as the officers stated, they did not believe that anyone, another burglar or otherwise, was in the residence, they could not have feared for their personal safety or the safety of the homeowners. The only suspect in the case was already in custody.
Significantly, the officers allowed the arrested burglar to accompany them into the residence rather than leaving him under observation, handcuffed, and secured in one of their vehicles. The officers gave no explanation on this record for taking the burglar, *445who was heavily armed when arrested, into the residence at that time. The absence of handcuff's or other restraints on the burglar as they entered the residence removes all doubt that there existed, or that the officers perceived, an emergency or exigent circumstances.
Furthermore, at the time of the initial entry, the only contraband involved was the stolen property that had already been recovered from the burglar’s vehicle. Thus, there was no reason for the officers to fear destruction of evidence. In addition, because there was no evidence prior to the entry that any other crime had been committed, no probable cause existed which would justify the warrantless entry.
A minimum of one hour and fifteen minutes elapsed between the time the burglar was stopped and the time the officers entered the residence. Although the officers expressed a desire to secure the residence, their failure to even attempt to contact the homeowners during the hour and a quarter interval negates the legitimacy of their expressed purpose. The officers had ample time to contact the homeowners, notify them of the burglary, and request that they come to the residence. Moreover, no evidence in this record suggests that the officers needed to enter the residence in order to secure it.
The evidence, and the reasonable inference that flows from it, strongly suggest that the burglar knew and told Bailey of the existence of marijuana plants in the sun room. However, in deciding this appeal, it is not necessary to determine whether that conclusion is justified. It suffices to say that, upon the evidence in this record, the Commonwealth failed to carry its heavy burden of justifying the warrantless entry prior to the arrival of the homeowners.
When Vickie Reynolds arrived at her residence she was confronted with the illegally obtained marijuana and arrested. Because the consent that was then obtained, even if voluntarily given, was not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal entry so as to purge the taint of the prior illegality, Walls v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 639, 654, 347 S.E.2d 175, 183-84 (1986), the evidence obtained in the subsequent search also should have been suppressed.