Court Opinion

ID: 9578699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:47:34.737198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:15.460094
License: Public Domain

Elder, J., with whom Barrow, J.,
joins dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons stated in the panel opinion. See Barrett v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 196, 435 S.E.2d 902 (1993). I acknowledge and am in accord with the “community caretaking functions” first discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973), and discussed subsequently in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), and Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987). All of these cases discussed “community caretaking functions” in the context of police activities occurring after an otherwise valid seizure of an automobile. This concept as discussed in these cases simply does not apply to the facts of this case.
No United States or Virginia Supreme Court case cited by the majority defines the term “community caretaking” as applied by the majority in its opinion. The new, expanded “community care-taking function” adopted by the majority will effectively remove all objective limits on such police activity. I would reverse the conviction.