Court Opinion

ID: 9581670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:17:24.906677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:10.924765
License: Public Domain

Opinion
COLEMAN, J.
This is an interlocutory appeal by the Commonwealth pursuant to Code § 19.2-398 of an order suppressing the admission into evidence of drugs found on the defendant. The trial court based its ruling on a finding that the defendant, Maurice Clay Satchell, was subjected to an unconstitutional warrantless seizure by a police officer when drugs were found upon him. The Commonwealth contends that the trial judge erred because the evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to prove that Satchell was seized within the meaning *129of the fourth amendment before the officer discovered that Satchell possessed the cocaine. We agree that Satchell had not been seized. There-fore, we reverse the trial judge’s ruling to exclude the evidence, and we remand the case for trial.
In mid-afternoon on December 18, 1991, Sergeant John Buckovich, who was dressed in plain clothes and traveling in an unmarked police car, saw the defendant standing with two other individuals on a Richmond street comer known to Buckovich as an area for narcotics trafficking. Buckovich saw the defendant hand money to one man and receive something in return. The three men saw the police car as it approached and immediately started to walk away in separate directions. The defendant walked to a door stoop, but was unable to enter the locked door.
From these observations, Buckovich believed that criminal activity was transpiring. Buckovich, who had a badge around his neck, approached the defendant on the stoop and identified himself. He asked the defendant, “What’s in your hand, pal?” The defendant showed his left hand, which was empty. Buckovich then asked the defendant what was in his other hand. The defendant opened his right hand, which contained two packages of cocaine. Buckovich arrested the defendant. Buckovich testified that until he observed the cocaine and made the arrest, Satchell was free to leave at any time or to ignore Buckovich’s questions.
Satchell filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence that he possessed cocaine on the ground that he was unlawfully seized under the fourth amendment when the contraband was taken from him. He contended that the police officer lacked probable cause to stop and search him and lacked a reasonable articulable suspicion that he might be engaged in criminal activity to justify a brief investigatory detention. The trial court granted Satchell’s motion based on a finding that the defendant had been seized without the officer having a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity when the officer approached and questioned him. Specifically, the trial judge held that “a person who finds himself in the position of Mr. Satchell being confronted by a police officer, when asked a question in the manner in which it was asked,” could reasonably have believed that he was not free to leave or to disregard the police officer’s questions.
*130We do not reach the issue whether Sergeant Buckovich had a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity might be afoot to justify a Terry-type investigatory detention. Relying upon the holding in Baldwin v. Commonwealth, 243 Va. 191, 199-200, 413 S.E.2d 645, 649-50 (1992), we hold that Satchell was not seized when Sergeant Buckovich approached him and asked what he had in his hand. Under the fourth amendment, a person has been seized “only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980); see also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 502 (1983). Although the Mendenhall test “is necessarily imprecise” and “flexible enough to be applied to the whole range of police conduct in an equally broad range of settings, it calls for consistent application from one police encounter to the next, regardless of the particular individual’s response to the action of the police.” Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573-74 (1988). Whether a person who encounters a police officer believes he is free to leave must be measured under all the circumstances by an “objective standard — looking to the reasonable man’s interpretation of the conduct in question.” Id. at 574. Whether a seizure has taken place involves factual determinations which bear upon whether a reasonably prudent person would feel that he or she is not free to leave, but whether the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that a seizure has occurred is ultimately a question of law. See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554-55 (holding that the citizen/police encounter cannot, “as a matter of law, amount to a seizure of that person”).
In our review of whether the facts show that Sergeant Buckovich had seized Satchell for purposes of the fourth amendment, we will, nevertheless, accord the trial court’s ruling a deferential standard of review,1 rather than making a de novo determination of the *131ultimate legal question of whether the facts proved a seizure. As we have noted, whether Satchell personally felt he was not free to leave is not controlling. Circumstances to be considered in determining whether a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave include “the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.” Id. at 554. Absent evidence of this type, “otherwise inoffensive contact” between a citizen and a police officer “cannot, as a matter of law, constitute a seizure of that person.” Id., at 555. Thus, a law enforcement officer does not violate the fourth amendment by merely approaching an individual in a public place and asking questions of the person if the individual is willing or chooses to remain and to answer them. Royer, 460 U.S. at 497. There must be some coercion or show of force or authority by the officer, measured by objective standards, that would cause a person so situated reasonably .to have believed that he or she was required to comply with the officer’s requests.
Relying upon the Mendenhall and Royer “not free to leave” standard, the Supreme Court of Virginia has held, under circumstances much more coercive and confining than those in this case, that, as a matter of law, no fourth amendment seizure had occurred during a citizen/police encounter. See Baldwin, 243 Va. at 196, 199, 413 S.E.2d at 647-50. In Baldwin, the police officer observed the defendant and his companion at 11:30 p.m. standing at one end of a parking lot near a dumpster. When they observed the officer’s vehicle, they began walking down the street toward an apartment building. The officer shined the headlights of his vehicle or his floodlight on the two individuals, told them to come over to him and to produce identification. When they complied with the officer’s directive, he observed that Baldwin was intoxicated. While searching him, incident to an arrest, he discovered a small amount of drugs on Baldwin. Applying the Mendenhall *132factors, the Court in Baldwin found that when the officer shined the light on Baldwin and directed him to come to him, the officer had not restrained Baldwin’s liberty or seized him for purposes of the fourth amendment. Baldwin, 243 Va. at 199, 413 S.E.2d at 649-50.
By contrast, the actions of Sergeant Buckovich in this case were significantly less coercive and confining than those of the officer in the Baldwin case. In this case, Sergeant Buckovich approached Satchell in midday in public and asked him what was in his hand. The officer made no show of authority other than his presence, he was not in uniform, he displayed no weapon, he was a lone officer, and, insofar as the record reflects, he made no command nor did he adopt a threatening tone. A question, as directed by Buckovich, is less coercive than a demand, as made by the officer in Baldwin. In Baldwin, the police officer’s demand, coupled with the shining of a floodlight and a request for identification, was held not to constitute a seizure. The Court found that a reasonably prudent person under those circumstances would not have believed his freedom of movement was restrained. In this case, the trial court ruled that a reasonably prudent person in Satchell’s position, when approached by an officer and asked what was in his hand, would have believed he was not free to leave. That ruling is inconsistent with and contrary to the Baldwin holding. Absent factors of coerciveness or factors that would have confined Satchell, we find no evidence to support the ruling by the trial judge. The trial judge erred by holding that Buckovich seized Satchell within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision granting the motion to suppress the evidence of the cocaine and remand the case to the trial court.

Reversed and remanded.

Fitzpatrick, X, concurred.

 For purposes of this decision, we adopt a deferential standard of review to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that a reasonable person in Satchell’s situation would not have felt free to leave. Other jurisdictions have held that a reviewing court conducts a de novo review of the evidence to determine the legal question of whether a seizure has occurred. Federal jurisdictions are divided on which standard of review is appropriate for determining whether a Fourth Amendment seizure took place. Five federal circuits adhere to the view that the question is a finding of fact subject to reversal only for clear error. See United States v. Gordon, 895 F.2d 932, 937 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Valdiosera-Godinez, 932 F.2d 1093, 1098 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Collis, 699 F.2d 832, 835 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1119 (1983); United States v. Dunigan, 884 F.2d 1010, 1014 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Archer, 840 F.2d 567, 571 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 941 (1988). Both the Second Circuit and the D.C. Circuit state that the issue is a question of law to be determined by *131de novo review. See United States v. Montilla, 928 F.2d 583, 588 (2d Cir. 1991); United States v. Maragh, 894 F.2d 415, 417 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 880 (1990). The Ninth Circuit is split on the issue. See Martinez v. Nygaard, 831 F.2d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 1987) (de novo review) and United States v. Erwin, 803 F.2d 1505, 1508 (9th Cir. 1986) (clearly erroneous standard). The Supreme Court of Virginia was not called upon to decide the appropriate standard of appellate review in the Baldwin case; nevertheless, it appears to have conducted a de novo standard of review. Thus, since the question has not been expressly decided in Virginia, for purposes of our review, we will apply the less rigorous standard and will accord the trial court deference for its finding. Accordingly, we reverse only because we find no credible evidence, based on those circumstances which have been deemed necessary for a seizure, to support the trial court’s finding that a seizure occurred.