Payne v. Commonwealth

1

LANCE JONATHAN PAYNE v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

No. 1398-23-3

Court of Appeals of Virginia

October 22, 2024

From the Circuit Court of Augusta County Shannon T. Sherrill Judge ^[1]

Meghan Shapiro, Senior Appellate Attorney (Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant.

Mary Catherine Talbott, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Huff, Athey and Fulton Argued at Lexington Virginia

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[*]

JUNIUS P. FULTON, III JUDGE

Following a conditional guilty plea, the Circuit Court of Augusta County convicted Lance Jonathan Payne of possession of methamphetamine in violation of Code § 18.2-250. On appeal, Payne challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that law enforcement officers violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

"In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party [below]." Poole v. Commonwealth, 73 Va.App. 357, 360 (2021) (quoting Gerald v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 469, 472 (2018)). This standard requires us to "discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be drawn [from that evidence]." Bagley v. Commonwealth, 73 Va.App. 1, 26 (2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Cooper v. Commonwealth, 54 Va.App. 558, 562 (2009)).

Read in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated the following. On October 31, 2021, while travelling on Route 250, Corporal Cody Stroop of the Augusta County Sheriff's Office observed a white Durango with no front license plate pull out in front of him. Despite accelerating his vehicle to about eighty miles per hour, Corporal Stroop was unable to catch up to the vehicle and lost sight of the vehicle. After searching the area, Corporal Stroop eventually located the white Durango in the Avid Hotel parking lot. When Corporal Stroop found the vehicle, he pulled into a nearby parking lot to observe the vehicle. While sitting there, Corporal Stroop witnessed another vehicle pull into the parking lot and drive around the hotel twice. Corporal Stroop witnessed the white Durango flash its high beams "fifteen to twenty times" in an apparent attempt to get the attention of the driver of the other vehicle. Corporal Stroop then observed the person inside the white Durango walk over to the other car and remain there for about three to five minutes and then return to the Durango.

After observing this behavior, Corporal Stroop drove from his location and approached the white Durango and found the appellant, Payne, asleep in the driver's seat. Corporal Stroop asked Payne to exit the vehicle and discovered that Payne did not have a Virginia driver's license. The car was unregistered, and Payne had no proof of insurance. According to Corporal Stroop, Payne "changed his story" about the encounter on Jefferson Highway and his reason for being in the hotel parking lot multiple times throughout their conversation. Corporal Stroop then spoke with the manager of the hotel. Corporal Stroop verified that Payne was not a resident or guest at the hotel and did not work there. Further, the hotel manager confirmed that Payne had inquired about the possibility of a room, but that Payne did not have the requisite funds to pay for a room. Based on all these circumstances, Corporal Stroop determined that the vehicle had to be towed.

Pursuant to Augusta County Sheriff's Office policy, Corporal Stroop conducted an inventory search of the vehicle before it was towed. He found a phone, which he returned to Payne, and a broken glass smoking device, which tested positive for methamphetamine. Thereafter, Payne was indicted for one count of possession of a Schedule I or II controlled substance.

Payne filed a motion in limine seeking to suppress the evidence recovered during the search of Payne and the vehicle. Payne challenged both the initial stop and subsequent search of his person and vehicle. In response, the Commonwealth argued that Corporal Stroop had the necessary reasonable suspicion to first initiate the encounter with Payne and that the subsequent inventory search of the vehicle complied with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on January 30, 2023. Corporal Stroop testified at the hearing. He described the circumstances related above, that led to his encounter with Payne. He further testified to the Augusta County Sheriff's Office inventory policy when conducting an impoundment. Specifically, Corporal Stroop testified that "[a]nytime we have, we have to call for a tow truck, we have to make sure there's no valuables inside that vehicle so that it can be reported as stolen, you know, during transport or by the tow truck company." Moreover, Corporal Stroop testified that he was trained in conducting these sorts of inventory searches and that the policy he was referring to was memorialized in writing by the Augusta County Sheriff's Office. On cross-examination, Corporal Stroop admitted that Payne was able to telephone a friend for a ride home and that it might have been possible for Payne to use his telephone to privately arrange for his car to be towed. When asked about his initial decision to call for a tow truck and have the vehicle impounded, Corporal Stroop testified that, per the Augusta County Sheriff's Office policy, he had the "discretion" to make that decision, as the on-scene officer.

The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the initial stop and subsequent search did not violate Payne's Fourth Amendment rights. Payne entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to challenge the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress. By final order entered on July 25, 2023, the trial court sentenced Payne to three years' imprisonment, with two years and ten months suspended. The trial court further suspended the two-month active sentence upon Payne entering and completing a drug treatment program. Payne now appeals.

ANALYSIS

I. Standard of Review

"When challenging the denial of a motion to suppress evidence on appeal, the [appellant] bears the burden of establishing that reversible error occurred." Mason v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 362, 367 (2016) (citing Glenn v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 123, 130 (2008)). "At this juncture, the Court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and affords it the benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence." Williams v. Commonwealth, 71 Va.App. 462, 474-75 (2020) (citing Hill v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 804, 808 (2019)). "We are 'bound by the trial court's findings of historical fact unless "plainly wrong" or without evidence to support them.'" Parady v. Commonwealth, 78 Va.App. 18, 29 (2023) (quoting Knight v. Commonwealth, 61 Va.App. 297, 305 (2012)). "In addition, we 'give "due weight to the inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers."'" White v. Commonwealth, 73 Va.App. 535, 552 (2021) (quoting Kyer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va.App. 473, 479 (2005) (en banc)). "However, the Court reviews de novo the overarching question of whether a search or seizure violated the Fourth Amendment." Williams, 71 Va.App. at 475 (citing Glenn, 275 Va. at 130).

II. The Initial Encounter

"An officer may effect a traffic stop when he has reasonable suspicion to believe a traffic or equipment violation has occurred." McCain v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 546, 553 (2008) (citing Bass v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 470, 475 (2000)). An officer's suspicion is reasonable when considering the totality of the circumstances, the officer had a "particularized and objective basis for suspecting that a person stopped may be involved in criminal activity." Bass, 259 Va. at 475 (citing United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981)). License plates assigned to motor vehicles registered in Virginia must be attached at the front and rear of the vehicle. Code § 46.2-715.

Corporal Stroop testified that after first observing it entering the highway, he witnessed the white Durango traveling on the highway at speeds of at least 80 miles per hour without a license plate affixed to the front of the vehicle.^[2] This by itself gave rise to the reasonable, articulable suspicion that Payne had committed both a traffic violation and an equipment violation. Because the vehicle was speeding in violation of the posted speed limit,^[3] Corporal Stroop was justified in initiating the encounter with Payne.^[4] Further, Corporal Stroop was also justified in investigating whether Payne was in violation of Code § 46.2-715, given that the vehicle Payne had been operating did not have a license plate affixed to the front of it. We agree with Payne that, in asking Payne to "step out [of his vehicle] and [] talk to [Stroop] about the whole incident," Corporal Stroop effected a detention under the Fourth Amendment. But this detention was justified, based on the aforementioned reasonable articulable suspicion that Payne had violated Code §§ 46.2-870 and -715. Therefore, the initial encounter was lawful under the Fourth Amendment.

III. The Inventory Search

To protect the owner's property while it remains in police custody, protect the police against claims concerning lost or stolen property, and protect the public and police from physical danger, the Virginia Supreme Court has determined that warrantless inventory searches of impounded vehicles are valid exceptions to the Fourth...