Virginia Drug Lawyer Gets Goochland Marijuana Seizure Thrown Out of Court

Many times, police -- though acting in good faith -- step over the line or make a mistake in judgment that can result in a defense verdict. If evidence is seized illegally, normally the courts will not allow it to be admitted at trial. 

While under federal and Virginia law, search warrants are preferred, many exceptions to the Fourth Amendment bar against unreasonable searches exist. But, when a search is made of a person's home, or the curtilage of the home (the area outside the interior four walls), the courts have traditionally held the police to a higher standard when seeking to introduce into evidence items seized in a warrantless search. 

Having a criminal defense lawyer willing to explore every possible defense is an advantage that cannot always be measured. A recent case in point illustrates why.
 
On November 22nd, a Goochland County (Virginia) Circuit Court judge rejected arguments of the Commonwealth's Attorney that a search was reasonable and therefore not violative of the Fourth Amendment, or alternatively, was a valid seizure under the "community caretaker" exception to the search warrant requirement. The evidence -- three marijuana plants in planters on the deck attached to the rear of the residence -- obtained was suppressed.

The Court did not believe under the facts that the deputy's presence at the rear of the house was reasonable, and the contraband was seized legally as it was in "plain view." While not questioning that the deputy making the seizure believed he was acting appropriately when he went to the rear of the defendant's residence to advise that a neighbor's house had been burglarized 3.5 hours earlier, and to make inquiry of the defendant if he had noticed any suspicious vehicles in the area, when the deputy walked to the rear of the residence after getting no answer at the front door, he exceeded the implied consent he might expect the owner to extend to police or other visitors. Moreover, several "Posted" signs were visible at the driveway entrance, which the Court held under existing law, would negate any implied consent by the owner to police or the public at large. The Court said it made no difference that the deputy did not see the signs.

For the "community caretaker" exception to the warrant requirement to apply required the existence of some exigency. The "community caretaker" exception was found not to exist under these facts. The mere fact that the deputy was checking to see if the defendant's home -- as was the neighbor's house -- had been broken into from the rear, was alone, not an exigent circumstance. The deputy had no facts to form a reasonable suspicion anyone in the house was in distress or danger, and the burglary of the neighbor's house had occurred almost 4 hours prior. 

For these reasons, the Court ruled that the marijuana seized could not be used at the defendant's trial. Without that evidence, it is unlikely the Commonwealth can proceed, though it is considering an appeal of the Court's ruling.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a misdemeanor or felony in federal or state court in Virginia, please contact us to schedule a free consultation.