Virginia Lawyers Weekly VA Lawyers Weekly
A Franklin County Circuit Court denies a defendant’s motion to suppress any evidence obtained against him after a GPS device was attached to his vehicle when it was parked at night on a public street in the city of Bedford, as the device was attached to the outside of the car, there was no evidence the vehicle was tracked on any private property and the officers have maintained surveillance of the vehicle and collected the same evidence obtained by use of the GPS.
The court finds defendant’s privacy rights were not violated, in that: 1) the officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant had participated in two attempted burglaries in Botetourt County before the GPS was attached; 2) prior to the attachment, the officers had determined that the vehicle was registered to defendant; 3) the vehicle was parked on a public street when the GPS was attached; 4) the GPS was placed on the outside of the vehicle on the right rear passenger side on the underside of the door frame; 5) the attachment of the GPS required no holes or other damage to the vehicle; 6) the officers had not gained access to the interior of the vehicle in any way; 7) the GPS had its own power source and was not connected mechanically to the vehicle; 8 ) there is no evidence the vehicle was tracked on any private property; and 9) the officers have maintained surveillance of the vehicle and collected the same evidence obtained by the use of the GPS.
The court finds that the placement of the GPS is neither a search nor seizure and does not violate either the U.S. Constitution or the Virginia Constitution. The motion to suppress is denied.
Defendant has moved for dismissal of his court-appointed attorney and to waive his right to be represented by a lawyer. The court fully advised defendant of his right to be represented by a lawyer of his own choice, and of his right to be represented by a lawyer appointed to represent him, and finds defendant has been advised of the offenses, the nature of the offenses and the potential punishment, of possible defenses and circumstances in mitigation thereof; and that representation by a lawyer is in the defendant’s best interest; and of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.
The court finds defendant is well educated, having a BA degree, and that based on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding these cases, which include the background, education, experience and conduct of the defendant, that the defendant understood the advice and waived his right to be represented by a lawyer, knowingly and voluntarily, of his own free will, without any threats, promises, force or undue influence. Therefore, the waiver of the right to be represented by a lawyer is hereby accepted. Defendant also declined the court’s suggestion that his current court-appointed attorney be appointed to serve as “standby counsel.” The court orders that the court-appointed lawyer is relieved of her duties to represent defendant in any further proceedings.
Commonwealth v. Hill (Alexander) No. 10 05 3428, May 9, 2011; Franklin County Cir.Ct. VLW 011-8-113, 3 pp.
