Motion to suppress syringe correctly denied

Where a police deputy seized a liquid-filled a syringe from appellant’s pocket, there was probable cause to do so under the facts of this case. Appellant’s plea-based conviction to a drug offense is affirmed.

Overview

Four police officers responded to a disorderly conduct complaint involving a vehicle at a gas station and three individuals, one of whom was appellant Thompson.

One of the officers, Deputy Nguyen, saw the top half of a liquid-filled syringe in Thompson’s pocket.

Deputy Nguyen seized the syringe and handcuffed Thompson. The syringe needle was “uncapped and exposed.” Later it was “determined that the liquid in the syringe contained Eutylone, a Schedule I controlled substance.”

Thompson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that Deputy Nguyen lacked probable cause to search him. The trial court denied the motion. Thompson pleaded guilty to knowingly or intentionally possessing a Schedule I or II controlled substance.

Discussion

“Deputy Nguyen had reasonable, articulable suspicion that Thompson was engaged in criminal activity. Deputy Nguyen testified that he and the other officers responded to the Exxon gas station to investigate a report of disorderly conduct.

“However, during the course of the investigation, Deputy Nguyen noticed a syringe protruding from Thompson’s front right pants pocket as Thompson was walking around and around the parked vehicle or, as Deputy Nguyen described, ‘walking around the car circling around walking back and forth.’

“Deputy Nguyen could see the ‘top half of the syringe’ sticking out of Thompson’s pants pocket and observed that the syringe contained a liquid. At one point, Deputy Nguyen saw Thompson try to push the syringe down into his pants pocket so as to conceal it, but the syringe ‘came back up again later on.’

“Given the totality of the circumstances, the trial court did not err in finding that there was reasonable, articulable suspicion that Thompson was in possession of a controlled substance.

“For the officers’ safety, Deputy Nguyen placed Thompson in handcuffs because he was concerned that the syringe might have a needle that could be used as a weapon against him. Deputy Nguyen then removed the syringe from Thompson’s pocket and, at that point, saw that the needle was exposed and uncapped.

“Thompson then denied knowing what liquid was in the syringe and also stated that the pants he was wearing—with the syringe sticking out of the pocket—were not his pants. By this point, Deputy Nguyen then also had probable cause that criminal activity was occurring and that Thompson was in possession of a controlled substance. …

“Deputy Nguyen then arrested Thompson.

“Here, given the totality of the circumstances and for officer safety, Deputy Nguyen was entitled to seize dangerous items like the liquid-filled syringe, which could have endangered the safety of Deputy Nguyen, Thompson, and others.

“This Court has held that ‘actions by an individual prior to a seizure “may both crystallize previously unconfirmed suspicions of criminal activity and give rise to legitimate concerns for officer safety,” thereby permitting detention and a limited search for weapons.’ …

“As the trial court correctly pointed out, a syringe is not necessarily ‘an innocent item’ like a hand-rolled cigarette or a film canister. In short, the trial court did not err in denying Thompson’s motion to suppress the evidence.”

Affirmed.

Thompson Jr. v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1346-22-2, Nov. 28, 2023. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Beales) From the Hanover County Circuit Court (Ellis). John R. Working (The Railside Law Group, on brief), for appellant. Suzanne Seidel Richmond, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Lacey Ullman Conn for appellee. VLW 023-7-457, 7 pp.