Search and Seizure: Circuit court wrongly suppressed results of search

Where the investigatory stop and resultant detention did not exceed the reasonable limits, the circuit court erred in suppressing the evidence obtained following the stop.

Background                                       

The circuit court suppressed any evidence obtained by the police after stopping Charles Sherard Jones’s vehicle.

Analysis

The informant was a known informant who had a history of providing information that had always “proven to be correct” in the past and had given Chief Jordan information on numerous occasions. Unchallenged on appeal, the circuit court found that the informant was reliable, and the record supports this finding.

The informant identified Jones by name, stated he was possibly armed, provided a description of the vehicle that included the color, make and license plate and provided a description of the direction that Jones went that allowed the officer to find Jones within three to four minutes of receiving the tip. In addition to the tip from the informant, Jordan also had a past dealing with Jones.

As such, while the tip may have been vague as it relates to the type and weight of the “drugs” and the type of firearm, and only said Jones was “possibly” armed, the tip was certainly sufficient to provide a reasonable officer in Jordan’s shoes with a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and was sufficient to justify the stop, especially given the reliability of the tipster and the accurateness of the information provided about Jones.

With a reasonable suspicion that Jones may have been armed and possessing “drugs,” the officer immediately called for assistance when conducting the stop on a country road. He immediately put away his weapon once assistance secured Jones. The officer did not verbally threaten Jones, stand outside of Jones’s door with his firearm pointing at Jones, drag Jones out of the vehicle nor even approach Jones prior to assistance arriving. The intrusion on Jones’s personal privacy was reasonable under the circumstances.

Because the investigatory stop and resultant detention in this case did not exceed the reasonable limits of such a stop and detention, the circuit court erred in suppressing the evidence obtained following the stop.

Reversed and remanded.

Commonwealth v. Jones, Record No. 2001-24-2, July 15, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Frucci). From the Circuit Court of Mecklenburg County (Blessing). William K. Hamilton, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on briefs), for appellant. Kevin E. Calhoun (Law Office of Charles C. Cosby, Jr., on brief), for appellee. VLW 025-7-179. 8 pp.