Commonwealth of Virginia v. Darren Develle Dixon CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA April 14, 1997, Decided On August 1, 1996, the defendant was operating a motor vehicle in the City of Richmond and was observed throwing a drink out the driver's side window. The vehicle then moved in a jerking motion and an officer pulled the vehicle over, smelled a slight odor of alcohol, gave a field sobriety test, and decided to issue the driver a summons for reckless driving. After informing the driver, the officer performed a protective sweep of the vehicle, picked up a small folded piece of paper and a substance believed to be heroin was found inside. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence taken from defendant's automobile after he was stopped and given a summons for reckless driving. Issue: Whether the search of the vehicle was incidental to a lawful arrest? Discussion: This court held the search of the vehicle was incident to a lawful arrest. Reckless driving is a Class I misdemeanor under Va. Code Ann. 46.2-868. The officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant for reckless driving, a misdemeanor committed in his presence. Once a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, an officer is authorized to search the vehicle's passenger compartment. The initial stop and detention were supported by probable cause. The fact that the officer was going to release the person from custody under the provisions of 46.2-936 does not negate the fact that the defendant was under arrest. Indeed, while the defendant was still in custody, the officer could have made the determination that the defendant would ignore the summons or the defendant could have refused to sign the summons, thereby requiring the officer to bring the person before a magistrate. Va Code Ann. 46.2-940. Conclusion: This court hence denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence taken from defendant's automobile after he was stopped and given a summons for reckless driving. Disclaimer: These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
