824 S.E.2d 485
Va.2019Background
- Officer Rhodes observed a motorcycle speeding and later identified pictures of a similar bike on Collins’s Facebook; he traced the bike to a house on Dellmead Lane.
- Within an hour of contacting Collins at the DMV, Rhodes and another officer went to the Dellmead Lane house, saw a covered object in the driveway (within curtilage), entered the driveway, removed the cover, and confirmed the motorcycle was stolen.
- Rhodes then knocked, spoke with Collins, arrested him, and found a bike key on Collins; Collins was convicted of receiving stolen property after the trial court denied his suppression motion.
- The Virginia Supreme Court originally upheld the search under the automobile exception; the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding the automobile exception does not permit warrantless entry onto home curtilage to search a vehicle, and remanded to consider exigent circumstances or other grounds.
- On remand, Virginia’s Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on the alternative ground that the exclusionary rule did not require suppression under the good-faith exception because a reasonably well-trained officer would not have known the search was illegal in light of prior precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Collins) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the automobile exception permitted Rhodes to enter curtilage and search the motorcycle | Automobile exception inapplicable to curtilage; U.S. Supreme Court so held on certiorari | Prior precedent (e.g., Scher, state and federal decisions) allowed driveway/garage vehicle searches and made the law unclear | U.S. Supreme Court: automobile exception does not permit entry onto curtilage. On remand Virginia: omission of exclusionary rule under good-faith; so conviction affirmed. |
| Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies | Exclusion should apply because search violated Fourth Amendment and reliance on precedent was unreasonable | Officer reasonably relied on existing case law (Scher, Thims, circuit cases) so suppression would not deter culpable conduct | Virginia Supreme Court held good-faith exception applies: reasonably well-trained officer would not have known search was unconstitutional, so evidence admissible. |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search | No exigency: officers could have secured scene or obtained a warrant; motorcycle cover and physical constraints made immediate removal unlikely | Motorcycle was readily movable; officers had probable cause and recent contact with Collins made imminent removal likely, creating exigency | Majority did not decide exigency as controlling ground; a concurrence would have upheld search on exigent-circumstances grounds. Dissent disagreed, finding no exigency. |
| Proper scope of the good-faith test (binding precedent only vs. objective-reasonableness) | Limit good-faith to reliance on binding appellate precedent | Good-faith is an objective inquiry whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known the search was illegal under all circumstances | Virginia adopts the objective Davis/Herring standard (would a reasonably well-trained officer have known?), rejecting a restrictive "binding-precedent only" approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (recognition of automobile exception)
- Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251 (applied automobile exception to a vehicle in a detached garage)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (discussed scope of automobile search doctrines)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (good-faith/exclusionary-rule limits for searches made in reasonable reliance on binding precedent)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule requires culpable police conduct to justify deterrence via suppression)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (upholding limited seizure to preserve evidence while securing a location for a warrant)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (curtilage and property-based Fourth Amendment protection)