Commonwealth of Virginia v. Lamont Sentel Stallings, 1170161

On Dec. 24, 2015, Officer Whitehead in an unmarked car stopped Lamont Stallings after Whitehead testified Stallings, on a moped, swerved into his lane and forced Whitehead to nearly stop.
Whitehead radioed two following officers (Winfree and Wiley) to stop the moped; those officers did not observe the alleged swerve or any traffic infraction.
At the apartment-complex parking lot, Whitehead took Stallings’s license and began writing a summons; DMV computer delays occurred.
Officer Wiley asked to search Stallings (no consent). Stallings fidgeted, reached toward his pockets, tried to stand, then broke away and attempted to enter an apartment.
Officers stopped and searched Stallings and found heroin; Stallings moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful stop/seizure.
The trial court granted the suppression motion (court did not state its reasoning). The Commonwealth appealed under Code § 19.2-398.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Stallings's Argument	Held
Whether Officer Whitehead had probable cause to arrest Stallings for reckless driving based on the alleged swerve into oncoming traffic	Whitehead observed a dangerous swerve into his lane and nearly had to stop, establishing probable cause to arrest for reckless driving	Whitelings argues the officers behind did not see the swerve; evidence does not support probable cause and the trial court implicitly discredited Whitehead	Court accepts trial court’s implicit credibility finding adverse to the Commonwealth and finds no probable cause; suppression proper
Whether officers acquired an independent basis for reasonable suspicion that Stallings was armed/dangerous justifying the search after he fidgeted and attempted to flee	The subsequent conduct (fidgeting, reaching toward pockets, attempt to flee in a high-crime area) provided reasonable suspicion/justification for pat-down and search	Stallings contends the initial stop was unlawful and the later conduct did not cure the constitutional defect; court must view facts in light most favorable to defendant	Viewing evidence favorably to Stallings and accepting trial court’s credibility determinations, the detention/search remained unlawful; suppression affirmed

Murphy v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 568 (mixed question of law and fact review for Fourth Amendment claims)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (trial-court factual findings binding unless clearly erroneous; legal review de novo)
McGee v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 193 (appellate standards on fact findings and inferences in suppression rulings)
Alexander v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 671 (Commonwealth bears burden to show warrantless search did not violate Fourth Amendment)