Commonwealth v. Campbell, 294 Va. 486

Investigator Begley received real‑time tips from a known, reliable informant that a methamphetamine "cook" was imminent at James Campbell’s shed; officers observed activity consistent with the tips (foil, hose, smoke) and four people present.
Begley applied for and obtained a search warrant late at night; he signed the application at 10:30 p.m. and the magistrate issued the warrant at 10:47 p.m.; police executed the search about 11:52 p.m. and recovered methamphetamine and precursors.
The magistrate attempted to fax the warrant affidavit to the circuit court clerk, but the clerk received only portions of the filing: the affidavit page was incomplete and a critical page establishing the informant basis and probable cause did not transmit.
Campbell moved to suppress under Va. Code § 19.2‑54, arguing the magistrate’s failure to file the complete affidavit rendered the warrant invalid and evidence inadmissible; the trial court found the warrant defective but denied suppression, holding exigent circumstances justified the search.
The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the state statute rendered the evidence inadmissible despite any Fourth Amendment analysis; the Supreme Court of Virginia granted appeal.
The Supreme Court assumed the warrant was invalid under § 19.2‑54 but held the search was independently justified as a warrantless search under the exigent‑circumstances exception and reinstated the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Code § 19.2‑54 requires suppression when a magistrate fails to timely/file a complete affidavit	Campbell: statutory filing failure invalidates the warrant and mandates exclusion of evidence	Commonwealth: § 19.2‑54 governs searches "under the warrant" and does not bar evidence if search is justified without a warrant; exigent circumstances independently justify search	§ 19.2‑54 does not bar admissibility of evidence from a search that is justified as a warrantless search; statute addresses searches made under a warrant only
Whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless entry/search of the shed	Campbell: reliance on a defective warrant cannot be cured by asserting exigent circumstances	Commonwealth: probable cause plus imminent, dangerous methamphetamine manufacture created exigency (risk of fire, toxic gases, destruction of evidence, escape)	The Court: exigent‑circumstances exception applied—probable cause, urgency, danger to life, disposability of evidence, and presence of suspects supported a warrantless search

Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635 (warrantless entry may be justified by exigent circumstances)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (exigency test: objectively reasonable under totality of circumstances)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (exigencies can justify warrantless searches in defined circumstances)
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is the controlling inquiry)
Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (defective warrant may be treated as warrantless for Fourth Amendment analysis)
Commonwealth v. Robertson, 275 Va. 559 (Virginia precedent describing warrant requirement for homes and exceptions)
Verez v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 405 (government bears burden to prove probable cause and exigent circumstances)
United States v. Poole, 718 F.2d 671 (Fourth Cir. — evidence may be admissible under an exception despite a defective warrant)