836 S.E.2d 710
Va. Ct. App.2019Background:
- Officer Brown observed Eric Cherron Jones change lanes, crossing a single solid white line immediately before an intersection; officer initiated a traffic stop and recorded the maneuver.
- On approach the officer saw marijuana in plain view; Jones was searched and cocaine was found in his pocket.
- Jones moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing the lane change did not violate law and thus the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
- The trial court found the lane crossing was not a statutory violation but denied suppression, relying on Heien v. North Carolina (reasonable mistake of law doctrine).
- Jones entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed; the Court of Appeals considered whether the officer’s mistake of law was objectively reasonable and whether the exclusionary rule applies.
Issues:
| Issue | Jones' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion when based on crossing a single solid white line | Crossing a single solid white line is not a violation, so no reasonable suspicion | Officer’s mistaken belief that the maneuver violated law was reasonable under Heien | Officer’s mistake was not objectively reasonable; the statute is unambiguous; stop lacked reasonable suspicion |
| Whether the exclusionary rule should bar the evidence obtained from the stop | Evidence must be suppressed because the stop violated the Fourth Amendment | Heien forecloses suppression when mistake of law is reasonable; trial court relied on that | Exclusionary rule applies because the mistake was not reasonable and officer conduct was culpable; evidence suppressed; conviction vacated and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (reasonable mistake of law can supply reasonable suspicion if objectively reasonable)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" touchstone)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (reasonableness standard in searches and seizures)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (law enforcement allowed fair leeway; reasonableness of mistakes)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule aims to deter deliberate/reckless/grossly negligent conduct)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary-rule purpose and limits)
- Collins v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 207 (2019) (Virginia discussion of when exclusionary rule should apply)
- McCain v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 546 (2008) (officer must have reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop)