832 S.E.2d 33
Va.2019Background
- Patrick Darnell Hill was observed sitting alone in a parked car in a known high-crime, high-drug area; two experienced narcotics detectives pulled alongside and approached on foot.
- As detectives neared (about 25 feet), Hill began making repeated up-and-down glances and then turned away and began "digging" between the driver and passenger seats with his right hand while detectives — identifying themselves and shouting "show us your hands" 7–10 times — perceived he might be reaching for something.
- A detective opened the driver’s door, grabbed Hill’s left forearm and pulled him from the vehicle; officers then checked under the driver’s seat where they found a bag of cocaine.
- Hill pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute (second offense) after his conditional guilty plea; he appealed the denial of his pretrial suppression motion arguing the seizure violated Terry.
- The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the trial court: the detectives were justified in seizing Hill to protect themselves because Hill’s evasive, furtive movements while ignoring repeated commands gave rise to reasonable suspicion that he might be reaching for a weapon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Fourth Amendment seizure occurred before officers physically touched Hill | Hill: seizure occurred when officers ordered him to show his hands and he was not free to leave | Commonwealth: no seizure until physical force or submission; refusal to comply alone is not a seizure | Held: no seizure until detectives grabbed Hill — verbal commands alone did not effect a seizure (citing Hodari D.) |
| Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize Hill under Terry | Hill: officers lacked reasonable suspicion because he was merely sitting in lawful conduct in a high-crime area and did not engage in observed criminal activity before commands | Commonwealth: Hill’s turning away and sustained digging between seats while ignoring repeated commands objectively suggested he might be reaching for a weapon, creating reasonable suspicion to seize and protect officers | Held: totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion that Hill may have been reaching for a weapon, justifying the seizure |
| Whether suspicion for officer safety requires suspicion of predicate criminal activity | Hill: a frisk/forcible stop requires particularized suspicion of ongoing or imminent criminal activity, not just officer safety concerns | Commonwealth: Terry permits a stop and limited protective action when an officer reasonably suspects a person is or is about to be armed and dangerous, even if prior acts were lawful | Held: Terry allows protective seizure when reasonable suspicion exists that suspect "is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity" (court rejects Hill’s narrower view) |
| Suppression remedy for evidence found in vehicle after seizure | Hill: evidence should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful seizure | Commonwealth: seizure was lawful; evidence admissible | Held: seizure lawful; trial court right to deny suppression; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes reasonable-suspicion standard for investigatory stops and limited protective searches)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (Fourth Amendment seizure occurs by physical force or submission to authority)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (lawful-looking conduct may still give rise to reasonable suspicion under the totality of circumstances)
- Mason v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 362 (2016) (Virginia court applying Terry to lawful conduct that supported reasonable suspicion)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (recognizes officer safety concerns when approaching persons in vehicles)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (reasonableness is the ultimate touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis)