James Willis Campbell, Sr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 66 Va. App. 677

On August 6, 2014, Investigator James Begley obtained a search warrant from a magistrate for James W. Campbell Sr.'s Amherst County property to search for methamphetamine manufacturing evidence; Begley executed the warrant the same night and officers seized evidence and made arrests.
Begley left the magistrate’s office with two signed copies of the warrant and the supporting affidavit; one copy was retained by the magistrate and one given to police. The magistrate’s office faxed documents to the circuit court clerk the next day.
The circuit court clerk filed only the first page of the affidavit and the warrant on August 7, 2014; the second page containing Begley’s sworn probable-cause statements was not received or filed.
Campbell moved to suppress, arguing the filing requirement of Va. Code § 19.2-54 was not met; the trial court initially ordered suppression based on that statutory violation but later admitted the evidence after finding probable cause and exigent circumstances justified a warrantless search.
On appeal the Court of Appeals held that under Code § 19.2-54 evidence is inadmissible if the required affidavit (including sworn probable-cause statements) is not filed with the clerk within 30 days of the warrant, reversed admission of the evidence, and reversed Campbell’s conviction; the court did not reach Fourth Amendment issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to file the complete, sworn affidavit as required by Va. Code § 19.2-54 mandates suppression of evidence obtained under the warrant	Commonwealth: statute’s filing defect is procedural; alternatively, good-faith exception or exigent circumstances validate the search or evidence	Campbell: missing page (sworn probable-cause statements) violated § 19.2-54 and requires suppression	Court: Under § 19.2-54, evidence is inadmissible if the required affidavit (including sworn probable-cause statements) is not filed within 30 days; suppression required
Whether the court should resolve suppression under state statute versus Fourth Amendment analysis	Commonwealth: even if statutory lapse, Fourth Amendment exceptions (exigent circumstances) or good-faith apply	Campbell: statutory remedy controls; exclusion required regardless of federal analysis	Court: Decided on state statutory ground; Fourth Amendment analysis unnecessary after statutory exclusion

Anderson v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 85, 688 S.E.2d 605 (Va. 2010) (standard of review on suppression appeals)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. 2011) (exclusionary rule is a judicially created deterrent for Fourth Amendment violations)
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (states may impose search-and-seizure rules more restrictive than the Fourth Amendment)
Quintana v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 127, 295 S.E.2d 643 (Va. 1982) (purpose of filing/certification: ensure affidavit on file is same one supporting probable cause)
Garza v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 559, 323 S.E.2d 127 (Va. 1984) (statute’s purpose is notice to defendant to check affidavit supporting probable cause)
Lockhart v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 329, 542 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App. 2001) (filing by officer rather than magistrate met notice purpose where affidavit filed and identical)
Lane v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 713, 292 S.E.2d 358 (Va. 1982) (Code § 19.2-54 addresses admissibility of evidence seized under a warrant)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (warrantless home entries presumptively unreasonable; exigent circumstances exception)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (exigent circumstances can justify warrantless searches)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (U.S. 2011) (limitations and standards for exigent-circumstances exception)