Joseph Leon Matthews v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 65 Va. App. 334

Background

Officer Mocello stopped Matthews for a dangling object from the rearview mirror (Va. Code § 46.2-1054). Matthews produced a Pennsylvania learner’s permit and photo ID.
While processing the stop, Mocello asked questions about travel, residence, prior arrests, and tattoos; Matthews appeared nervous. Mocello briefly stepped into his cruiser to run checks and requested a K-9 unit.
Officer Zebrine (the second officer) spoke separately with Matthews; Zebrine asked if a K-9 would alert, and Matthews told the officers they could search. Mocello later confirmed consent, saying, “If you’re going to let us search, we’re not going to bring the dog.”
The circuit court denied Matthews’s suppression motion, finding the unrelated questions and the K-9 request caused only a de minimis delay and that consent to search was voluntary.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals found the detention was prolonged in violation of the Fourth Amendment under Supreme Court precedent in Rodriguez, which invalidated Matthews’s consent, but declined to suppress the evidence because officers acted in good-faith reliance on binding precedent existing at the time of the stop.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Matthews)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether officers impermissibly prolonged the traffic stop, invalidating consent to search	Officers extended the stop by asking about arrests/tattoos and requesting a K-9, so consent was tainted	The investigatory questions and brief K-9 request were de minimis and occurred while the traffic mission was ongoing	Stop was impermissibly prolonged under Rodriguez; Matthews was seized when he consented
Whether officers had independent reasonable suspicion to justify the extension	No reasonable, articulable suspicion of drug activity existed from the facts observed	Officer relied on evasive behavior, prior charges, and perceived narcotic indicators (e.g., teeth) to justify suspicion	No reasonable suspicion supported the extension; the extension violated the Fourth Amendment
Whether consent given while detained was voluntary and sufficient to permit search	Consent was tainted by the unlawful extension and therefore invalid	Consent was voluntary and given before the traffic warning was completed (or while processing), so it validated the search	Consent was invalid because it was given during an unlawful detention caused by the prolonged stop
Whether evidence must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule	Suppression required because the Fourth Amendment was violated	Exclusionary rule should not apply because officers acted in reasonable reliance on binding precedent (pre-Rodriguez) that permitted de minimis, unrelated questioning	Exclusionary rule does not apply; evidence admissible because officers acted in good-faith reliance on then-binding precedent

Key Cases Cited

Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (police may not extend a traffic stop beyond its mission to conduct unrelated checks absent reasonable suspicion)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (consent given during an illegal detention is tainted and ineffective)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (dog sniff during a lawful traffic stop that does not prolong the stop is permissible)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (officers may ask unrelated questions during a stop so long as they do not measurably extend its duration)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent searches valid if voluntary)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (reasonable articulable suspicion standard for brief investigative detention)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule requires deliberate, culpable police misconduct to deter)
Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (evidence obtained in reasonable reliance on binding precedent is not subject to exclusion)
Harris v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 28 (presence of officers and absence of indication a driver was free to leave supports finding of detention)