767 S.E.2d 726
Va. Ct. App.2015Background
- Mason, a passenger in a sedan, was implicated by a police stop founded on a parking pass dangling from the rearview mirror.
- The officer stopped the vehicle under Code § 46.2-1054, asserting the object could obstruct the driver’s view.
- The officer asked for consent to search the driver; a pat-down yielded marijuana, then a search of the car revealed Mason’s backpack with drugs.
- The driver’s arrest led to Mason’s possession charges; a later search of Mason yielded cash and a cell phone.
- Mason moved to suppress, arguing the stop was unconstitutional; the trial court initially signaled doubt but denied suppression.
- On en banc review, the court upheld the stop, rejecting Mason’s suppression arguments and endorsing a narrow obstruction-based reasonable suspicion standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Mason argued the stop lacked reasonable suspicion. | Commonwealth contends a dangling object could reasonably raise suspicion. | Stop upheld; reasonable suspicion found. |
| Whether officer's subjective belief matters for Fourth Amendment analysis | Subjective intent should determine legality of the stop. | Objective, not subjective, assessment controls; state of mind irrelevant. | Objective analysis governs; subjective views irrelevant. |
| Whether Code § 46.2-1054 prohibits any dangling object from obstructing the view | Any dangling object could justify a stop. | Only objects obstructing the view violate the statute. | Narrowly limited to obstruction by the five-by-three inch parking pass observed here. |
| Whether the officer’s mistake of law invalidates the stop under Heien | Mistake of law renders the stop per se unreasonable. | Reasonableness can survive even with a mistake of law if objectively reasonable. | Officer’s unreasonable mistake of law undermines the stop; but framework sustains result here under objective scrutiny. |
| Whether the exclusionary rule applies to suppress evidence obtained after the stop | Suppression should follow if the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. | Exclusionary remedy not necessarily required; attenuation may apply. | Exclusionary rule analysis warranted but not dispositive; court remands for possible suppression determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (reasonable mistakes of law must be reasonable)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014) (totality of circumstances; reasonable suspicion assessed objectively)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigative stops require articulable facts)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (stopping automobiles requires articulable suspicion)