743 S.E.2d 302
Va. Ct. App.2013Background
- Murry was convicted in Hanover County Circuit Court of rape by force or intimidation and four counts of aggravated sexual battery; sentences totaled 56 years and 7 months with 40 years suspended.
- The circuit court imposed a probation condition requiring suspicionless searches of Murry’s person, property, and residence for life.
- The offenses involved Murry’s long-term sexual abuse of his teenage stepdaughter, including grooming behavior over eight years.
- Murry admitted some acts at trial but denied rape; the circuit court found his testimony incredible and emphasized risk of recidivism and community protection.
- The order also incorrectly described the rape conviction in the sentencing document, prompting a remand to correct the scrivener’s error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the lifetime suspicionless-search probation condition reasonable? | Murry contends the condition is unreasonable given the circumstances. | Commonwealth argues the condition is justified by the nature of the offenses and risk of recidivism. | Yes; condition is reasonable under the circumstances and tailored to public safety. |
| May the probation condition include waiver of Fourth Amendment rights for a sex offender? | Murry asserts the waiver is unconstitutional. | Commonwealth argues warrants and case law permit such waivers to enhance supervision. | Condition upheld as reasonable under applicable Fourth Amendment framework in sex-offender probation. |
| Should the judgment be remanded for a clerical correction in the sentencing order? | Argument not advanced in detail on this issue. | No substantive impact on the probation issue; correction is administrative. | Remanded to correct the incorrect statute reference in the sentencing order. |
Key Cases Cited
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (U.S. 2002) (sex offenders pose higher risk and deterrence rationale supports supervision)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2001) (probation searches can be reasonable under Fourth Amendment with proper conditions)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (U.S. 2006) (parolee suspicionless searches upheld; relevance to probation context noted)
- Nuckoles v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 1083 (Va. Ct. App. 1991) (probation conditions must be reasonable under context)
- Anderson v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. 580 (Va. 1998) (broad discretion to set probation conditions; reasonableness standard)
- Dyke v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 478 (Va. 1952) (probation conditions must be reasonable considering offense and offender)