837 S.E.2d 91
Va. Ct. App.2020Background
- On Nov. 19, 2016, Richmond police stopped Roy Leeshun Williams for speeding and swerving; officer asked about firearms and Williams said he had a concealed-carry permit but was evasive about the gun’s location.
- While preparing summonses (16–18 minutes), the officer asked Williams to exit the vehicle; once Williams did, the officer saw a large revolver in Williams’ open jacket and seized it for officer safety.
- After seizing the gun, the officer smelled unburned marijuana, found a small bag of green leafy material on Williams, and performed a Duquenois–Levine field test that was positive for THC.
- The officer read the gun’s visible serial number and checked a database, learning the gun was stolen; Williams made evasive statements and would not identify the seller.
- Williams was charged with receiving a stolen firearm (Va. Code § 18.2-108.1) and possession of marijuana, subsequent offense (Va. Code § 18.2-250.1); he moved to suppress and challenged sufficiency and field-test evidence.
- Trial court denied suppression, jury convicted on both counts; Court of Appeals affirmed the firearm conviction, reversed the marijuana conviction because the Commonwealth failed to establish admissibility of the field-test under the statutory foundation required (DFS approval).
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Williams' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether seizure of the firearm and subsequent inspection/serial check violated the Fourth Amendment | Seizure was lawful: officer ordered exit for safety, saw gun in plain view, lawfully seized it and read its visible serial number; running the number was part of investigation | Seizure/search lacked probable cause/was unconstitutional; reading serial number and database check unlawfully extended the stop | Court: Seizure and viewing the visible serial number were lawful (plain view/officer safety); running the serial number and brief continued detention were justified by reasonable suspicion (evasive answers, large gun, odor and evidence of marijuana) |
| 2) Sufficiency of evidence that Williams knew the gun was stolen (mens rea) | Circumstantial evidence (evasive responses, refusal then exposure of gun, implausible explanations, statements after learning gun was stolen) support guilty knowledge | Passage of time since original theft, lack of obvious indicia of theft, no low-price evidence, neutral statements—insufficient to prove knowledge beyond reasonable doubt | Court: Evidence was sufficient; jury rationally rejected innocence and could infer guilty knowledge |
| 3) Admissibility of marijuana field-test result under Va. Code § 19.2-188.1 | Field test used (NARK II Duquenois-Levine) is approved by DFS and routinely used; result admissible | Commonwealth failed to lay statutory foundation—no proof DFS approval of that specific test or proper training by DFS | Court: Trial court abused discretion admitting field-test result—record lacked proof of DFS approval; appellate court refused to take judicial notice on this record; conviction for marijuana reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (limits on prolonging traffic stops; mission of stop defines tolerable duration)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (standards for officer safety searches and seizures)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (safety-based steps during traffic stops and risk that stops may reveal more serious crimes)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (touchstone of Fourth Amendment is reasonable expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (limitations on privacy interests in items disclosed by tests and examiner actions)
- New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in vehicle identification number in plain view)
- Moore v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 30 (2018) (upholding warrantless seizure of firearms in plain view when they pose threat to officer safety)
- United States v. Watts, 7 F.3d 122 (8th Cir. 1993) (once officers lawfully possess firearms, recording serial numbers and checking registration is permissible)
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) (moving items to view identifying marks may constitute a search)