Van Andre Beasley v. Commonwealth of Virginia
60 Va. App. 381
| Va. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Sergeant Tennis, patrolling a known high‑crime area in the Lexington Park/ Lexington Square complex, observed a blue minivan with three occupants at about 3:30 a.m.
- Beasley sat in the front passenger seat; Lawson drove and Bowman sat behind him; a man in a white shirt was seen walking toward the minivan moments earlier.
- Upon returning to the scene, Lawson appeared to bend toward the center console; the officer illuminated the van and noticed furtive hand movements by Beasley and Bowman.
- Beasley repeatedly moved his hands during the encounter, including reaching under his shirt and toward the back of his seat, prompting the officer to order hands on laps and to watch for weapon or drug concealment.
- A limited pat‑down was conducted; Beasley resisted commands and his foot obstructed a small bag tucked under his foot, which the officer ultimately moved to reveal heroin and cocaine.
- Beasley moved to suppress the drugs as fruits of an unlawful seizure; the trial court denied suppression and the convictions for cocaine possession and heroin with intent to distribute were upheld on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did seizure occur under the Fourth Amendment? | Beasley argues Moss controls and seizure occurred earlier via flashlight show of authority. | Commonwealth argues Cochran controls; seizure occurs only after submission to show of authority. | Seizure occurred when Beasley submitted to the police show of authority after the third instruction. |
| Was there reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop? | Beasley contends the totality did not establish reasonable suspicion. | Commonwealth contends the accumulated furtive gestures and circumstances created reasonable suspicion. | Yes; the totality of circumstances supported reasonable articulable suspicion to detain. |
| Did the investigatory detention violate the Fourth Amendment and require suppression of the drugs? | Beasley argues the stop was unlawful and drugs should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. | Commonwealth argues the stop was permissible and drugs admissible. | Detention was permissible; suppression denied; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moss v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 305 (1988) (flashlight confrontation not controlling seizure here)
- Cochran v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 604 (1999) (submission to show of authority governs seizure timing)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 548 (2008) (seizure occurs when defendant submits to show of authority, not merely during initial commands)
- Woodson v. Commonwealth, 245 Va. 401 (1993) (focus on submission to authority for seizure analysis)
- McCain v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 483 (2001) (seizure requires submission or physical restraint)
- Whittaker v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 268 (2010) (location/context relevant to Terry analysis and suspicion)
- Riley v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 494 (1992) (cases discussing furtive gestures and reasonable suspicion)
- Asble v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 643 (2007) (high crime area contextual factor in Terry analysis)