William Edward Freeman, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 778 S.E.2d 519

On March 7, 2014, Frederick County deputies under surveillance followed William Freeman after he left his residence and observed multiple objects (a cluster of air fresheners, one resembling a hand-grenade) dangling from his rearview mirror down toward the dashboard.
Investigator Kahle testified he could see the clump through the rear window from more than a car length behind and was concerned the size/position might obstruct Freeman’s clear view of the highway under Va. Code § 46.2-1054.
Officers stopped Freeman; a search produced drugs and a firearm, and Freeman was charged with felony possession offenses. He entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the denial of his suppression motions.
Freeman moved to suppress arguing (1) the stop lacked reasonable articulable suspicion because the officers offered only the presence of hanging objects (no other objective facts), and (2) § 46.2-1054 is unconstitutionally vague.
The trial court denied suppression, finding the objects objectively obstructive and also (erroneously) that one looked like a hand grenade; the court rejected the vagueness challenge. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but on the ground that the officer reasonably relied on a presumptively valid statute (so no Fourth Amendment violation occurred).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Freeman)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether the stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion under § 46.2-1054	Officer had no objective basis beyond seeing dangling air fresheners; that alone didn’t justify stop	The size, clustering, and position of the hanging objects were objective facts that reasonably suggested obstruction of the driver’s view	Stop was supported: photographs and testimony established objectively reasonable suspicion the objects obstructed the view; suppression denied
Whether § 46.2-1054 is unconstitutionally vague, such that evidence must be suppressed	Statute is vague; if invalid, the officer lacked lawful basis to stop and evidence must be excluded	§ 46.2-1054 is presumptively valid; officer reasonably relied on it, so no Fourth Amendment violation and exclusionary rule is inappropriate	Court declined to decide constitutionality as unnecessary; held that because the officer reasonably relied on a presumptively valid statute, there was no Fourth Amendment violation and suppression was not warranted

Glenn v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 123 (discussing appellate standard on motion to suppress)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (reasonable suspicion/probable cause reviewed de novo)
Mason v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 292 (rearview hanging item justified stop for possible § 46.2-1054 violation)
Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (officer’s reasonable enforcement of a presumptively valid ordinance can justify arrest/search even if statute is later held invalid)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (an objectively reasonable legal mistake by an officer can negate a Fourth Amendment violation)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule is not automatic; focuses on deterrence and when suppression is appropriate)