Michael Leon Edwards v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2001 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Willis and Bumgardner
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
MICHAEL LEON EDWARDS
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1314-00-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
AUGUST 7, 2001
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
William R. Shelton, Judge
Randy B. Rowlett (Gordon, Dodson & Gordon, on
brief), for appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General
(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.
The trial court convicted Michael Leon Edwards of
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of
Code § 18.2-248. He contends the trial court erred in not
suppressing the drugs found when he was searched. Concluding
the officer had probable cause to search the defendant, we
affirm.
In considering a trial court's denial of a motion to
suppress, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth. McGee v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 193, 197,
487 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1997) (en banc). While we are bound to
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
review de novo the ultimate questions of reasonable suspicion
and probable cause, we "review findings of historical fact only
for clear error and . . . give due weight to inferences drawn
from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement
officers." Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996).
Officer D.G. Henderson stopped the car in which the
defendant rode for a traffic violation. Henderson immediately
detected a strong odor of marijuana coming from the driver's
window. Henderson requested each of the three occupants to exit
the car. He searched the driver and then the front-seat
passenger. Though he smelled marijuana on each of them, he
found none on them and his search found none in the car.
The defendant was the only passenger in the backseat.
Henderson noticed tobacco that had been removed from a cigar
wrapper "still intact on the floorboard." Henderson knew from
his training and experience that marijuana users smoke "blunts"
which are hollowed-out cigars. A user removes the tobacco core
by unwrapping the cigar, rolls marijuana in the cigar wrap, and
smokes it. Henderson asked the defendant to step out of the car
and, as he did, detected "a strong odor of marijuana coming from
his clothing." Henderson searched the defendant and discovered
plastic bags of cocaine and $344 cash in his pockets.
The defendant testified at the suppression hearing. He
denied any of the occupants of the car had smoked marijuana or
- 2 -
that the car smelled of marijuana. He knew what a blunt was but
denied seeing one that night.
The trial court ruled Henderson "had a reasonable basis for
searching" the defendant. The judge noted the smell of
marijuana coming from the vehicle, the discovery in plain view
of items commonly used for smoking marijuana, and the search of
the first two occupants which failed to reveal the source of the
marijuana smoke.
Before searching the defendant, Officer Henderson needed
probable cause to believe the defendant had committed a criminal
offense or was in the process of committing one. Parker v.
Commonwealth, 255 Va. 96, 106, 496 S.E.2d 47, 53 (1998).
"'[P]robable cause exists when the facts and circumstances
within the officer's knowledge . . . alone are sufficient to
warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an
offense has been or is being committed.'" Id. (quoting Taylor
v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820, 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981)).
The defendant concedes the officer lawfully stopped the
car, had probable cause to search it, and lawfully detained the
defendant while doing so. However, he contends the smell of
marijuana alone did not provide probable cause to search the
defendant's person. We do not address whether the smell of
marijuana alone provided probable cause to search the defendant
because the officer's investigation developed significantly more
- 3 -
information of criminal activity than just an unattributed smell
of marijuana.
After searching the car and the other two occupants,
Henderson had not located a source of the marijuana odor. The
defendant was the only other likely source. Before the
defendant got out of the car, Henderson observed hollowed out
cigar tobacco and wrappers, which he knew were associated with
"blunts," a marijuana smoking device. They were on the
floorboard beside the defendant. After the defendant got out of
the car, Henderson smelled marijuana on the defendant's
clothing. Concluding the defendant was engaged in criminal
activity, Henderson searched him. Henderson had a reasonable
and objective basis to search because the aggregate information
pointed to the defendant as the probable source of the suspected
drugs.
We conclude that the totality of circumstances furnished
probable cause to believe the defendant was engaged in criminal
activity. Accordingly, the search was permissible, and we
affirm the trial court.
Affirmed.
- 4 -