Christopher Randoloph Craig v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2009 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Humphreys and Alston
Argued at Salem, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER RANDOLPH CRAIG
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0722-08-3 JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS
APRIL 28, 2009
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG
Mosby G. Perrow, III, Judge
Joseph A. Sanzone (Sanzone & Baker, P.C., on brief), for
appellant.
(Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General; Josephine F. Whalen,
Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee
submitting on brief.
Christopher Randolph Craig (“Craig”) appeals his conviction for driving under the
influence of alcohol, in violation of Code § 18.2-266. He argues the trial court erred in holding
that Officer C.S. Bradner (“Officer Bradner”) had reasonable suspicion to justify stopping
Craig’s truck. We disagree and affirm.
Craig makes two arguments as to why Officer Bradner did not have reasonable suspicion
that criminal activity may be occurring. First, he argues that the trial court erred by finding
Officer Bradner’s testimony credible. Second, he argues that the trial court erred when it held
that the stop was reasonable even if Officer Bradner mistakenly believed that the license plate
light was not operating.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Craig’s first argument has no merit. “The credibility of the witnesses and the weight
accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and
hear that evidence as it is presented.” Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455
S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995). The trial court heard the testimony of all of the witnesses and
specifically found Officer Bradner credible. We are bound by that finding on appeal.
Craig’s second argument is also without merit. A seizure made “pursuant to a mistake of
fact is valid if (1) the arresting officer believed, in good faith, that his or her conduct was lawful,
and (2) the arresting officer’s good faith belief in the validity of the arrest was objectively
reasonable.” Barnette v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 581, 584, 478 S.E.2d 707, 708 (1996).
Code § 46.2-1013 requires that:
tail lights shall be constructed and so mounted in their relation to
the rear license plate as to illuminate the license plate with a white
light so that the same may be read from a distance of 50 feet to the
rear of such vehicle. Alternatively, a separate white light shall be
so mounted as to illuminate the rear license plate from a distance
of 50 feet to the rear of such vehicle.
Under Code § 46.2-1013, driving with a malfunctioning license plate light is unlawful. Here, the
trial court found that, even if Officer Bradner was mistaken about the light, he honestly believed
that the light was malfunctioning. Officer Bradner’s good faith belief that Craig’s license plate
light was not working made it reasonable for him to believe that Craig was committing an
unlawful act. Barnette, 23 Va. App. at 584, 478 S.E.2d at 708. Thus, even if Officer Bradner
were mistaken, the seizure of Craig’s vehicle does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s
prohibition against unreasonable seizures. Accordingly, we affirm Craig’s conviction.
Affirmed.
-2-