Andre L. Williams v. Commonwealth , 21 Va. App. 263 ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                     COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Bray
    Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
    ANDRE L. WILLIAMS
    v.        Record No. 2216-94-1               OPINION BY
    JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA                  NOVEMBER 21, 1995
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS
    Randolph T. West, Judge
    Benjamin M. Mason (Mason & Mason, on brief),
    for appellant.
    Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General
    (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on
    brief), for appellee.
    On appeal from his convictions of possession of cocaine with
    intent to distribute and importation of cocaine into the
    Commonwealth, Andre L. Williams contends (1) that the trial court
    erred in denying his motion to suppress the cocaine found on his
    person and (2) that the evidence is insufficient to prove he
    imported more than one ounce of cocaine into the Commonwealth.
    The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
    On both January 30 and February 6, 1993, Williams purchased
    a round-trip ticket from Newport News to New York City, all
    travel to be completed in one day.   He paid cash for the tickets
    in five, ten and twenty-dollar used bills.   He traveled under the
    names Johnson and Henderson, respectively.   U.S. Air ticket
    agent, Brenda Rummings, recognized Williams and realized he was
    using different names.   Her suspicion aroused, she reported this
    information to her supervisor, Cathy Reiger.
    Both Ms. Rummings and Ms. Reiger met with Officer Safranek
    of the airport police and gave him the information about
    Williams' travel and his description.    Safranek went to the final
    check-in waiting area, where the two women pointed out Williams.
    Safranek telephoned the Newport News Police Department and
    arranged to meet Sergeant Dawes from vice-narcotics at the
    airport at 8:00 p.m.    They confirmed that Williams was on the
    return flight to Newport News and was wearing the clothing that
    Rummings had described.
    After Williams disembarked from the plane, Safranek
    approached him and said, "Excuse me, Mr. Henderson.   May I talk
    to you for a minute?"   Williams' reply was not understandable.
    Safranek repeated his request.    Williams replied, "No," gave a
    "head fake," and ran.   He was caught by Sergeants Dawes and
    Davenport.   Immediately upon being apprehended, Williams said,
    "It's in my coat pocket."   Williams was removed to a prearranged
    area, where he was searched.   A package wrapped in brown tape was
    removed from his sweatshirt pocket, and another package was
    removed from his crotch.    Both packages contained cocaine.
    Williams was advised of his Miranda rights.    In response to
    the officers' questions, Williams
    stated that the stuff was his, that he had gone to New
    York to pick it up, that he had gone up there with
    $10,000 and this was what he had come back with. He
    stated there was approximately 19 ounces of powder and
    one ounce of crack cocaine. . . . He also stated this
    was his second trip, that on the first trip, he brought
    back about half that amount. He stated . . . that he
    - 2 -
    carried all his business to Norfolk.
    Sergeant Dawes testified that based on his fifteen years of
    experience working in narcotics and on several thousand arrests,
    he suspected narcotics activity after speaking with Safranek.      He
    based his suspicion upon his knowledge (1) that New York was a
    source for narcotics, (2) that Newport News was used as an entry
    point for narcotics into the Commonwealth, (3) that the use of
    aliases was common among persons involved in drug activity, and
    (4) that paying cash in small bills for plane tickets was
    indicative of drug activity.    Dawes also testified that the
    amount of cocaine found on Williams was inconsistent with
    personal use.
    Williams contends that the trial court erred in denying his
    motion to suppress as evidence the cocaine found on his person.
    He argues that Safranek had neither reasonable suspicion to
    detain him nor probable cause to arrest him when approaching him
    in the passenger waiting area.    However, Safranek's approach
    required neither predicate.    "Law enforcement officers do not
    violate the Fourth Amendment merely by approaching an individual
    on the street, identifying themselves, and asking the individual
    questions."     Buck v. Commonwealth, 
    20 Va. App. 298
    , 301-02, 
    456 S.E.2d 534
    , 535 (1995) (citing Florida v. Royer, 
    460 U.S. 491
    ,
    497 (1983)).    Safranek effected no seizure by approaching
    Williams.    He sought merely to engage Williams in a consensual
    encounter.
    - 3 -
    Upon Safranek's inquiry, Williams ran.    "Although flight
    alone may not supply sufficient reason to suspect a person of
    criminal activity, it may otherwise color apparently innocent
    conduct and, under appropriate circumstances, give rise to
    reasonable suspicion of criminal activity."    
    Id. at 303, 456
    S.E.2d at 536.
    Based on his experience as a narcotics detective, the
    information he received from Safranek, and the fact that Williams
    ran when approached by the police, Sergeant Dawes was justified
    in stopping Williams to investigate his activity.    "Under those
    circumstances, the physical detention of [Williams] was
    reasonable and lawful."   
    Id. After the officers
    restrained him, Williams immediately told
    them, "It's in my coat pocket."    This information, along with all
    the other circumstances, gave the officers probable cause to
    believe Williams possessed narcotics, and justified his arrest
    and search without a warrant.    "When an officer has probable
    cause to arrest a person, the officer may search the person
    . . . ."   
    Id. at 304, 456
    S.E.2d at 537.   Therefore, the cocaine
    found on Williams' person was admissible at trial.
    Williams next contends that the trial court erred in finding
    the evidence sufficient to support his conviction of transporting
    cocaine into the Commonwealth.    He argues that no evidence proved
    that his flight was non-stop.    Because Williams failed to make
    this argument at trial, we will not consider it on appeal.    Rule
    - 4 -
    5A:18.
    We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
    Affirmed.
    - 5 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2216941

Citation Numbers: 21 Va. App. 263, 463 S.E.2d 679, 1995 Va. App. LEXIS 836

Judges: Baker, Willis, Bray

Filed Date: 11/21/1995

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/15/2024