Dennis Henley, s/k/a, etc. v. Commonwealth of VA

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Willis, Bumgardner and Senior Judge Overton
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
DENNIS HENLEY, S/K/A
DENNIS HENLEY, A/K/A DENNIS HINTON
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0385-99-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
MAY 16, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Robert W. Duling, Judge
Matthew P. Geary (Goodwin, Sutton, Duval &
Geary, on brief), for appellant.
Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
The trial court convicted Dennis Henley of possession of
cocaine upon a conditional plea of guilty. On appeal, he argues
the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. He
contends the seizure was illegal because the officer did not
have reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal
activity or probable cause to search him. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
"In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to
suppress, '[t]he burden is upon [the defendant] to show that
th[e] ruling, when the evidence is considered in the light most
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
favorable to the Commonwealth, constituted reversible error.'"
McGee v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 193, 197, 487 S.E.2d 259, 261
(1997) (en banc) (citation omitted). While we 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 James Harrison and several other officers executed
a search warrant for drugs at a residence. Harrison found the
defendant in the dining area, searched him, and found cocaine on
his person. Harrison testified that the warrant was an all
persons warrant. Neither side introduced the warrant itself.
When a search is conducted pursuant to a warrant, "the
defendant must rebut the presumption of validity by proving that
the warrant is illegal or invalid." Lebedun v. Commonwealth, 27
Va. App. 697, 711, 501 S.E.2d 427, 434 (1998). This Court has
upheld the validity of warrants authorizing the search of all
persons present in the named location. See Morton v.
Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 946, 951, 434 S.E.2d 890, 893 (1993).
The defendant did not attack the validity of the warrant or
the information upon which the magistrate found probable cause
to issue the warrant to search all persons present. The
uncontradicted evidence established that the search warrant
authorized a search of all persons present at the residence.
- 2 -
The defendant was present as the officers entered to execute the
warrant, so the search of him was proper. The trial court did
not err in denying the motion to suppress. Accordingly, we
affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
- 3 -