John Raleigh Laprade v. Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Bumgardner and Felton
Argued at Salem, Virginia
JOHN RALEIGH LAPRADE
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0025-02-3 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG
Mosby G. Perrow, III, Judge
Sidney H. Kirstein for appellant.
Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney
General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.
The trial court convicted John Raleigh Laprade of
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He contends
the officer lacked probable cause to conduct a warrantless
search and seizure. Finding probable cause existed, we affirm.
When appealing a trial court's denial of a motion to
suppress, the defendant must prove that the ruling, when
considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
constituted reversible error. Fore v. Commonwealth, 220 Va.
1007, 1010, 265 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1980). "Ultimate questions of
reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make a warrantless
search" involve questions of both law and fact and are reviewed
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
de novo on appeal. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699
(1996). We review de novo the application of defined legal
standards to the particular facts of a case. Id.
On June 5, 2001, around 9:50 p.m., Investigator Saxton met
face to face with a known confidential informant. The informant
told Saxton he had observed a black man named John in possession
of more than a half ounce of marijuana "within the last couple
hours prior" to their 9:50 p.m. meeting. John drove a dark
green two-door Ford with Ohio license plates and was last seen
in the area of the Plaza and Memorial Avenue.
Saxton relayed this information, and, less than ten minutes
later, a detective located a vehicle matching the description
given, bearing Ohio plates, and in the area of the Plaza. The
black male driver parked and exited his car. The detective
asked the driver for his license and confirmed that his name was
John.
Saxton arrived a few minutes later and informed the
defendant he had information that the defendant possessed
marijuana. Saxton patted the defendant down and searched his
car. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized.
Saxton testified the informant had always been truthful and
his information always reliable. His information had led to
more than ten arrests and more than five convictions, and he was
a former marijuana user familiar with the drug.
- 2 -
The trial court ruled, "[t]he informant is reliable." It
found the informant "was personally familiar with marijuana and
his knowledge was that the defendant was in possession of more
than a half ounce of marijuana based upon personal observation
within two hours of reporting to the police." The trial court
concluded "as fact and law . . . [that] the police had probable
cause to conduct a warrantless search and seizure . . . based
upon the informant's tip." It denied the motion to suppress.
An officer's warrantless arrest is lawful if he has
probable cause to believe the defendant had committed or was
committing a crime. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307,
310-11 (1959); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76
(1949). When the basis for the probable cause determination
rests upon a tip, the informant's credibility and basis of his
knowledge are factors to be considered in the totality of
circumstances analysis. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230,
233 (1983); Boyd v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 179, 186, 402
S.E.2d 914, 918 (1991).
"When . . . an informant has a record of furnishing
reliable reports, an officer is justified in crediting a new
report . . . ." Wright v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 188, 191, 278
S.E.2d 849, 852 (1981). An officer has probable cause to arrest
if he receives information from a reliable informant that is "so
detailed as to raise an inference . . . of personal
observation." McKoy v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 224, 227, 183
- 3 -
S.E.2d 153, 156 (1971); Boyd, 12 Va. App. at 190, 402 S.E.2d at
921 (personal observation). The informant's credibility is
bolstered when he provides the tip in person. United States v.
Christmas, 222 F.3d 141, 144 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531
U.S. 1098 (2001). Moreover, when officers corroborate seemingly
innocent details of an informant's tip, it is reasonable to
believe that the uncorroborated portion, that a defendant had
drugs, was also correct. Draper, 358 U.S. at 313; United States
v. Lalor, 996 F.2d 1578, 1581 (4th Cir. 1993).
The trial court's finding that the informant was reliable
and his information based on personal observation is supported
by the record. The informant's credibility was established
because he had proven reliable in the past and he observed the
defendant with marijuana within two hours of his face to face
meeting with Saxton. The tip contained details about the car,
its driver, the amount and quantity of marijuana the defendant
possessed, and where he could be found. The police corroborated
the verifiable portions of the tip before arresting the
defendant.
Based on the facts and circumstances known to the officer,
he had probable cause to believe the defendant possessed more
than one half ounce of marijuana and had the right to make a
warrantless arrest. Brinegar, 338 U.S. at 175-76. Because
Saxton had probable cause to arrest, he could conduct the search
- 4 -
prior to the arrest. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111
(1980). Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
- 5 -