Hairston v. Commonwealth of Virginia – Case Brief

Case:

Hairston v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 67 Va.App. 552 (2017)

Facts:

During a routine traffic stop, Detective Karen Fraser from the City of Danville Police Department encountered the appellant (Najee Finique Hairston) in a white Camaro. The appellant was driving carelessly and was swerving on the road. Detective Fraser had trailed the car earlier and noticed that the appellant crossed the double line demarcation on the road, speeding towards the City of Danville. A second officer, L.D, Land, was also on duty with Detective Fraser and witnessed Hairston’s car crossing the line designating no passing traffic. A decision was then made to stop the car. Officer Land immediately took notice of a distinctive marijuana odor, which prompted a thorough search of the white Camaro. He recovered both synthetic marijuana and a sizeable amount of cocaine.  Hairston was arrested for the possession of controlled substances and intent to distribute. Driving on a suspended license also warranted an indictment.

Read also Challenges Related to Writing Case Briefs

Procedural History:

At first, Hairston’s case was presented before the circuit court. After lengthy deliberations, the appellant was found guilty of all charges and convicted.  Hairston was not satisfied with the verdict and appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Read also Case Brief – Bill Beasley and California Cuisine Inc Premature Contract Termination

Issue:

The bone of contention in this matter is whether the Circuit Court denied Hairston’s motion to suppress the trove of evidence.  According to the appellant, the traffic stop and subsequent seizure of controlled substances were arbitrary since this very act infringed upon his Fourth Amendment rights.

Read also United States Of America Vs Ronald Eric Boyd – Recently Published Court Case

The Rule of Law:

The motion to suppress, earlier presented before the Circuit Court, was denied since the appellant failed to convince the trial jury that a reversible error had been made. The argument that there was an outright impingement of his Fourth Amendment rights is not applicable in this scenario since the officers established a probable cause for searching the vehicle. Furthermore, they also seized both cocaine and a cannabimimetic agent.

Holding:

Based on the appellant’s demeanor and action, the law enforcement officers on patrol on the day of the arrest presumed that he had committed an offense.  Officer Land positively identified the white Camaro and its occupant during the traffic stop after the initial violation. The appellant’s argument sought to invalidate the officer’s statement since the search and subsequent seizure of controlled substances occurred three hours after the stop. Nevertheless, it was the appellant’s reckless driving that caught the officer’s attention. It was during the stop that the officer got a whiff of the distinctive odor of burning marijuana, leading to a search of the vehicle. Had Najee Finique Hairston been following traffic rules and driving responsibly, he undoubtedly would not have been stopped.

Rationale:

There was a reasonable constitutional basis for the law enforcement officer to detain the individual. They established probable cause and reasonable suspicion since several objective facts pointed to the appellant’s overt involvement in illegal activities.  It was the appellant’s reckless driving that first drew the officer’s attention resulting in the first contact. As per procedure, the officer took a photograph of the license plate. After arriving at the precinct, a review of the case log revealed that it was the same individual from an earlier stop in the white Camaro. Probable cause then impelled her to search the appellant’s vehicle without a warrant for she was within legal parameters of an investigatory stop.

Share with your friends
Order Unique Answer Now