Opinion
Record No. 1721-91-2
March 23, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND JAMES M. LUMPKIN, JUDGE
Robert P. Geary, for appellant.
Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Barrow, Moon and Elder
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
This appeal from a conviction of possession of cocaine, Code § 18.2-250, challenges the legality of a police officer's arrest of the defendant for trespassing and the later search of his person. Because we find that the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant for trespassing, we hold that the search was lawful and affirm the conviction.
As a general rule, an arresting officer may search an individual pursuant to a valid arrest. DePriest v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 577, 583, 359 S.E.2d 540, 543 (1987) (citing Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 646 (1983)),cert. denied, 488 U.S. 985 (1988). However, before making a warrantless arrest, the police officer must have sufficient probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime.Thompson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 117, 121, 390 S.E.2d 198, 201 (1990) (citing United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976)). The test for probable cause is "whether at the moment of arrest the arresting officer had knowledge of sufficient facts and circumstances to warrant a reasonable man in believing that an offense has been committed." DePriest, 4 Va. App. at 583-84, 359 S.E.2d at 543 (quoting Bryson v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 85, 86-87, 175 S.E.2d 248, 250 (1970)). "The quantum of information which constitutes probable cause . . . must be measured by the facts and circumstances of the particular case." Italiano v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 334, 336, 200 S.E.2d 526, 528 (1973) (per curiam) (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479 (1963)).
In this case, the defendant was standing on property that was posted with "No Trespassing" signs. The police officer approached the defendant because he did not recognize him as a resident of the apartment complex. The defendant started to walk away, but the police officer stopped him and asked if he lived at the complex. When the defendant responded that he did not, the officer asked for his identification. The defendant had no identification, but gave the officer his name and address. Based on this information and his own observations, the officer determined that the defendant did not live at the complex and arrested him for trespassing. A search of the defendant's person following this arrest revealed 0.2 grams of cocaine in his possession.
We hold that, based on these facts and circumstances, the police officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant for trespassing. See James v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 98, 379 S.E.2d 378 (1989); Jordan v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 591, 151 S.E.2d 390 (1966). The search of his person following the arrest was, therefore, lawful and the motion to suppress was properly denied. For the reasons stated above, the defendant's conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.