Mavin v. Commonwealth

7 Citing cases

  1. Feagins v. Commonwealth

    No. 1241-22-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2023)

    Mavin v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 161, 164-66 (1999) (finding probable cause to enter a vehicle and seize a prescription bottle where an officer "recognized the prescription bottle as a type frequently used to carry crack cocaine," saw it in plain view and that it bore no label, and observed a passenger try to hide it).

  2. State v. Sanchez

    2015 NMCA 84 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 16 times
    In Sanchez, the officer's training and experience did not support a reasonable belief that the prescription pills in that case were being used unlawfully because the officer did not testify that, in his training and experience, prescription pills in clear plastic bags were usually contraband.

    {19} We recognize, however, that the contexts in which defendants make furtive movements vary widely, and courts view those contexts and the furtive movements themselves differently, as we illustrate below. At least two courts have concluded that there was probable cause with little more, if any, suspicious circumstances than those before us now. One such case is Mavin v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 161, 521 S.E.2d 784 (1999). There, a vehicle's passenger was slumped down in the backseat, attempting to hide his person and a prescription bottle without a label from law enforcement.

  3. Commonwealth v. Phillips

    Record No. 1274-14-3 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2014)

    Thus, in the instant case, the defendant engaged in significant evasive actions as he attempted to conceal the container from Sergeant Pruett during the traffic stop. See Hollis, 216 Va. at 877, 223 S.E.2d at 889; see also Mavin v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 161, 164-66, 521 S.E.2d 784, 786-87 (1999) (upholding the seizure of a prescription bottle where an officer recognized it as a type "frequently used to carry crack cocaine"; saw that it bore no label, "suggesting no current medical use"; and observed a passenger try to hide it). In addition to the defendant's furtive efforts to hide the container, Investigator Shockley knew from his training and experience that the container was of a size and type frequently used to conceal illegal drugs, and the officers had information from an informant that the defendant "was heading to a residence . . . to cook methamphetamine."

  4. Gates v. Commonwealth

    Record No. 1877-10-2 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2011)

    Here, unlike in Harris, Officer Verbena did not actually seize the contraband from appellant's pocket until after appellant told the officer that there was "nothing" in his pocket. Instead, the facts of this case are similar in this respect to those in Mavin v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 161, 165, 521 S.E.2d 784, 786 (1999), where Mavin made suspicious movements and then denied any knowledge of a pill bottle that he had just been holding. This Court held that "[s]uch furtive conduct gave [the police officer] probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed." Id.

  5. Snell v. Commonwealth

    Record No. 2840-05-1 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2007)

    See also Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000) ("Headlong flight — wherever it occurs — is the consummate act of evasion: it is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such."); McCain v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 483, 492-94, 545 S.E.2d 541, 546-47 (2001) (finding that flight supported probable cause and finding of guilt); Clagett v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 79, 93, 472 S.E.2d 263, 271 (1996) ("Flight following the commission of a crime is evidence of guilt. . . ."); Hope v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 381, 386, 392 S.E.2d 830, 833-34 (1990) ( en banc) (confirming flight may be considered as evidence of guilt).See also Lawson v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 354, 357, 228 S.E.2d 685, 687 (1976) (finding probable cause based in part on defendant's furtive "act of throwing" a yellow envelope to the floor); Mavin v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 161, 164, 521 S.E.2d 784, 786 (1999) (probable cause in part because suspect "dropped the bottle to the floor and pushed it with his foot underneath the seat"). Nor can we expect the officers to ignore the peculiar nature of Snell's dollar bill.

  6. Royal v. Commonwealth

    37 Va. App. 360 (Va. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 11 times
    Recognizing that drug dealers routinely conceal crack cocaine in their mouths

    Appellant did not attempt to hide his chewing nor did he lie when asked what he was chewing.Contrast Mavin v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 161, 165, 521 S.E.2d 784, 786 (1999) (finding probable cause where a defendant denied knowledge of a prescription bottle with no label that he was attempting to hide). Although appellant would not spit out the item in his mouth, that refusal cannot be used as the basis for probable cause.

  7. Purdie v. Commonwealth

    36 Va. App. 178 (Va. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 24 times
    Finding that the officers established sufficient probable cause to arrest for drug possession based in part on knowledge that the suspect had previously stabbed an officer, repeatedly fled from police, and frequently attempted to discard drugs while fleeing

    At that point in time, Dengeles also had probable cause to arrest Purdie for possession of an illegal substance. See id. at 877, 223 S.E.2d at 889 (furtive gesture of throwing down hand-rolled cigarette gave officer probable cause to search vehicle); Mavin v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 161, 165-66, 521 S.E.2d 784, 786-87 (1999) (evasive actions, including furtive gestures to conceal prescription bottle, were factors to consider when determining probable cause to believe bottle contained contraband); see also Lawson v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 354, 355, 358, 228 S.E.2d 685, 686, 687 (1976); Buck, 20 Va. App. at 304, 456 S.E.2d at 536-37. Buck, 20 Va. App. 298, 456 S.E.2d 534, involved furtive conduct similar to the conduct observed in this case.