Commonwealth of Virginia v. Devon Lamar Washington

City of Fredericksburg, Virginia criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with distributing a controlled substance, simultaneously possessing a firearm and a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, illegally possessing
a machine gun, and carrying a concealed weapon.

On September 28, 2023, the Fredericksburg Police Department received several complaints
regarding criminal activity occurring around the outdoor pavilion of the Heritage Park townhomes.
Detective Stephen Lamar knew this area to be a “high narcotics distribution area.” Detective Lamar
watched the area that afternoon and observed multiple people congregated there, including
Teihmaurie Breckenridge. From a previous investigation, Detective Lamar knew that Breckenridge
was associated with a gang and was involved in “distribution of illegal contraband.” Several of the individuals wore backpacks, and Detective Lamar knew from his training and experience that individuals who sell illegal narcotics often store such items in backpacks. Detective Lamar did not
see any members of the group using narcotics or engaging in any other criminal activity.

* * *

“In this Court, [Washington] ‘bears the burden to show that the [trial] court committed
reversible error by denying [his] motion to suppress.’” Ayala v. Commonwealth, 79 Va. App. 41, 49
(2023) (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Keepers v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App.
17, 33 (2020)). A defendant’s “claim that evidence was seized in violation of the Fourth
Amendment presents a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo on appeal.”
Baskerville v. Commonwealth, 76 Va. App. 673, 684 (2023) (quoting King v. Commonwealth, 49
Va. App. 717, 721 (2007)). We defer to the trial court’s factual findings, reviewing them “only for
clear error,” and “giv[ing] due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.” Id. (quoting Long v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 700, 712 (2021)). But we “independently decide whether, under the applicable law, the manner in which the challenged evidence was obtained satisfies constitutional requirements.” Id. (quoting Shiflett v.
Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 141, 145-46 (2005)).
“The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Williams v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 462, 476 (2020). “Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
(1968), and its progeny, a police officer ‘may constitutionally conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.’” Bland v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 405, 413 (2016) (quoting Beasley v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 381, 395 (2012)). “Reasonable, articulable suspicion requires an officer to possess, at the time of the stop, ‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped[.]’”
Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 73 Va. App. 234, 246 (2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60 (2014)). “Whether reasonable suspicion exists is ‘based on an assessment of the totality of the circumstances.’” McArthur v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 352, 359 (2020) (quoting Harris v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 689, 695 (2008)).

The Defendant was found guilty and was sentenced to 15 years 12 months in prison.

Affirmed