Austin James
Moore v. Commonwealth
Statement of the case: The trial court denied D to a bench trial. The court
convicted D of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and sentenced D to
serve five years in the penitentiary, with one year and six months suspended. D
appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Facts: Because the case was appealed after conditional pleas of guilty, there is no
dispute as to the essential facts. On the afternoon of February 15, 2005, Officer
W.T. Bryan of the Henrico County police was sitting in his police cruiser parked in
a parking lot behind a grocery store, facing an adjacent street. He saw a car
traveling southbound on the street. The car displayed an inspection sticker that
was “peeling off of the windshield.” The car passed about five feet away from
the front of his cruiser and, although the sticker was “sort of bowed,” the sticker
was legible to the officer and he could see that it was valid. The officer drove out
of the parking lot and followed the car while checking the car's license number on
his computer. This check revealed that the car was owned by a rental company in
Midlothian, Virginia. Later, at a hearing on a motion to suppress the evidence, the
officer testified that he had stopped numerous vehicles with peeling inspection
stickers and found that “a great majority of the time ․ the inspection sticker that
will be peeling off the window does not belong on that vehicle.” Asked to be
more specific, the officer testified that he had stopped approximately 50 vehicles
within the previous six months displaying peeling inspection stickers and that 30 to
35 of the 50 stickers did not belong to the vehicles on which they were displayed.
Issues: The U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment usually requires a warrant for
every search. No warrant is needed, however, if the search follows a constitutional
arrest. If police reasonably suspect a misdemeanor under state law, arrest the
suspect, and search him without a warrant, does the search violate the U.S.
Constitution when state law prohibits the arrest?
Held. The Montana Supreme Court found that the trial court properly allowed the
DNA evidence
Discussion. The Montana Supreme Court carefully and thoroughly reviewed the
analysis and science of DNA testing before allowing admission as is necessary
under Daubert
Conclusion: For the reasons stated, we will reverse the judgment of the Court of
Appeals en banc, reinstate the majority panel decision and remand the case to the
Court of Appeals with direction to remand it to the circuit court for further
proceedings if the Commonwealth should be so advised.
