John Hubert Leeth, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia
288 S.E.2d 475 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The totality of the circumstances, including a driver's sudden braking upon activation of police radar and an officer's observation of objects consistent with an electronic device, can provide reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop and probable cause for a subsequent search for an illegal radar detector.
Facts:
- Virginia State Trooper William J. Jones, Jr. observed a vehicle driven by John Hubert Leeth, III, traveling in excess of the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit on Interstate Route 81.
- When Trooper Jones activated his police radar, the brake lights on Leeth's vehicle immediately illuminated, and the car braked suddenly, almost to the point of skidding.
- As Jones followed the vehicle, he observed a small cord hanging down from the interior rearview mirror of Leeth's car.
- Jones also witnessed Leeth 'fumbling over the sunvisor on the driver’s side of the vehicle.'
- After being stopped, Leeth denied possessing a radar detection device and stated any search of his car would be against his will.
- Upon entering the vehicle, Jones found a power cord running from the dashboard up to the driver's side sun visor.
- Jones then discovered a radar warning device under the right front passenger seat.
- The officer took the device to his police vehicle, plugged it into the cigarette lighter, and confirmed it was in working order.
Procedural Posture:
- John Hubert Leeth, III, was charged with operating a motor vehicle equipped with a radar detection device in violation of Virginia Code § 46.1-198.1.
- Following a bench trial in a Virginia trial court, Leeth was convicted of the offense and fined $75.
- Leeth appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia, arguing the evidence was insufficient and that the stop and search violated his constitutional rights.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop and probable cause to conduct a search of a vehicle when the driver, who was speeding, brakes suddenly upon activation of police radar, and the officer observes a cord hanging from the rearview mirror and the driver fumbling with the sun visor?
Opinions:
Majority - Compton, J.
Yes. A police officer has reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop and probable cause for a search based on the totality of the circumstances. The court held that under the Fourth Amendment, a stop is justified when an officer has a reasonable suspicion based on objective facts that an individual is involved in criminal activity, a standard less stringent than probable cause. Here, the totality of the circumstances—Leeth's excessive speed, his sudden braking immediately upon the activation of police radar, the visible cord, and his 'fumbling' movements—provided a particularized and objective basis for Trooper Jones to surmise that Leeth was engaged in the criminal activity of using a radar detector. These same facts, which strongly suggested the presence and recent use of an illegal device, were sufficient to establish probable cause for the subsequent search of the vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'totality of the circumstances' test for establishing reasonable suspicion in the context of traffic stops for suspected radar detector use. It affirms that a combination of a driver's evasive reaction to police action and objective physical evidence observed by an officer can cumulatively meet the constitutional thresholds for both a Terry stop and a subsequent search. The decision provides a clear example of how observations can escalate from justifying a brief detention to providing probable cause for a more intrusive search. It reinforces the principle that courts will look at the entire 'picture' from the perspective of a reasonable officer, rather than evaluating each fact in isolation.
Unlock the full brief for John Hubert Leeth, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia