Loren Anthony Mason, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
64 Va. App. 292, 2015 Va. App. LEXIS 35, 767 S.E.2d 726 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory traffic stop when, viewed objectively, the facts could support a suspicion that a dangling object might be obstructing the driver's clear view of the highway in violation of a statute, even if the possibility of innocent conduct exists.
Facts:
- A police officer, while operating a stationary radar unit at approximately 2:30 p.m., observed a sedan pass by.
- The officer saw an opaque, five-inch by three-inch parking pass hanging from the sedan's rearview mirror.
- Loren Anthony Mason, Jr. was a passenger in the sedan.
- The officer initiated a traffic stop of the sedan.
- The driver of the vehicle consented to a pat-down search, during which the officer discovered marijuana.
- A subsequent search of the sedan revealed a backpack belonging to Mason, which contained cocaine, ecstasy pills, marijuana, a digital scale, and plastic bags.
- A search of Mason's person incident to his arrest yielded $3,381 in cash and a cell phone.
Procedural Posture:
- Loren Anthony Mason, Jr. was charged in trial court with various drug offenses.
- Prior to trial, Mason filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the traffic stop was unconstitutional.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a bench trial, Mason was convicted of the charged offenses.
- Mason appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
- A divided three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling.
- The Commonwealth of Virginia's petition for a rehearing en banc was granted by the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
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 a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment when the officer observes an opaque, five-by-three-inch parking pass hanging from a vehicle's rearview mirror, based on a potential violation of a statute prohibiting objects that obstruct a driver's clear view of the highway?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelsey, J.
Yes. A police officer has reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop under these circumstances. The Fourth Amendment's reasonable suspicion standard is an objective test that requires significantly less certainty than preponderance of the evidence or probable cause. The court must consider the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer, not the subjective belief of the specific officer involved. Virginia Code § 46.2-1054 prohibits any object suspended in a manner that obstructs the driver's 'clear view of the highway,' which is defined broadly to include more than just the pavement directly in front of the vehicle. An opaque, five-by-three-inch object hanging from the rearview mirror could plausibly obstruct the driver's view of overhead signs, merging vehicles, or pedestrians, thereby creating a 'moderate chance' of a violation sufficient to justify a brief investigatory detention. This holding is limited to the specific facts and does not create a per se rule that any object dangling from a rearview mirror justifies a stop.
Dissenting - Humphreys, J.
No. A police officer does not have reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop under these circumstances. The majority's holding effectively creates a per se rule allowing police to stop any vehicle with any object dangling from the rearview mirror, thereby eroding Fourth Amendment protections. The officer failed to articulate any specific facts as to why this particular object was obstructing the driver's view; he merely observed a 'dangling object.' The stop was based on the officer's unreasonable mistake of law, believing any dangling object was illegal, which is contrary to the plain language of the statute requiring an actual obstruction. Furthermore, the officer made no effort to investigate the alleged violation after stopping the vehicle, indicating the stop was an unconstitutional pretext without a valid underlying basis.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the low threshold required for reasonable suspicion in the context of traffic stops in Virginia. It affirms that the standard is purely objective, allowing courts to validate a stop based on the observable facts even if the officer's subjective reasoning was flawed or incomplete. The ruling provides law enforcement with significant latitude to initiate stops for minor vehicle equipment violations that have a potential connection to safety. Consequently, it may become more difficult for defendants to succeed on motions to suppress evidence obtained from such stops, as long as an officer can identify an objective fact that could plausibly constitute a violation of a traffic law.
