virginia v morre Essay

1248 Words Dec 2nd, 2013 5 Pages
Virginia v. Moore
272 Va. 717

Facts: The day was February 20,2003, in the city of Portsmouth where two Portsmouth police officers had pulled a vehicle over who was driven by David Lee Moore. While listening to police radio they had heard that the man they pulled over who went by the nickname “chubs” was driving on a suspended license. The officer’s soon determined that chubbs was indeed driving on a suspended license. The officers who made the stop arrested chubbs for the misdemeanor of driving on a suspended license. This violation could have lead to chubbs serving a 1-year in jail and a $25,000 fine, according to Va Code Ann 18.2-11. The officers then searched the vehicle in which chubbs was driving. During the search of the
…show more content…
The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizures. The supreme court of Virginia then reversed the call again.

Procedure: The first court to hear the case was The Trial Courts of Virginia, who made the original decision to deny the motion to suppress evidence. Then the case traveled to The Intermediate Appellate Court, they reversed the decision by The Trial Courts of Virginia. The case then traveled to the Virginia Supreme Court, where it was reversed again. Then it made its way to the United States Supreme Court Reversed the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court again and remanded it for further proceedings.

Issues: The first issue in this case was whether or not the evidence collected in the case should have been suppressed or not. When Moore was first arrested the vehicle in which he was driving was then searched. Moore thought that the evidence should have been suppressed do to the fact that he was arrested on a misdemeanor charge where there doesn’t have to be an arrest made. Since the officers arrested him and then preceded to search his car Moore believed that this was a violation of his fourth amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. According to the case Gerstein v. Pugh and Brinegar v. United States if arresting officers have probable cause that a person committed even a minor offense in his presence the arrest is deemed constitutional reasonable. The case California v.
Open Document