INDEPENDENT LOCAL NEWSNewport News, Virginia
Back to the record

Document text · Page 5 of 23

Knight-Walker v. Commonwealth — 2025 opinion, later reversed

Text from the approved public copy. Page numbers follow the PDF sequence.

Open Source Document

This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.

- 5 - On the issue of consent, the trial court noted that Allen asked Knight-Walker to get out of the car and asked, “do you mind if I pat you down? [W]hat did she do? She turned around and put her hands on top of the car.” The trial court explained that it thought “the Court expects people who are stopped to understand what it is that they have to do or don’t have to do, and to tell officers what it is that they agree or don’t agree to” and “in this case there was nothing that I saw that would indicate that [Knight-Walker] was saying, oh, no, we’re not doing anything of this.” Knight-Walker now appeals. II. ANALYSIS Knight-Walker assigns error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress, asserting that the trial court erred because: (1) Allen impermissibly exceeded the bounds of the traffic mission for which he had stopped Ms. Knight-Walker’s vehicle; and (2) Ms. Knight-Walker did not provide free and voluntary consent to search her vehicle beyond mere acquiescence to the search. In determining whether to affirm the denial of a suppression motion, an appellate court gives deference to the trial court’s factual findings but independently determines the lawfulness of the manner in which the evidence was obtained. See Jones v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 171, 177 (2009). “Ultimate questions of reasonable suspicion and probable cause . . . involve questions of both law and fact and are reviewed de novo on appeal.” McGee v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 193, 198 (1997) (en banc) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 691 (1996)). Similarly, the trial court’s decision whether the Fourth Amendment was implicated at all requires this Court to review de novo “whether the officers unlawfully infringed upon an area protected by the Fourth Amendment.” Hughes v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 447, 454 (2000) (en banc) (citing McGee, 25 Va. App. at 198). “Whether the Fourth Amendment has been
Jump to an indexed page (23 of 23)

Report a privacy or text-extraction issue through publication requests.