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.
- 8 -
error to the trial court’s holding that as a matter of law Pearson unlawfully: 1) entered Berry’s
apartment and 2) attempted to arrest Berry. Pearson also assigns error to Jury Instructions 19, 19.1,
22, 23, and 24, which were given based upon the trial court’s ruling on the lawfulness of Pearson’s
actions. We find no error.
Pearson contends that the trial court erred by not permitting the jury to decide whether
Pearson had the right to arrest Berry as well as the right to enter his home to effect that arrest. First,
“the question whether a person has been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is reviewed
de novo on appeal” because it is a question of law. Reittinger, 260 Va. at 236. “Likewise, ‘when
the issues are the lawfulness of an arrest and the reasonableness of force used to resist an unlawful
arrest, the ultimate questions involve law and fact and are [also] reviewed de novo on appeal.’”
Doscoli, 66 Va. App. at 424-25 (quoting Brown, 44 Va. App. at 603). “It is fundamental that the
court must respond to questions of law and the jury to questions of fact.” Amonett v.
Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 1, 8 (2019) (quoting Gottlieb v. Commonwealth, 126 Va. 807, 812
(1920)). Thus, to the extent that Pearson contends that the trial court erred in not permitting the jury
to determine the legality of the attempted arrest of Berry, this contention is both misguided and
simply incorrect.
Hence, we now turn to the issue of whether the trial court erred by holding that the
attempted arrest was unlawful. “At the very core of the Fourth Amendment stands the right of a
man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”
Kyer v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 473, 480 (2005) (en banc) (quoting Kyllo v. United States, 533
U.S. 27, 31 (2001)). “It is axiomatic that the ‘physical entry of the home is the chief evil against
which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.’” Id. (quoting Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466
U.S. 740, 748 (1984)). “In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of
persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent Jump to an indexed page (18 of 18)