Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal stems from an application made by the City of Virginia Beach to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). The City sought to install a stormwater pipeline over state-owned bottomlands. After a public hearing, the VMRC approved the pipeline project. City residents appealed the decision to the circuit court seeking to enjoin the project. VMRC responded, in part, that the Residents' pleading was insufficient because they did not specify how they were aggrieved by the pipeline project. The City also challenged the Residents' complaint, arguing that it lacked a "proper jurisdictional basis." The circuit court agreed that the Residents' complaint lacked standing and dismissed it, and denied the Residents' motion to amend the petition for appeal. The Residents then raised the matter to the Court of Appeals, and the appellate court reversed the dismissal. On appeal by the City and VMRC, the Supreme Court found that the appellate court misapplied the rule that supported the appellate court's decision, saying the court "misconstrues the role of the rules in such appeals and is inconsistent with established and relevant principles of jurisprudence." The Supreme Court accordingly affirmed the circuit court's decision in favor of the City and VMRC.

Petitioner Corey Smith was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by Richmond police officers for a broken tail light. The officers asked the driver and Petitioner for identification, and processed that information using the police database known as "PISTOL" (Police Information System Totally On Line), which was accessed through a computer in the police patrol car. PISTOL returned an "alert" stating that Petitioner was "probably armed and a narcotics seller/user." On receiving the alert, the officers asked Petitioner out of the car and conducted a pat down search of his person. The officer detected a gun in Petitioner's pocket. Petitioner was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of state law. Prior to trial, Petitioner filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the pat down, arguing that the search, based solely on the information in PISTOL was unreasonable and a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court denied the motion; Petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Petitioner asserted that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The appellate court concluded that "in the absence of some contemporaneous indication that the individual might be carrying a weapon, the facts do not provide reasonable suspicion to believe he may presently be armed and dangerous" and overturned the lower court's conviction. On review, the Supreme Court holds that the record supports the conclusion of the trial court, that the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify the frisk, and affirmed the conviction.

In April, 2006, Charles Volpe drowned in the Maury River below a low-head dam during a visit to a park owned by the Appellant City of Lexington. His parents S. Charles and Kim Volpe (Appellees) brought suit against the City seeking damages for gross negligence, willful and wanton negligence and public nuisance. The matter proceeded to a jury trial; in the end, the court struck the ordinary negligence claims and refused to instruct the jury on public nuisance. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the gross negligence claim, and the circuit court granted a renewed motion to strike that claim, finding the danger posed by the dam was open and obvious and therefore the City owed no duty to warn Charles. The record reflected that while many people swam in the waters created by the dam without incident, there was a deadly, hidden hydraulic created by an unusually strong current that the City knew existed. On appeal, the Supreme Court agreed that the "natural, ordinarily encountered dangers" of the river were open and obvious to Charles, the hidden hydraulic was not. The Court held that the City had a duty to warn Charles of the hidden dangers, and that the lower court erred by striking the Volpes' claims of gross negligence against the City, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment striking the claim of willful and wanton negligence.