finding that a defendant’s admission: “It must be mine, it’s got my name on it,” when questioned about a package of marijuana found in his family’s mailbox was sufficient to establish constructive joint possession of the drugs under a predecessor statute
How later courts described this case
- finding that a defendant’s admission: “It must be mine, it’s got my name on it,” when questioned about a package of marijuana found in his family’s mailbox was sufficient to establish constructive joint possession of the drugs under a predecessor statute
- noting that possession of an illegal drug can be actual, constructive, or joint
- noting that many are familiar with the drug
- package addressed to son voluntarily surrendered by mother in lawful control of it
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Gordon, J.,
Dissenting.
The trial court held that the warrant did not authorize a search of the Ritter’s mailbox, and the Commonwealth did not assign cross-error. So, as the majority tacitly concedes, a search of the mailbox and a seizure of articles found there would have been unauthorized.
But the majority holds that there was no search of the mailbox or seizure of the package addressed to Ritter. I assume this holding is based upon the premise that Ritter’s mother freely and without compulsion looked into the mailbox and handed over the package.
Ritter’s mother knew that the officers came to search for narcotics under the authority of a search warrant. During the search of the home they asked her whether any package had been received, and she apparently answered no. Finding no package in the home, the officers then asked Ritter’s mother if she had collected the mail. She answered no, walked to the mailbox with the officers, and removed the package addressed to Ritter and handed it to the officers.
Looking in the mailbox was part of an overall search of the premises, ostensibly made under the authority of a search warrant. And Ritter’s mother did not, I believe, look freely and without compulsion. Rather, I must conclude that Ritter’s mother looked into the mailbox and handed over the package because she knew that the officers would look and seize what was found, if she did not. This conclusion, that her actions resulted from coercion, appears dictated by Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 , 88 S.Ct. 1788 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 797 (1968). See also Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 205 , 169 S.E.2d 580 (1969).
Since I would reverse on the ground that the package was illegally seized and therefore its contents were improperly admitted into evidence, I do not reach the other questions.