The Virginia Supreme Court reversed a Court of Appeals decision and reinstated a drug conviction in *Commonwealth v. Hubbard*, disagreeing with the intermediate appellate court's finding that evidence should have been suppressed in a cocaine distribution case.
Justice D. Arthur Kelsey authored the opinion issued Sept. 11, 2025, in which all justices concurred. The case involved defendant Shanta Orlando Hubbard, also known as Shawn Hubbard, who was originally convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine after a trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence.
The Court of Appeals had vacated Hubbard's conviction in 2024, holding that the trial court erred in denying the suppression motion. However, the Virginia Supreme Court disagreed with this analysis and reversed the appellate court's opinion, reinstating the original conviction.
The case began with a traffic stop initiated by Officer Garrett Waterman, who observed Hubbard's pickup truck pulling in front of another vehicle and causing that vehicle "to brake-check to prevent themselves from actually striking the side of [Hubbard's] pickup truck," according to court records.
The Virginia Supreme Court's opinion emphasizes the proper standard for reviewing suppression motions in criminal cases. When reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, appellate courts must view "the facts 'in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, giving it the benefit of any reasonable inferences,'" the court wrote, citing *Commonwealth v. White* (2017).
This standard requires courts "to give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers," the opinion states. The court also noted that when considering whether to affirm the denial of a pretrial suppression motion, appellate courts must review not only evidence presented at the pretrial hearing but also evidence later presented at trial.
The procedural history reveals a complex path through Virginia's court system. After Hubbard's initial conviction at the trial level, the Court of Appeals found merit in his suppression arguments and vacated the conviction in *Hubbard v. Commonwealth*, 80 Va. App. 384 (2024). The intermediate appellate court concluded that the trial court had erred in denying Hubbard's motion to suppress evidence.
However, the Virginia Supreme Court's analysis led to a different conclusion. The state's highest court disagreed with the Court of Appeals' interpretation of the suppression issues and determined that the trial court had acted properly in denying Hubbard's motion.
The case highlights the multi-layered nature of criminal appeals, particularly those involving Fourth Amendment issues and evidence suppression. Suppression motions are critical pretrial mechanisms that allow defendants to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained through allegedly illegal searches or seizures.
The traffic stop that initiated the case appears to have been based on a traffic violation involving dangerous driving behavior. Officer Waterman's observations of Hubbard's vehicle creating a hazardous situation by cutting off another driver provided the initial justification for the stop.
The Virginia Supreme Court's decision to reinstate the conviction suggests that the court found the traffic stop and subsequent investigation were conducted within constitutional bounds. The court's emphasis on giving deference to trial courts and law enforcement officers reflects established precedent in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
The opinion also demonstrates the importance of the standard of review in criminal cases. The "light most favorable to the Commonwealth" standard means that appellate courts must consider evidence and reasonable inferences that support the prosecution's position when reviewing suppression denials.
The case citation indicates this was Record No. 240310 in the Virginia Supreme Court, suggesting it was among the cases decided during the court's 2025 term. The Court of Appeals decision that was reversed came down in 2024, showing the typical timeline for appeals to reach the state's highest court.
For criminal defense attorneys, the decision serves as a reminder of the challenging standard defendants face when appealing suppression denials. The requirement that appellate courts consider not only pretrial hearing evidence but also trial evidence can make successful suppression appeals more difficult.
The reinstatement of Hubbard's conviction means he will face the penalties associated with possession with intent to distribute cocaine, a felony under Virginia law. The case also establishes precedent for how Virginia courts should analyze similar suppression issues in future drug cases involving traffic stops.
The unanimous nature of the Virginia Supreme Court's decision, with all justices concurring in Justice Kelsey's opinion, suggests the court found the legal issues relatively straightforward despite the Court of Appeals' contrary conclusion.