VA: Suppression in a potential criminal case not a civil court remedy

Plaintiff has a turkey hunting plot of land with 100 no trespassing signs around it. Virginia wildlife officers entered the land, found trail cameras and seized them to look at the pictures. Plaintiff sued under the state constitution and statute. No case holds that a private right of action exists under that section of the state constitution, and it doesn’t have to be decided here. (1) Under state law, a declaratory judgment doesn’t lie after the act complained of. (2) As to future searches and seizures, it’s speculative. Even assuming a pattern and practice, it’s still speculative and the allegations are conclusory. (3) As to restoring the seized photographs to him, he has an adequate remedy at law other than injunctive relief. (4) As to future suppression, that’s also speculative. Highlander v. Va. Dep’t of Wildlife Res., 2025 Va. App. LEXIS 212 (Apr. 8, 2025).

As to (4): “While Highlander is certainly entitled to recover any of his property seized by the Department that is not to be used as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution, the injunctive relief he seeks here is not the appropriate mechanism to do so. The complaint does not allege any pending criminal proceeding against Highlander, nor does it allege that he would be unable to invoke the statutory procedures to suppress the use of the photographs or related notes in any future criminal proceeding. Thus, Highlander fails to plead that he lacks an adequate remedy at law to address the potential future use of the photographs and related notes as evidence. Preferred Sys. Sols., Inc., 284 Va. at 401. On this basis, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment sustaining the demurrer to Highlander’s statutory suppression claims.”

The trial court also decided the searches and seizures were valid as open fields.

This entry was posted in Open fields, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.