Commonwealth v. Coleman (U)

A fingerprint analysis was not “fruit of the poisonous tree” and shouldn’t have been suppressed.

The defendant contends that because the Commonwealth obtained his “identifying information” through an illegal seizure, a direct comparison between fingerprints on the handgun and the defendant’s fingerprints on record at the Central Criminal Records Exchange was obtained “by exploitation of that illegality.” But neither the defendant’s fingerprints nor the firearm were obtained via any illegal police action: his fingerprints were already on file, and the firearm was recovered legally.

Reversed and remanded.

Commonwealth v. Coleman (U), No. 1017-18-2, Nov. 20, 2018. CAV (Huff) from City of Richmond (Hairston).

Categories: Court of Appeals of Virginia, Opinions, Unpublished

Tags: ,

%d bloggers like this: