[{"_1":2,"_85":-5,"_86":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6068978,"mediaKeyId","3077460-c0adbd57dcbcfe1aede566de8a8ed17a","parentId",3077460,"title","Justices debate whether post-arrest clothing search of Jeffrey Barlow met 'strip search' standard","audioSeconds",1851,"startMs",62300,"endMs",1913940,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3077460-c0adbd57dcbcfe1aede566de8a8ed17a&start=62&end=1913","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6068978/Virginia/Justices-debate-whether-post-arrest-clothing-search-of-Jeffrey-Barlow-met-strip-search-standard","mediaUrl","author","Virginia Supreme Court","date","2025-02-01T00:00:00Z","article","The Supreme Court considered whether officers’ post-arrest search of Jeffrey Antonio Barlow—described by counsel as pulling back clothing in the transport van to inspect his pants—constituted a “strip search” or a more intrusive body-cavity search, and whether exigent circumstances (risk of destruction or ingestion of contraband) justified the search.

Abigail L. Paulus, appellant's counsel, argued the Court of Appeals’ standard was not satisfied before officers conducted the search. “They subjected him to a strip search without applying the court of appeal standard that there was a clear indication of evidence within the body cavity and without exigent circumstances,” Paulus said, asking the court to reverse.

Aaron J. Campbell for the Commonwealth countered that the law governing intrusive searches requires a threshold showing and then a Bell v. Wolfish-style reasonableness inquiry, but that the threshold in the Commonwealth’s view was satisfied. Campbell described the sequence: Barlow was arrested for possession of marijuana, placed in the transport van and, while alone in the van, was observed “digging into his pants looking for something.” The transport-van driver alerted officers, who removed Barlow and conducted a clothing search. Campbell argued the officers limited the search’s place, manner, and scope: “The place of the search was… the doors were shielded. It was a limited intrusion. They pulled back the pants. They looked inside.” He told the court officers later saw the defendant break from an officer and a bag of drugs “exploded… all over the concrete,” and officers later recovered the material.

Campbell urged the court to consider two elements: a “clear indication” (which he equated with probable cause in his oral argument) that contraband was concealed, and exigent circumstances to prevent destruction or ingestion. “Exigent circumstances… would be met in this case because… the individual would be harmed by this, by either busting open a bag of drugs or… ingesting them,” Campbell said, discussing concerns voiced by justices about fentanyl and whether the possibility of ingestion becomes a universal justification for intrusive searches.

Justices probed both sides on the test’s contours. One justice observed that some courts call similar maneuvers a “reach-in” or an “under the clothing search,” which other authorities treat as less than a strip search; others asked whether Gilmore, Craddock, Hubbard and McLeod lines required a higher threshold for body-cavity searches. Counsel for the Commonwealth said courts have applied the Bell factors (place, manner, scope, justification) across settings and that the presence of digging at the waistband and a subsequent explosion of contraband supported a finding of exigency.

Paulus disputed both the factual sufficiency and the legal threshold, noting the Court of Appeals had “assumed without deciding that there was a strip search” and nonetheless deemed it reasonable. She emphasized the need for the court to maintain a separate requirement for a clear indication and exigent circumstances before allowing intrusive searches of body cavities or similar highly invasive searches.

The advocates and justices also discussed whether labeling an encounter a strip search alters the required showing and whether the risk of fentanyl ingestion should change the calculus. Neither side suggested the court announce a different procedural step at argument; both urged the justices to apply established factors to the record facts. The bench did not render a decision at the hearing.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","240100 Barlow v. Commonwealth","oneSentenceSummary","Attorneys at oral argument disagreed over whether officers' post-arrest manipulation of Barlow's clothing in a transport van was a strip search or body-cavity search and whether exigent circumstances justified the intrusion under governing tests such as Bell v. Wolfish and related state precedents.","taxTitle","Supreme Court Oral Arguments, Judicial, Virginia","taxId",79912,"location","Virginia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6068983,"Supreme Court weighs whether anonymous tip justified seizure and pat down of Jeffrey Barlow",1338,31260,1369710,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3077460-c0adbd57dcbcfe1aede566de8a8ed17a&start=31&end=1369","/articles/6068983/Virginia/Supreme-Court-weighs-whether-anonymous-tip-justified-seizure-and-pat-down-of-Jeffrey-Barlow","The Supreme Court heard arguments over whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize and pat down Jeffrey Antonio Barlow after an anonymous tip and a brief officers' encounter, with Abigail L. Paulus, the appellant's counsel, asking the court to reverse the Court of Appeals.

Paulus told the court that on Oct. 3, 2019, Richmond Police “seized Jeffrey Barlow without reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. They subjected him to a pat down without reasonable suspicion that he was armed and presently dangerous,” and later to a strip search without meeting the appellate standard. She argued the anonymous CAD report supplied at 04:43:53 was vague—initially saying “a man in a white Nissan has drugs,” later adding “possible weapons” and an update that a man with a white shirt on his head might have a gun—and did not predict future behavior or identify the tipster as an eyewitness.

“There's nothing in the tip that predicts future behavior,” Paulus said, adding officers arrived about 20 minutes after the call and encountered two men, not four as the tip described. She cited body-camera timing to contend Barlow was seized before officers recovered a firearm on another individual: “Officer Manns grabs the cell phone from Barlow at 46 seconds into his body cam… Gun discovered was 53 seconds into the video,” Paulus said, arguing those moments show Barlow had been touched and patted down prior to any gun recovery and therefore the seizure and pat down lacked individualized reasonable suspicion.

Aaron Campbell, senior assistant attorney general arguing for the Commonwealth, urged the court to view the encounter under the totality of the circumstances, likening the case to earlier authority the Commonwealth said supported a protective seizure. “The officers in this case faced two situations where they had to act quickly for the safety of themselves, the defendant, and the others on the scene,” Campbell said, arguing that the anonymous tip, the presence of a white vehicle, matching clothing descriptors, and an observed furtive movement by the other person supported a reasonable suspicion sufficient to detain and pat down Barlow.

Campbell walked the court through the body-camera sequence described in the transcript, saying an officer observed what he thought was an outline or bulge at the waistband of the other person, Taylor, who then reached toward his waistband and was seized; Campbell said the handgun was recovered around the 53-second mark and that officer Manns seized Barlow’s phone “one second after” the seizure of Taylor, an order of events he argued justified the officers’ actions.

Justices questioned counsel on the proper legal benchmarks. The panel discussed whether decisions such as Terry, Florida v. J.L. (JL), and the court’s prior cases permit officers to rely on corroboration of descriptive details from anonymous tips, and whether the officers may aggregate knowledge of co-officers on the scene. Paulus emphasized the requirement for particularized suspicion as to Barlow himself and warned against a per se companion rule that would impute another suspect’s conduct to Barlow without individualized facts.

The arguments focused on whether the anonymous tip and the limited corroboration by officers (vehicle location, clothing descriptors) were sufficient under existing precedent to justify seizing and patting down a person who, according to Paulus, “has done nothing” before being grabbed. Campbell maintained that the totality of circumstances—tip plus on-scene observations including another suspect’s furtive motion—made the officers’ response reasonable.

The advocates did not announce a decision from the bench. After argument, counsel asked the court to reverse (Paulus) or to affirm (Campbell) the Court of Appeals’ judgment.","At oral arguments in Barlow v. Commonwealth, attorneys disputed whether Richmond officers had reasonable suspicion to seize and pat down Jeffrey Barlow after an anonymous tip and limited on-scene observations; appellant asked the court to reverse the Court of Appeals.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Justices debate whether post-arrest clothing search of Jeffrey Barlow met 'strip search' standard

Supreme Court weighs whether anonymous tip justified seizure and pat down of Jeffrey Barlow