The Supreme Court of Virginia Affirms Warrantless Arrests on Home Curtilage are Constitutional When Officers are Lawfully Present and Have Probable Cause
Poulson v. Commonwealth, Record No. 240081 (Va. Apr. 10, 2025)
Facts: On December 23, 2021, police received a call about a maroon pickup truck stuck in a ditch with the driver throwing bottles from the vehicle. Allen Poulson (who was also a police officer) called emergency dispatch himself saying everything was fine. When Trooper Flynn arrived, the truck was gone, but he found tire marks, damage to a culvert, and beer bottles. Flynn drove to Poulson’s home with three other officers. At Poulson’s residence, officers observed a maroon pickup with front-end damage and beer cans in the back. Despite the cold, Poulson emerged in minimal clothing. Trooper Flynn noticed that Poulson had slurred speech and smelled of alcohol. Poulson claimed that he had swerve3d to avoid a deer but admitted to drinking after the crash. Trooper Flynn asked Poulson to perform field sobriety tests, which he agreed to and failed. Trooper Flynn arrested Poulson and only then gave him Miranda warnings.
Issues: (1) Whether Poulson was “seized” during questions, requiring Miranda warnings. (2) Whether police needed an arrest warrant to arrest Poulson on the curtilage of his home.
Holdings: (1) No. The encounter was consensual. (2) No. When officers are lawfully present on curtilage, they may arrest without a warrant if there is probable cause to do so.
Notes: (1) Miranda warnings are only required when freedom is restricted “to a degree associated with formal arrest.” Here, the trial court’s factual findings that the encounter was consensual and that Poulson was not “seized” was supported by the evidence. Poulson voluntarily emerged from his home. Body cam showed that the conversation was cordial rather than confrontational. Poulson was allowed to go back into his house unescorted to change clothes before performing the field sobriety tests. Finally, the questioning lasted only about four minutes.
(2) Citing treatises and cases from several other jurisdictions, the Court found that the Fourth Amendment’s protection concerns unauthorized entry, not the arrest itself. Once officers are lawfully present, by consent or other means, they do not need an additional warrant to make an arrest.