Logan v. Commonwealth
Virginia Supreme Court
29 Va. 288, 688 S.E.2d 275 (2010)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
A police officer followed James Logan (defendant) into Logan’s rooming house because the officer mistakenly believed that Logan was a different man who had an outstanding felony warrant. The officer saw Logan hand crack cocaine to another person in the rooming house’s second-floor stairway, and the officer arrested Logan. At the time, Logan was on probation for a previous cocaine-distribution offense (Logan I). Logan was convicted of cocaine possession, but that conviction was ultimately reversed when the Virginia Court of Appeals determined that the officer illegally entered the rooming house without a warrant (Logan II). At Logan’s probation-revocation hearing for Logan I, Logan’s probation supervisor and the government argued that although Logan’s later arrest did not result in a conviction in Logan II, it was evidence that he violated his probation. The trial court revoked Logan’s probation. Logan appealed the revocation order. The appellate court affirmed the revocation order, but the Virginia Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case because the appellate court did not appropriately apply exclusionary rule principles. The appellate court again affirmed the revocation order, and Logan again appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Russell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
