The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Cost v. Commonwealth
No. 070496Supreme Court of Virginia
070496 Cost v. Commonwealth 02/29/2008 (Revised 03/04/2008) In a case charging drug possession for distribution, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming defendant's convictions after the trial court denied his…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.The activity
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The source
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
070496 Cost v. Commonwealth 02/29/2008 (Revised 03/04/2008) In a case charging drug possession for distribution, the Court of App…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- February 29, 2008
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
070496 Cost v. Commonwealth 02/29/2008 (Revised 03/04/2008) In a case charging drug possession for distribution, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming defendant's convictions after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized during a "pat-down" search. When the arresting officer felt capsules in defendant's pocket, their illicit character was not immediately apparent from the officer's tactile perceptions. The defendant's conduct and verbal interaction with the officer supported a "hunch" that the capsules contained contraband, but together with the "plain feel" of the pat-down these factors did not provide probable cause to support the seizure of the capsules under the…
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
Affirmed
The court's record, as written
070496 Cost v. Commonwealth 02/29/2008 (Revised 03/04/2008) In a case charging drug possession for distribution, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming defendant's convictions after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized during a "pat-down" search. When the arresting officer felt capsules in defendant's pocket, their illicit character was not immediately apparent from the officer's tactile perceptions. The defendant's conduct and verbal interaction with the officer supported a "hunch" that the capsules contained contraband, but together with the "plain feel" of the pat-down these factors did not provide probable cause to support the seizure of the capsules under the…
Outcome words in this text: affirming.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
Documents and links