COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Raphael, Lorish and Bernhard UNPUBLISHED
Argued at Christiansburg, Virginia
TIFFANY ALICIA RODRIGUEZ MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 1707-24-3 JUDGE STUART A. RAPHAEL OCTOBER 28, 2025 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG J. Frederick Watson, Judge
Rebecca Wetzel (Wetzel Legal, PLLC, on brief), for appellant.
J. Brady Hess, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Appealing her conviction for assault and battery of a law enforcement officer, Tiffany
Alicia Rodriguez challenges the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence. She also claims
that the court erred by denying her motion to suppress, arguing that law enforcement illegally
entered her home. Finding no error, we affirm.
BACKGROUND1
Rodriguez and Timothy Lecolst married in January 2022 but had a difficult relationship.
On the evening of December 10, 2022, Lecolst and Rodriguez went out, began arguing, and
continued to argue when they got home. Lecolst packed a bag and left the house. Rodriguez
* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). 1 When considering the denial of a suppression motion, we take the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, “afford[ing] it the benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence.” Williams v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 462, 474-75 (2020). called him from her bedroom. She told him she was going to “blow [her] fucking brains out”
and then fired a gun into a corner of her room before hanging up.
Lecolst called 911, relating those events and advising that there were firearms in the
house. When officers arrived at the home, they met with Lecolst, who had returned and was
standing outside. Lecolst recounted to police what he had told the 911 dispatcher.
Officers approached the house, knocked on the front door, and announced their presence.
After more than a minute, Rodriguez opened the door. She was nude. Lynchburg Police Officer
Nicholas Kirby testified that it was concerning that a person would come to the door naked in
response to the police announcing themselves. Rodriguez said she had been asleep in bed. She
confirmed her identity. The officers said they were there to check on her after receiving a report
that she had shot herself. Rodriguez said she had not shot herself and refused to let them inside.
The officers prevented Rodriguez from closing the door but asked if she could put some clothes
on while they did a sweep of the home.
Rodriguez again refused to let them in. The officers then forced their way inside,
handcuffed Rodriguez, and covered her in a blanket. One officer stood at the top of the stairs,
holding Rodriguez, while other officers checked if anyone else was in the home. Rodriguez
remained handcuffed and draped in the blanket. She argued with the officers, demanding to
contact her lawyer and complaining that the police were violating her rights. She tried to move
away from the officer holding her, calling him a racial slur. When a second officer grabbed her
arm, Rodriguez said she “could knock [him] down those God damn steps.” Rodriguez then used
her knee and foot to kick the officer who was holding her, striking him twice. The officers
wrestled Rodriguez to the ground and restrained her legs. The officer she kicked suffered no
injuries.
-2- Rodriguez was charged with assault and battery of a law enforcement officer. In her
pretrial motion to suppress, Rodriguez asserted that “the warrantless entry into [her] residence
was not supported by probable cause of criminal activity nor did it rise to the level of an
emergency justifying a warrantless entry under the guise of the community caretaker doctrine.”
She argued that “due to the unlawful entry into [her] residence[,] the subsequent seizure of [her]
person was tainted and therefore ‘fruit of the poisonous tree,’” so her pending charge should be
dismissed. Rodriguez claimed that the evidence to be suppressed included anything resulting
from the officers’ entry into the home, including her statements and actions leading to the
underlying charge.
The trial court denied the motion, finding that the officers appropriately entered the
residence because it appeared that immediate aid was necessary. The court reasoned that
although Rodriguez had not shot herself, “a reasonable officer could have concluded that she was
a real threat to do so.”
At a bench trial six months later, the Commonwealth’s evidence supported the facts set
forth above. Rodriguez testified in her defense, apologizing for her behavior. She said she was
scared and felt violated during the encounter. Rodriguez acknowledged that she threatened to
push an officer down the steps. But she denied kicking him, insisting that she had only “made a
kicking motion.” (She now concedes on brief that she physically struck the officer.)
The trial court concluded that Rodriguez had threatened to harm the officers and “made
contact” with the officer. While sympathizing that Rodriguez was “at a low point” at the time,
the court found that the officers were acting within the scope of their duties during the encounter.
The court convicted Rodriguez of assault and battery of a law enforcement officer and sentenced
her to one year’s incarceration with six months suspended.
Rodriguez timely appealed.
-3- ANALYSIS
Rodriguez challenges the denial of her motion to suppress, arguing that the officers
unlawfully entered her home without a warrant and that her conduct that followed should be
excluded. Rodriguez also asserts that she was permitted to use reasonable force to resist an
unlawful arrest by officers who were trespassing.
A. The trial court properly denied Rodriguez’s motion to suppress.
On review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, an “appellant bears the burden
of establishing that reversible error occurred.” Williams v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 462,
474 (2020) (citing Glenn v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 123, 130 (2008)). We defer to the trial
court’s factual findings and give appropriate weight to inferences drawn, but we must
independently determine “whether the manner in which the evidence was obtained meets the
requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” Moore v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 30, 36 (2018).
“On appeal, a ‘defendant’s claim that evidence was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment
presents a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.’” Cole v. Commonwealth,
294 Va. 342, 354 (2017) (quoting Cost v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 246, 250 (2008)).
Still, the premise of Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment argument is fatally flawed. Even
assuming for argument’s sake that the officers’ warrantless entry was unlawful, the exclusionary
rule does not prohibit “testimony describing the defendant’s own illegal actions following an
unlawful search or seizure.” Brown v. City of Danville, 44 Va. App. 586, 599 (2004). When, as
here, the defendant commits “‘new and distinct criminal acts’ during an allegedly unlawful police
encounter, ‘the exclusionary rule does not apply, and evidence of the events constituting the new
criminal activity, including testimony describing the defendant’s own actions, is admissible.’”
Testa v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 275, 283 (2009) (quoting Brown, 44 Va. App. at 600); see
also United States v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Raphael, Lorish and Bernhard UNPUBLISHED
Argued at Christiansburg, Virginia
TIFFANY ALICIA RODRIGUEZ MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY v. Record No. 1707-24-3 JUDGE STUART A. RAPHAEL OCTOBER 28, 2025 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG J. Frederick Watson, Judge
Rebecca Wetzel (Wetzel Legal, PLLC, on brief), for appellant.
J. Brady Hess, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Appealing her conviction for assault and battery of a law enforcement officer, Tiffany
Alicia Rodriguez challenges the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence. She also claims
that the court erred by denying her motion to suppress, arguing that law enforcement illegally
entered her home. Finding no error, we affirm.
BACKGROUND1
Rodriguez and Timothy Lecolst married in January 2022 but had a difficult relationship.
On the evening of December 10, 2022, Lecolst and Rodriguez went out, began arguing, and
continued to argue when they got home. Lecolst packed a bag and left the house. Rodriguez
* This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). 1 When considering the denial of a suppression motion, we take the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, “afford[ing] it the benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from that evidence.” Williams v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 462, 474-75 (2020). called him from her bedroom. She told him she was going to “blow [her] fucking brains out”
and then fired a gun into a corner of her room before hanging up.
Lecolst called 911, relating those events and advising that there were firearms in the
house. When officers arrived at the home, they met with Lecolst, who had returned and was
standing outside. Lecolst recounted to police what he had told the 911 dispatcher.
Officers approached the house, knocked on the front door, and announced their presence.
After more than a minute, Rodriguez opened the door. She was nude. Lynchburg Police Officer
Nicholas Kirby testified that it was concerning that a person would come to the door naked in
response to the police announcing themselves. Rodriguez said she had been asleep in bed. She
confirmed her identity. The officers said they were there to check on her after receiving a report
that she had shot herself. Rodriguez said she had not shot herself and refused to let them inside.
The officers prevented Rodriguez from closing the door but asked if she could put some clothes
on while they did a sweep of the home.
Rodriguez again refused to let them in. The officers then forced their way inside,
handcuffed Rodriguez, and covered her in a blanket. One officer stood at the top of the stairs,
holding Rodriguez, while other officers checked if anyone else was in the home. Rodriguez
remained handcuffed and draped in the blanket. She argued with the officers, demanding to
contact her lawyer and complaining that the police were violating her rights. She tried to move
away from the officer holding her, calling him a racial slur. When a second officer grabbed her
arm, Rodriguez said she “could knock [him] down those God damn steps.” Rodriguez then used
her knee and foot to kick the officer who was holding her, striking him twice. The officers
wrestled Rodriguez to the ground and restrained her legs. The officer she kicked suffered no
injuries.
-2- Rodriguez was charged with assault and battery of a law enforcement officer. In her
pretrial motion to suppress, Rodriguez asserted that “the warrantless entry into [her] residence
was not supported by probable cause of criminal activity nor did it rise to the level of an
emergency justifying a warrantless entry under the guise of the community caretaker doctrine.”
She argued that “due to the unlawful entry into [her] residence[,] the subsequent seizure of [her]
person was tainted and therefore ‘fruit of the poisonous tree,’” so her pending charge should be
dismissed. Rodriguez claimed that the evidence to be suppressed included anything resulting
from the officers’ entry into the home, including her statements and actions leading to the
underlying charge.
The trial court denied the motion, finding that the officers appropriately entered the
residence because it appeared that immediate aid was necessary. The court reasoned that
although Rodriguez had not shot herself, “a reasonable officer could have concluded that she was
a real threat to do so.”
At a bench trial six months later, the Commonwealth’s evidence supported the facts set
forth above. Rodriguez testified in her defense, apologizing for her behavior. She said she was
scared and felt violated during the encounter. Rodriguez acknowledged that she threatened to
push an officer down the steps. But she denied kicking him, insisting that she had only “made a
kicking motion.” (She now concedes on brief that she physically struck the officer.)
The trial court concluded that Rodriguez had threatened to harm the officers and “made
contact” with the officer. While sympathizing that Rodriguez was “at a low point” at the time,
the court found that the officers were acting within the scope of their duties during the encounter.
The court convicted Rodriguez of assault and battery of a law enforcement officer and sentenced
her to one year’s incarceration with six months suspended.
Rodriguez timely appealed.
-3- ANALYSIS
Rodriguez challenges the denial of her motion to suppress, arguing that the officers
unlawfully entered her home without a warrant and that her conduct that followed should be
excluded. Rodriguez also asserts that she was permitted to use reasonable force to resist an
unlawful arrest by officers who were trespassing.
A. The trial court properly denied Rodriguez’s motion to suppress.
On review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, an “appellant bears the burden
of establishing that reversible error occurred.” Williams v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 462,
474 (2020) (citing Glenn v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 123, 130 (2008)). We defer to the trial
court’s factual findings and give appropriate weight to inferences drawn, but we must
independently determine “whether the manner in which the evidence was obtained meets the
requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” Moore v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 30, 36 (2018).
“On appeal, a ‘defendant’s claim that evidence was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment
presents a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.’” Cole v. Commonwealth,
294 Va. 342, 354 (2017) (quoting Cost v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 246, 250 (2008)).
Still, the premise of Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment argument is fatally flawed. Even
assuming for argument’s sake that the officers’ warrantless entry was unlawful, the exclusionary
rule does not prohibit “testimony describing the defendant’s own illegal actions following an
unlawful search or seizure.” Brown v. City of Danville, 44 Va. App. 586, 599 (2004). When, as
here, the defendant commits “‘new and distinct criminal acts’ during an allegedly unlawful police
encounter, ‘the exclusionary rule does not apply, and evidence of the events constituting the new
criminal activity, including testimony describing the defendant’s own actions, is admissible.’”
Testa v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 275, 283 (2009) (quoting Brown, 44 Va. App. at 600); see
also United States v. Sprinkle, 106 F.3d 613, 619 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that the exclusionary rule
-4- is inapplicable to “a new, distinct crime” occurring during an allegedly unlawful detention). Thus,
we find no error in the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress.
B. Rodriguez defaulted her second assignment of error.
Claiming that the police were trespassers because their entry violated the Fourth
Amendment, Rodriguez argues that she was permitted to use reasonable force to expel them
from her home. But since Rodriguez did not make this argument below, she cannot press it here.
Rule 5A:18.
Rodriguez claimed in the trial court that she did not have the requisite intent to harm the
police officers. She also argued that the facts did not support a felony conviction. That is
different from claiming, as she does now, that she was entitled to use reasonable force to resist
arrest because the officers were trespassers. An “argument asserted on appeal [must] be the
same as the contemporaneous argument at trial.” Bethea v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 730, 743
(2019). A difference in semantics may be overlooked, but substantive differences, even subtle
ones, cannot be. Hamad v. Hamad, 61 Va. App. 593, 600 (2013).
Rodriguez’s procedural default is not excused by the “good cause” or “ends of justice”
exceptions in Rule 5A:18. When, as here, those exceptions are not argued in the opening brief,
they cannot be raised “for the first time” at oral argument, and we will not raise them sua sponte
on the appellant’s behalf. See Hammer v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 225, 237 (2022).
CONCLUSION
In short, we find no basis to disturb the conviction.
Affirmed.
-5-