# Virginia Court of Appeals - Commonwealth v. Church, unpublished 2025 opinion > *Audited source extract. The dossier was used only as a lead; the underlying source was independently acquired and checked on 2026-07-20.* ## Source metadata - **Publisher:** Court of Appeals of Virginia - **Original dossier URL:** https://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2025/0737-25-1.html - **Resolved/canonical URL used:** https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0737251.pdf - **Publication date:** 2025-10-14 - **Underlying event or version:** 2025-10-14 - **Archived:** 2026-07-20, from unauthenticated public access; no cookies, tokens, or login state retained - **Wayback snapshot:** save failed on 2026-07-20 after the archive service returned HTTP 403; retry pending ## Verification verdict **supported with narrower wording** — The unpublished Virginia Court of Appeals opinion reversed suppression on a record of three images over approximately seven minutes and rejected speculation about hypothetical future use. It is expressly unpublished and nonprecedential under Virginia law. ## Claim boundary This source is authoritative only within the source class and limitations stated above. ## Extract **Extracted-text lines 56-60:** > * This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). > UNPUBLISHED > > ==== Page 2 ==== **Extracted-text lines 187-191:** > Practices Act, Code §§ 2.2-3801 through -3809, because it did not contain “identifying > particulars” about individuals). The data in the Flock system is only kept for thirty days. > Sergeant Myers obtained three images that were taken during approximately seven > minutes of Church’s drive and showed a short portion of his route. The police did not > continuously monitor his travels around the city. The collected Flock data did not create an **Extracted-text lines 212-216:** > which intruded upon an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. at 471-73. The court > also distinguished the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Beautiful Struggle on similar grounds. Id. > The circuit court here further erred in speculating about hypothetical, potential misuse of > the Flock system rather than basing its ruling on the specific facts of this case. The applicable > constitutional standard under Katz and Carpenter “require[s] courts to consider the facts of the **Extracted-text lines 239-241:** > we reverse the circuit court’s ruling that granted Church’s motion to suppress, and we remand > the case for a trial consistent with this opinion. > Reversed and remanded. **Wayback failure**: The bounded Save Page Now pass stopped after the archive service returned HTTP 403 on the first request. This source was not individually retried; retry pending. ## Notes - Tier: 2 — Tier 2 primary public record. - The excerpt is bounded to the claims audited here; consult the preserved original for full context. - Cited by: see `citing_pages:` frontmatter; populated after wiki integration.