Slayton v. Commonwealth, 41 Va.App. 101, 108-09, 582 S.E.2d 448, 451-52 (2003). Consequently, because the objective facts provided probable cause for the seizure, neither Detective Fraser’s subjective intention nor the fact that she did not charge the appellant with reckless driving impacts the probable cause determination. The fact that the police did not obtain a warrant prior to seizing the appellant based on the reckless driving offense also does not affect the probable cause analysis. The Fourth Amendment clearly permits an officer to make a warrantless arrest of a person who has committed a criminal offense in the officer’s presence. See Atwater, 532 U.S. at 354, 121 S.Ct. at 1557-58; see also United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 417, 96 S.Ct. 820, 824, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976) (<HOLDING>); cf. Code § 19.2-81(B) (providing in pertinent
holding that probable cause inquiry is whether considering totality of the circumstances there is a fair probability that contraband  will be found in a particular place recognizing that the necessary inquiry  is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution holding that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because the facts of the case amounted to a contract dispute