Mills v. United States
708 A.2d 1003, 1997 WL 698025 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who verbally denies ownership or any possessory interest in property in response to a direct police inquiry voluntarily relinquishes their legitimate expectation of privacy in that property, and thereby lacks standing to challenge its search under the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- An anonymous person called the police reporting that a heavy-set man, Michael Mills, had a gun while standing by a black pick-up truck in a liquor store parking lot.
- Police responded, found Mills who matched the description, frisked him and others, and searched the pick-up truck, but found no weapon.
- The anonymous caller made a second call, stating the officers had the right people but the gun was now in a white Mustang parked next to the pick-up truck.
- A police officer asked Mills if the white Mustang was his car, and Mills responded, "no."
- Finding the Mustang's doors unlocked, officers opened them and discovered police paraphernalia and a yellow bag.
- Inside the bag, officers felt the contour of a gun and found a nine-millimeter Glock semi-automatic handgun.
- After the gun was found, Mills admitted to knowing about the white Mustang and stated he had just purchased the gun.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Mills filed a motion to suppress his statements and the physical evidence seized from the white Mustang in the trial court.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following the denial, Mills entered a conditional plea of guilty to weapons and firearm charges, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
- Mills filed a timely appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, where he is the appellant.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who verbally denies any interest in a vehicle in response to a police officer's inquiry abandon their legitimate expectation of privacy in that vehicle, thereby losing standing to challenge its search under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Reid, Associate Judge
Yes. A person who disclaims an interest in property abandons any legitimate expectation of privacy and therefore lacks standing to challenge a search of that property. To challenge a search under the Fourth Amendment, a person must demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. The key inquiry is not strict property ownership, but whether the person has relinquished their interest such that they can no longer retain a reasonable expectation of privacy. When Mills responded "no" to the officer's question about whether the Mustang was his, he voluntarily disclaimed his interest in the vehicle. This verbal denial constituted an abandonment of any privacy interest he may have had, forfeiting his right to object to the subsequent search. Citing United States v. Mangum, the court affirmed that when a person denies ownership of property in response to a police question, they forfeit any reasonable expectation of privacy, and the police may search it without a warrant.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that a verbal disclaimer of ownership or interest in property can constitute abandonment for Fourth Amendment purposes. It demonstrates that a defendant's own words at the scene of an investigation can be dispositive in determining whether they have standing to challenge a search. The decision clarifies that the focus is on the defendant's manifested intent to relinquish privacy at the time of the search, not on their actual property rights which may be revealed later. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for a defendant to later claim a privacy interest in property they explicitly disowned when questioned by law enforcement.
