Spriggs v. United States
1992 WL 387514, 618 A.2d 701, 1992 D.C. App. LEXIS 349 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person relinquishes their reasonable expectation of privacy in an object for Fourth Amendment purposes when they place it in a public area and walk away from it upon the approach of police, thereby abandoning the property.
Facts:
- On November 22, 1988, uniformed police officers on scooters were conducting an 'Operation Clean Sweep' in an area known as an 'open air drug market'.
- As the officers approached, the crowd in the area began to disperse.
- Officer Arthur Perry observed the appellant stoop down and place a small, brown metallic key case on a curb next to a fence post.
- The appellant then stood up and immediately began walking away from the key case.
- Officer Perry retrieved the key case from the curb.
- Upon opening the case, Officer Perry discovered eight packets of heroin and five packets of cocaine.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin.
- Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress the drugs, arguing they were the product of an illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that appellant had abandoned the key case.
- At her jury trial, appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case, which the trial court denied.
- The jury found the appellant guilty of possession with intent to distribute both controlled substances.
- Appellant appealed her conviction to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is the court of review for this opinion.
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 abandon property for Fourth Amendment purposes, thereby forfeiting any reasonable expectation of privacy, by placing an object on the ground in a public area and walking away as police officers approach?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, Associate Judge
Yes. A person abandons property for Fourth Amendment purposes when they place an object on the ground in a public area and walk away as police officers approach. The court affirmed the trial court's finding of abandonment, reviewing it under a 'clearly erroneous' standard. The court reasoned that abandonment is a factual inquiry into the person's intent, which can be inferred from their actions. Relying on precedent from Smith v. United States, the court held that when incriminating evidence is discarded in a public area in anticipation of a police investigation, the Fourth Amendment does not limit its recovery by police. Because the appellant placed the key case on a public sidewalk where any passerby could have picked it up and then walked away as police neared, she relinquished her reasonable expectation of privacy in the item, and the subsequent seizure and search were lawful.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the Fourth Amendment doctrine of abandonment, clarifying that the act of discarding property need not be dramatic, such as throwing an item while fleeing. A more subtle act of placing an object in a public space and moving away from it upon the arrival of law enforcement is sufficient to demonstrate the intent to abandon. This precedent provides a clear guideline for police, allowing them to seize and search items discarded in this manner without a warrant. Consequently, it makes it more difficult for defendants to suppress evidence they attempted to disassociate from themselves when confronted by police.
