S.D.Ohio: Defendant had standing where he hid gun, citing Art. III case, not Fourth Amendment case

In a curious case from Ohio, the defendant hid a gun in the bushes in anticipation of what he thought was an illegal stop of his person. The court held he still had standing in the gun because it was hidden, not abandoned. The court cites an Art. III standing case, not a Fourth Amendment standing case. Nevertheless, the seizure of the gun was valid because the officer saw where it was left. United States v. Keys, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87954 (S.D. Ohio August 9, 2011)*:

The government’s attempt to expand the principle applicable to disclaimed baggage into the proposition that a defendant has no standing to request suppression of abandoned property is not well-taken. The facts of this case simply are not on point or in line with the disclaimed bag cases. There is no search of luggage or a container in this case. Defendant here claims no expectation of privacy with regard to the gun, he simply claims he does not own it and that due to an improper detention he was mistakenly linked to the gun. A party has standing when they have a sufficient stake in a controversy, an injury-in-fact caused by conduct complained of, that can be redressed by the court. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992). Defendant here meets such requirements and has standing.

The government, citing United States v. Martin, 399 F.3d 750 (6th Cir. 2005), similarly argues that Defendant has no fourth amendment interest in the gun because he abandoned it. However, the facts from the government’s view do not support such theory. In California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S. Ct. 1547, 113 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1991), the Supreme Court established the rule that the fourth amendment does not apply to anything one may abandon while fleeing the police in order to avoid seizure. Here however, taking the facts from the government’s view, Defendant put the gun in the bush before any show of police authority and before any attempts by Defendant to avoid the police. Although his actions were furtive and raised suspicion, he arguably never fled the officers and he quickly submitted to their authority moments after Officer Wloszek observed his behavior. There was no chase. Had Defendant been refusing to submit and in the course of fleeing when he put the gun in the bush, this case would be on all fours with Hodari and Martin. But the fact pattern here is different. Defendant has a fourth amendment interest in avoiding unreasonable seizures, and he is entitled to invoke such interest in challenging the conduct of the officers who seized him and then linked him to the gun.