Commonwealth of Virginia v. Deante Lapre Mayo, 1934162

Officers approached Deante Mayo outside a parked rental car; initially they had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
An officer asked Mayo if he had a driver’s license and to see it; Mayo said it was at the residence.
After Mayo gave name/DOB, officers learned of outstanding arrest warrants and arrested him; during the arrest Mayo discarded items and officers found additional items on his person.
Officers searched the rental car (Mayo was not an authorized driver) and recovered scales, a loaded gun, clothing, drugs, and Mayo’s wallet.
The trial court suppressed the evidence from Mayo’s person and his statements as fruit of an unlawful seizure but denied suppression of evidence from the rental car for lack of standing.
The Commonwealth appealed the suppression of Mayo’s person/statements; Mayo cross-appealed the denial re: the car search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer’s request for driver’s license constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure	Mayo: asking for a driver’s license is mandatory under Code § 46.2-104 and therefore a seizure	Commonwealth: request was a voluntary, consensual encounter; no signal to stop and no seizure until warrants discovered	Court: encounter was consensual; not a seizure until officers had reasonable suspicion/learned of warrants; suppression reversed
Whether evidence from Mayo’s person and his statements was fruit of an unlawful seizure	Mayo: all evidence flowed from unlawful seizure and should be suppressed	Commonwealth: evidence was obtained after lawful arrest/search incident to arrest once warrants discovered	Court: evidence from person and statements admissible; suppression in error
Whether Mayo has standing to challenge search of rental car	Mayo: challenges search as fruit of unlawful seizure and seeks suppression	Commonwealth: Mayo was unauthorized driver and lacked legitimate expectation of privacy	Court: Mayo lacked standing to contest the vehicle search; denial of suppression affirmed
Applicability of Utah v. Strieff attenuation doctrine	Mayo: trial court relied on Strieff to find inapplicability	Commonwealth: if initial encounter lawful, Strieff need not apply	Court: did not reach Strieff because initial encounter held consensual

Montague v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 532 (officer requests for identity during consensual encounters do not automatically constitute seizures)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (defining seizure as restraint by physical force or show of authority)
Brown v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 694 (addressed production of license; distinguished by later authority)
Branham v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 273 (Code § 46.2-104 applies only after a lawful signal to stop; outside that, request is just a request)
Wellons v. United States, 32 F.3d 117 (unauthorized rental-car drivers lack legitimate privacy interest)
Bell v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 172 (unauthorized drivers lack standing to challenge vehicle searches)
Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (attenuation doctrine discussed; court did not decide applicability here)