Misappropriation of Lost Property and Legal Responsibility

In the D.C. jurisdiction, the following categories fall under the scope of "lost property" that can trigger misappropriation charges. Misappropriating any of these items without a reasonable effort to locate the owner or notify authorities can result in legal liability under theft statutes. The legal definition encompasses any property where the owner has involuntarily parted with possession but retains ownership rights.

The following behaviors may be prosecuted as misappropriation of lost property because they demonstrate an intent to permanently deprive the true owner. D.C. law treats the underlying intent seriously “particularly when a person acts with the knowledge that the property is not theirs and deliberately avoids returning it.” This list illustrates scenarios where the finder’s failure to take reasonable steps to locate the owner converts a benign act of finding into a criminal offense.

• A rideshare driver keeping a passenger’s forgotten handbag.
• Selling a smartwatch found on a sidewalk through an online marketplace.
• Withdrawing and spending funds accidentally deposited into one’s account.
• Keeping and using a wrongly delivered package addressed to a neighbor.
• Taking home items like umbrellas or garments left behind in public venues.

The property must belong to another person, and the defendant must have gained control over it without legal entitlement. It is not necessary for the property to be in the physical possession of the owner at the time of the offense “only that ownership rights still exist.” The core issue is the unauthorized exercise of dominion over the lost property, meaning the individual took physical possession of the item with the ability to control its use.

There must be an intent to convert the property for personal use or otherwise deprive the true owner of it. This is known as “criminal intent,” and can be inferred from the circumstances “for example, failing to notify the police or ignoring identifiers on the item.” Failure to report the found item to a police station or rightful owner within a reasonable period may be used as evidence of wrongful intent in a misappropriation of lost property case. The prosecution must show that the defendant’s intention was to permanently withhold the property from the rightful owner.

The severity of the penalty for misappropriation of lost property is primarily determined by the economic value of the property that was unlawfully converted. In addition to potential jail time and fines, a criminal conviction can have long-lasting effects on a person's life and career. These penalties demonstrate the judicial system’s commitment to discouraging the unlawful keeping of found items, which is categorized as a serious breach of public trust.

Additionally, individuals in sensitive professions may face disciplinary actions even for misdemeanor convictions. A criminal record can lead to loss of employment or ineligibility for certain licenses due to a charge of misappropriation.

The absence of an intent to permanently deprive the owner can serve as a strong defense against charges of misappropriation of lost property. For instance, someone who intended to return the property but was delayed or unsure of the correct procedure may not meet the standard of “criminal intent.” This defense aims to show the defendant's actions, while perhaps negligent, were not criminal, thereby failing to meet a key element required for a conviction.

Proof of attempted contact with the property’s owner, communication with local authorities, or public postings about the found item can support a claim of good faith. Such evidence directly contradicts the element of intent to deprive, which is necessary for a conviction of misappropriation. Furthermore, first-time offenders may qualify for diversion programs or deferred sentencing, especially when the value of the property is low and full restitution is made.