Hope jojo ‘hands on’ biden doesn’t hear about it. He’ll ask them to step out behind the gym.
Sounds like it was much like a stolen car (stolen from the renter).
I think they are loving having great debates over things like this. It’s a great way to exercise the brain.
Is Gorsuch saying that if someone steals a car, they have property rights over the car, except in the case of the legal owner?
Gorsuch by a mile. What probable cause did they have? I think Alito was just exercising his brain.
I would like to see, where “Constitional Rights” are given to Police officers, over and above those given to the common man.
Possession is 9/10s of the law.
I’m not a law scholar, but Gorsuch’s position is common sense.
He kinda sorta equated the gummint to a carjacker. I like that. ;-)
I believe Gorsuch is correct.
The Fourth Amendment is there to limit Government, not to empower it.
Look at it another way.
You have admitted a new aquintance into your house, perhaps for a card game, or a dinner with friends.
The police knock on the door and ask to search the house.
The acquaintance yells out “come on in” and the police then have the power to enter and search, contrary to all your admonishing.
Gorsuch is good. Very good. And on the side of the citizen, the common man.
Gorsuch's position is that just because the drive violated a rental contract to be able to drive the car, it doesn't surrender his inalienable 4th Amendment protection against an unreasonable search.
A violation of contract law has no effect on the Bill of Rights.
I am guessing that Alito and Gorsuch arranged ahead of time to have some fun and duke it out just because they can.
.
Alito is wrong.
It has less to do with 4th ammendment than the power of contracts.
Interesting and informative.
I think an “unlawful possessor” doesn’t have property rights though. Gorsuch left out “unlawful”...
Gorsuch is right. A car is your moving castle. As long as you didn’t steal the car then you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to what you are carrying in your moving castle.
If the heroin belonged to the fiancé who let him drive the car rather than the perp that was actually driving it, the evidence would necessarily have to be excluded.
Here the government is arguing for a weakening of privacy rights based on ownership rather than possession. Taking that to its logical conclusion the police could search any apartment or house that has been sub leased without the owners explicit written consent.
He'd have made a great prosecutor for the Stalin regime.
.
“Inclined” is one thing. Doing research about how this was treated in the past so that a position doesn’t undo long-standing reasonable practice might not agree.
I’ve done exactly this kind of research in the past, and it’s not always easy.
I’m inclined to Gorsuch too. Byrd may not have been aware of the condition of the rental agreement., and it’s doubtful LE was either. That does incline toward Gorsuch. But there may be case law and accepted practice that negates the argument.
On a first reading of this I’d support Gorsuch’s argument too.
Did Mr. Bryd lend Mr. Byrd the car? Whatever happened to editors?