Posted on 02/01/2018 2:02:40 PM PST by Sopater
.
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.
I wouldn’t characterize the boyfriend as having stolen the car. The girlfriend let him borrow it, in violation of the rental contract...to me the interesting part has to do with violation of the rental contract. If the fine print says the contract is voided by this violation, does that mean that she suddenly has an ill gotten car, that neither of them could refuse a search?
A lot of rentals say this or that voids the contract.
If this unauthorized loan did, now the car is solely the baby of the rental firm. It’s up to them to complain about 4th amendment violation if they want to, and if it was a property confiscation case (this doesn’t seem to be one) they probably would. But for a customer they probably wouldn’t. Our car, the renter’s violation, the second borrower’s complicity, the bust is well and truly yours. But it could go Gorsuch’s way. Here he is looking more like Thomas than like the late Scalia.
Stolen? I don't know ... the renter acted in violation of her contract. Does breach of contract equate to theft?
I couldn't find the info in the article, but I'd like to know if there were any observations of drug or alcohol use by the police, at the time the vehicle was stopped.
He'd have made a great prosecutor for the Stalin regime.
.
If the driver couldn't produce a rental agreement with him listed as a permissible driver, would that constitute a "reasonable suspicion" that the car was stolen?
I'm not sure I buy into the "It wasn't reported stolen" argument. If the driver had carjacked the vehicle and stuffed the body of the owner in the trunk, there wouldn't be a stolen vehicle report in that case either.
Oh don't you know. It's never theirs. They either "didn't know it was there", or they "were only holding it for someone."
The driver could have been DWB or maybe the cops had a slow day and figured they could find some Krispy Kreme glaze and arrest the driver for possession of crystal meth.
Houses have certain expectations that cars don’t. You can’t as easily be evicted from a house.
Per this link:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1371
The police asked him for the rental contract...which was provided...but did not list Byrd on it. Then they ran his id, discovered he was using an alias and had an outstanding warrant.
At this point, wouldn’t the police have a reasonable suspicion that the car may have been stolen? And a trunk search could be part of their investigation into his story/alias/identification as well as the car’s status?
She broke her contract with the car rental people. The police pull him over and I’m assuming she is not in the car. All the police would know is some guy is driving this car who has no legal right to do so. I don’t think it is totally unreasonable for them to assume this car might just be stolen. I could see where that might give them probable cause.
Should have worded my comment as: Was there any observations by the police of drug or alcohol use by the driver and occupant, at the time the vehicle was stopped.
OR, it could have been left there by the previous renter. I’ve rented cars and found property of the previous renter. Even had a CD still in the dash. Rental agencies don’t always “clean” those vehicles when they’re returned.
“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.
I think one could make the case.
On a first reading of this I’d support Gorsuch’s argument too.
Thanks for the additional info about the driver. That adds a whole new picture to the story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.