Posted on 02/01/2018 2:02:40 PM PST by Sopater
“As long as you didn’t steal the car...”...in the rental company’s eyes, the car is as good as stolen.
Did Mr. Bryd lend Mr. Byrd the car? Whatever happened to editors?
How about an RV? A trailered pop-up camper? A decked out Chevy van? Slippery slopes when too much “good will” is afforded the government to act judiciously.
A call to the rental firm would probably ascertain who the driver is supposed to be.
Did the stopee allow the search?
And in this particular case, the defendant in the case would be out of luck because the car rental company would tell the cops they have no idea who the guy is.
I do too, but nobody on or in front of The Court seems to be doing so. It seems to me that the driver not being listed on the rental agreement would arouse reasonable suspicion in the officer's mind that the car might be stolen.
Very true. My last experience with Enterprise wasn't a pleasant one. I'd reserved a mini-van a month in advance. I specifically needed a van to move a bunch of things to Indiana for my son. The day I arrived to pick up the van, they didn't have one, yet I'd passed the office the day before, and there were two in front of their building. A 70 year old woman going off, and swearing like a sailor is not a pretty picture...but I got the van I wanted.
That's another good question.
I was thinking there’s probably case law from the post revolutionary era on Appalachians doing something analogous to this to avoid the Whiskey Tax.
Great to have a deep discussion between two conservatives, instead of ‘penumbra’ socail justice rants.
If such verification was done, then the driver could in good faith be suspected as a thief.
Now that isn’t always the policy of every rental firm. U-Haul has told me it doesn’t mind if any licensed driver in my party drives the truck. But I am wise to be there.
Without private property, we have no liberty. People think property is only land or your house. But property is the income you earn from your labor. It’s also your puppy. The Fifth Amendment, Takings Clause refers to something many of us forget, including me: “All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remain with the people.” If the word “property” isn’t mentioned in the 4th Amendment, that doesn’t mean it isn’t protected by state seizure. ALL of our rights aren’t explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. I’ve heard it argued that, because in classical liberalism your body is your property, “cruel and unusual punishment” is unlawful because it doesn’t respect your property right. Someone assaulting you is infringing on your property (your body). The non-initiation principle in classical liberalism is, at root, an infringement of property rights. Without property rights in that deeper, broader sense, imagine what the government could do to us! Never mind your neighbor. There truly is no liberty without property. If you buy a beer at the Jason Aldean concert, it’s your beer! Alito had better GET WITH THE PROPERTY PROGRAM! Otherwise, why don’t we all go steal his justice robes?
https://fee.org/articles/private-property-and-government-under-the-constitution/
“The Constitution uses the word ‘property’ numerous times,” Alito told Loeb, “but the word ‘property’ doesn’t appear in the Fourth Amendment. It talks about effects, which is defined by Samuel Johnson’s dictionary as ‘goods or movables.’... Is it your argument that any property interest whatsoever falls within the definition of effects if we are going to go back to an originalist interpretation of the Fourth Amendment?”
...
What it means is Alito is more originalist than Gorsuch.
A distinction without a difference. A car is a moveable.
Keep on going with that. If you have a mortgage on your house you don't own it the bank does.
No, she has not broken a criminal law. Contracts all within tort law. While her boyfriend drove the car she would lose her contract protection.
The law enforcement officer would have no way of knowing the details of the contract. The LEO would have no reason to make search. The LE agency is trying to justify the search on info they obtained after the fact. That dog does not hunt.
I think the full story goes something like this:
Dirtbag violent heroin dealer can’t get transportation.
Dirtbag violent heroin dealer convinces his girlfriend to fraudulently rent a car for his use in dealing drugs, and whatever the heck he used the body armor for.
I think neither are right in this case. The main issue in this case is really about probable cause. The traffic stop was not caused by the owner of the car (i.e. rental company) seeking a remedy. The owner was unaware of the breech of contract. If a person keeps a rental car beyond the agreement, it can become theft by conversion. But that is not what happened here apparently.
So, the police would have a reasonable right to verify whether the driver of the vehicle was authorized to do so. If the car was not reported as stolen by the owner, then a minor traffic violation is NOT a reasonable basis for suspicion of some other crime, nor should it become the basis to search a vehicle without the consent of the driver.
But I agree with Gorsuch on the Fourth Amendment generally. Yes, common law is modeled after British common law. But there is one notable exception. British common law was for SUBJECTS of the crown, not citizens. In the USA citizens have the same rights and privileges as those in authority. Law enforcement MUST have a reasonable basis to think a crime has been committed in order to justify a search without consent or a warrant.
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.