A major split seems to be developing between conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito over the issue of property rights and the Fourth Amendment.Posted on 02/01/2018 2:02:40 PM PST by Sopater
A major split seems to be developing between conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito over the issue of property rights and the Fourth Amendment.
The most recent evidence of this division came on January 9, when the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Bryd v. United States. This case arose in 2014, when a woman named Natasha Reed rented a car and allowed her fiancé, Terrence Bryd, to drive it in violation of her rental contract, which listed her as the sole authorized driver. When the state police stopped Bryd for a minor traffic infraction, the officer searched the trunk and discovered heroin and several flak jackets. Bryd is fighting to have that evidence thrown out as the fruits of an illegal search.
The question presented to the Supreme Court is this: "The Fourth Amendment protects people from suspicionless searches of places and effects in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Does a driver in sole possession of a rental vehicle reasonably expect privacy in the vehicle where he has the renter's permission to drive the vehicle but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement?"
During the oral arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch observed that Bryd's lawyer, Robert Loeb, had offered a property rights theory "on which you might prevail." That theory, "essentially as I understand it," Gorsuch said, is "that possession is good title against everybody except for people with superior title."
"We think the property interest here, the right that...Mr. Byrd would have had to bring a trespass action," Loeb replied, "demands a recognition of his right to invoke the Fourth Amendment."
In other words, Byrd had "possession" of the car under common law principles. If, while driving it, somebody else tried to break in and steal it from him, he would have a common law right "to bring a trespass action," as Loeb put it, against that would-be thief. In this case, the trespasser is law enforcement, which, absent probable cause, has no authority to search the trunk.
Justice Samuel Alito apparently did not like the sound of that. "The problem with going down this property route is that we go off in search of a type of case that almost never arose...at common law, where an unauthorized sub-bailee brings an action for trespass to chattel against a law enforcement officer. When would that ever have happened in 18th-century America? Never."
Loeb pushed back on Alito's characterization. "It's your right to bring trespass action against a stranger," he told Alito. "The fact that you can exclude a stranger and bring a trespass action against him is what supports your property right under the Constitution."
A few minutes later, Alito tried to poke another hole in the property rights theory that Gorsuch had seemingly endorsed.
"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?"
"I think if the common law recognizes your [right]," Loeb replied, "then both under the common law and common sense, that it makes sense to recognize a right to invoke a Fourth Amendment right."
Gorsuch remained quiet during those exchanges between Alito and Loeb. But he spoke up again in favor of the property rights theory during the second half of the oral arguments, when Assistant to the Attorney General Eric Feigin was presenting the government's side of the case.
According to Feigin, Byrd, "like other unauthorized drivers, simply has no connection to the car at all."
"Mr. Faigin, you keep saying that," Gorsuch said, "but as a matter of property law, now and forever, a possessor would have a right to exclude other people but for those with better title. So someone in this position would have a right, I think you'd agree, to exclude someone who's attempting to get in the car to hijack it, carjack it. You'd also have a right to throw out a hitchhiker who had overstayed his welcome....I think you're having to argue that the government has a special license that doesn't exist for any other stranger to the car."
Feigin rejected that description of the government's position.
"Do you agree that— that Mr. Byrd could have excluded a carjacker?" Gorsuch asked.
"I think by virtue of simply being in the car, he probably could have fended off a carjacker and we wouldn't oppose his right to do so," Feigin answered.
"By virtue of his possession he would have a right to do so," Gorsuch corrected him. "And he would have a right to throw out a hitchhiker as well....So why not the government?"
To summarize: Gorsuch pushed a property rights theory of the Fourth Amendment that, if adopted by the Supreme Court, would cause the government to lose this case and plenty of others. Alito promptly spoke up in opposition to that theory. A little bit later, Gorsuch advanced the theory again in greater detail.
If that dynamic sounds familiar, it's because we've already seen it once before. In the November 2017 oral arguments in the warrantless cell phone records search case Carpenter v. United Staes, as I noted at the time, "Gorsuch proffered a property rights argument that might allow Carpenter to win the case, and Alito came out swinging hard against it."
I suspect that Gorsuch and Alito's battles over this issue are just getting started.
The rental agreement lists authorized drivers. It also serves as your registration while driving the rental car. Or so I have been told when renting cars. The driver not being listed, and no listed person being present, would seem to be a suspicious circumstance suggesting possible theft of the car.
I’m thinking that if somebody other than the contractee drove that car with the contractee’s permission, the property rights would automatically revert back to the rental company as a result of the violation. The police didn’t get permission from the company to search the car. The search is null and void.
We don’t have an inquisitional constitution. If we did it would make ferreting crime out easier, but it would also make government harassment easier.
Then the cops had a duty to contact the rental car company and get their permission to search the vehicle.
I'm pretty sure Gorsuch will be writing the majority opinion.
From the constitutional standpoint, I’d have to agree with the argument that the driver of the car held greater claim to title than the police, and that therefore constituted a de facto (if temporary) “ownership” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. I didn’t hear much of a rebuttal.
I agree with Gorsuch.
Splitting hairs about property (as opposed to goods, effects), no?
IANAL but I would think it’s more about privacy than property.
As for unauthorized drivers, that’s between the authorized driver and the rental company. Police are forever telling folks “That’s a civil matter,” or in other words, they’re not involving themselves in peripheral disputes that are not criminal in nature.
Need more dogs and cameras in police cars...
Could be. These are the types of cases the courts should be hearing to fine-tune constitutional issues. Not cases on invented rights (gay marriage, forcing a Christian baker to celebrate your sodomy, etc.) which only move the country further left . . . which, by the way, is the whole idea of this sort of jiggery-pokery.
An interesting angle. Perhaps rental firms could file statements if they chose that if government officers ask them for verification of who is authorized driver(s), and that is not the same as actual driver, they grant search and seizure permission.
Could be. These are the types of cases the courts should be hearing to fine-tune constitutional issues. Not cases on invented rights (gay marriage, forcing a Christian baker to celebrate your sodomy, etc.) which only move the country further left . . . which, by the way, is the whole idea of this sort of jiggery-pokery.
Could be. These are the types of cases the courts should be hearing to fine-tune constitutional issues. Not cases on invented rights (gay marriage, forcing a Christian baker to celebrate your sodomy, etc.) which only move the country further left . . . which, by the way, is the whole idea of this sort of jiggery-pokery.
He didn’t steal the car. It was loaned to him by someone with legal possession. She may not have had the legal right to loan it, but he wouldn’t necessarily have known that. I can’t see how that means he gives up his rights. I’m with Gorsuch.
when RBG wakes up I’d like to hear her opinion
That sounds as reasonable as anything. So and so is driving this car and cannot show a contract for it. May we search it.
In this case, the trespasser is law enforcement, which, absent probable cause, has no authority to search the trunk.
One thing that hasn’t been noted on this thread, the article frames this as a disagreement between Gorsuch and Alito yet these are not their post-case opinions they are simply questions attempting to challenge the lawyer’s cases in order to flesh out the issues before the court. When their final opinions are written neither Gorsuch nor Alito would necessarily favor the POV their questioning appeared to lean towards.
I didn’t say he stole it. I asked if Gorsuch is contending this about a stolen car.
If she lends her car to Bill, and Bill gets pulled over, and the police find contraband that is hers in the trunk...
According to Feigin, Byrd, "like other unauthorized drivers, simply has no connection to the car at all."
Really? So if someone is an unauthorized user (but a sub-bailee, as is this case - it isn't like he stole the car) in a state like TX that allows you to carry a handgun for self-defense in an automobile without any permit, does he lose the right to carry a weapon in it for self-defense? I think not. He DOES have a connection to the car...he is IN IT, and DRIVING IT (i.e. controlling it).
Here are 2 questions for Alito and others with his viewpoint:
1) Does one lose one's 8th Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment if one commits a crime? [The obvious answer is, "No" - particularly since punishment by the government usually ONLY occurs as a result of some crime having been committed.]
2) So, if you don't lose your 8th Amendment rights after having committed a crime (up to and including murder), then how can you lose your 4th Amendment rights just because you were the unauthorized user of a motor vehicle?
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.