[zeugma]

This is a 4th amendment case and is a big win for those of us who value freedom, and oppose the ever-encroaching police state. In the case, the officer performed a search by lifting up a tarp on a carport to identify a motorcycle. The state claimed this was not a "search" as far as the 4th Amendment is concerned. The Supreme Court disagreed.

You will find full the opinion listed as Collins vs. Virgina at the Supreme Court website - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/17

You might also be interested in reading through the Oral Arguments before the court. You'll find that here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-1027_p4k8.pdf.

I tried to get rid of most of the funky characters from this, but I might have missed some.

[Red Badger]

I tried to get rid of most of the funky characters from this, ...

RBG?......................

[robroys woman]

It’s interesting that probable cause didn’t enter into this.

But now that I think about it, he was not SURE it was the stolen bike. Rather, he was just “pretty sure”. He wasn’t sure until he entered the enclosed area and ran the title. That is the same as seeing, through the window of a house, a plant in the window that, though severely obscured, may be a pot plant. You would need a warrant unless it is OBVIOUSLY a pot plant.

He needed a warrant.

[\/\/ayne]

If he saw the stolen motorcycle on Facebook why is that not probable cause?

[AppyPappy]

So the cop was right about the motorcycle.

[Wuli]

It’s always interesting to see when Supreme Court justices with very different political philosophies about the Constitution, and their own roles, concur on a case centered on a fundamental Constitutional right.

[mrsmith]

Alito’s ‘Originalist’ dissent:

” Since the First Congress sent the Bill of Rights to the States for ratification, we have often looked to laws enacted by that Congress as evidence of the original understanding of the meaning of those Amendments. See, e.g., id., at 150–151; Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (slip op., at 7–8); United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U. S. 579, 585–586 (1983); United States v. Ramsey, 431 U. S. 606, 616–617 (1977). Carroll itself noted that the First Congress enacted a law authorizing officers to search vessels without a warrant. 267 U. S., at 150–151. Although this statute did not expressly state that these officers could cross private property such as wharves in order to reach and board those vessels, I think that was implicit. Otherwise, the statute would very often have been ineffective. And when Congress later enacted similar laws, it made this authorization express. See, e.g., An Act Further to Prevent Smuggling and for Other Purposes, §5, 14 Stat. 179. For this reason, Officer Rhodes’s conduct in this case is consistent with the original understanding of the Fourth Amendment, as explicated in Carroll. “

[billyboy15]

So what happens now that they know where the stolen MC is and who stole it? Does the thief get to keep it?

[LurkedLongEnough]

thanks for posting

[oldplayer]

Get a warrant! It’s not that hard. If it is time sensitive, judges are available for TELEPHONIC warrants.

The CONSTITUTION is pretty clear on this (look at the broad range of Justices that agreed). This was what I would call bad (lazy or inexperienced officer) police work.

Oldplayer

[Verginius Rufus]

Does the Supreme Court ruling mean that Collins gets to keep the motorcycle?

[NonValueAdded]

Finally, Virginia's rule automatically would grant constitutional rights to those persons with the financial means to afford residences with garages but deprive those persons without such resources of any individualized consideration as to whether the areas in which they store their vehicles qualify as curtilage. [emphasis added]

I guess I missed the Equality of Outcome clause in the Penumbra. How could I tell this was written by a liberal justice? /rhetorical