There are two cases this year dealing with cars and the fourth amendment in front of the Supreme Court. My little SCOTUS nerdy heart is a little excited. Both of them will be argued today.
Byrd v. United States
So I can see the argument in this case (here is a professional write up if you want a longer version) where a woman (Reed) let her significant other (Byrd) drive her rental car. Not only was he NOT on the rental, she wasn’t even in the car with him. He got pulled over and the cops searched the car without a warrant (and without probable cause) arguing that because he wasn’t on the agreement – they don’t need a warrant. They convicted him for the heroin in the trunk.
I can’t wait to (a) hear what the professional attorneys argue and then (b) how the court falls on this case. I am also really glad I don’t have to rule on it! There could be some interesting fall-out on “possession and control” being required (or not) for warrants.
So on the one hand Byrd wasn’t on the rental agreement – much like if I let my sister (or friend or whoever) borrow my car they aren’t on my registration. Does that mean if I let my friend borrow my pickup truck (as every pickup truck constantly lends out their trucks!) and they hide a stash of heroin under the driver’s seat or in a cooler (can’t be seen) could the cops pull them over for a routine stop and then search (and impound) MY TRUCK because I let a friend borrow it? And what about if someone steals my car – do they have fourth amendment rights because they “possess and control” my car at this moment?
On the other hand, rental companies make you sign an agreement saying ALL drivers must be “registered” and anyone not registered is…. illegally (?) driving the vehicle. Technically, Reed (Bryd’s SO & mother of his children) signed an agreement saying other drivers are only permitted with “prior written consent” (and paying a daily fee). The government contends this prior contract dismisses Byrd’s fourth amendment rights.
And it gets complicated because there ARE rules about “even if someone is doing something illegal it doesn’t waive rights” (hence cops can’t JUST search your car when you ran that red light – they still have to have probable cause). And can Byrd be held responsible for Reed breaking the contract between herself and car rental company? (there are rules about people who don’t know they are being used in crimes too).
I am looking forward to hearing the court rule on this one – HOW they phrase their ruling can shift this in a lot of directions. They COULD strike the provisions (and extra fees) on car rental contracts. They COULD argue that the contract creates a binding clause and means Byrd “stole” the car (I doubt they would – I might have been told “yeah, I totally paid for you too” and then… ugh!). They COULD rule that warrant/probable cause is still required when a contract has been broken OR when someone isn’t registered on a vehicle (so my husband could get my car searched ’cause he isn’t on the registration!)
Collins v. Virginia
This case also has to do with the fourth amendment and vehicles – with the addition of “private property.” I’m not going to say I understand the previous rulings as well as I should to explain when/why vehicles can be searched with exemptions. I do understand there are already rulings on exemptions to the warrant requirements (it’s called the “automobile exemption.” (professional write up here)
So in this case the cops were searching for a motorcyclist. They narrowed down their search area using social media & a cop saw a motorcycle under a tarp-like cover next to a house. He went up and looked under the tarp-thing and found out the motorcycle was stolen. Should the cop have needed a warrant to lift the tarp?
Again, I want to hear how the justices rule on this – it isn’t black & white. On the most basic brush there is “cop came on private property” and “cop lifted the tarp” (not readily visible) but there is also “is the land I own safe from warrantless search” and “my car parked on my driveway” (yes, even though in this case it’s “stolen car”).
Previous rulings have protected cars parked in/around the home lot (and searching on the land around a home). But is does open quite the can of worms about when/how cops might be allowed to search vehicles.
So will the court expand the officers’ ability to search vehicles? Will they uphold that private property is (for lack of a better word in my vocabulary here) sacred from this type of search and demand warrants? I am curious to see how the court falls out on this issue and what they say about it.