# Two vehicle search cases heard at Supreme Court today
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
**Created:** [January 9, 2018, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278 "2018-01-09T23:20:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [January 9, 2018, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/1 "2018-01-09T23:20:27Z")
> **[A "view" from the courtroom: Vehicle problems at the Supreme Court - SCOTUSblog](https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/01/view-courtroom-vehicle-problems-supreme-court/)**
>
> Tuesday is another theme day at the Supreme Court, following Monday’s pair of original docket cases involving water disputes among states. Today’s theme is the Fourth Amendment and some unusual fact patterns in two cases involving vehicles, both of...
The first case is Byrd v. U.S. Byrd’s fiance rents a car from a car rental agency and allows him to drive in violation of the car rental agreement. Does he have standing to assert a violation of the 4th amendment in a search of the car?
The second case is Collins v. Virginia. A motorcycle is sitting under a tarp in a driveway. Having probable cause to believe that the motorcycle was one that recently eluded police in a high speed chase, a police officer walked into the driveway, lifted the tarp, read the VIN and discovered it was stolen. Which doctrine applies, the automobile exception which allows warrantless searches of automobiles based on probable cause or the holding that the driveway is “curtilage,” e.g., intimately associated with the home so as to require a warrant.
I’m generally conservative, but I side with the Defendants in both cases.
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [January 9, 2018, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/2 "2018-01-09T23:50:33Z")
I’m having a hard time not siding with Mr. Collins. If the motorcycle was in plain sight I’d side with the cop, but it wasn’t so I don’t.
And considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Byrd’s traffic stop, I have a difficult time not siding with him as well.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/3 "2018-01-10T00:01:53Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> I’m having a hard time not siding with Mr. Collins. If the motorcycle was in plain sight I’d side with the cop, but it wasn’t so I don’t.
What was the probable cause? If the cop legitimately had it, then I don’t see a problem.
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/4 "2018-01-10T00:10:04Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#):
>
> What was the probable cause? If the cop legitimately had it, then I don’t see a problem.
[From here](http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/01/argument-preview-justices-consider-scope-fourth-amendments-automobile-exception/):
> [@](#):
>
> In 2013, two Virginia police officers were searching for a motorcyclist who had managed to elude them by driving at high speeds – sometimes over 140 miles per hour – on a distinctive orange-and-black Suzuki motorcycle. Using social media, the officers determined that a motorcycle was parked at the home where Ryan Collins spent several nights each week. An officer went to the home and up the driveway, where a motorcycle was parked under an opaque white cover. The officer lifted the cover to see the license plate and vehicle identification number for the motorcycle; from the VIN, he learned that the motorcycle was listed as stolen.
>
> Collins was charged with the possession of stolen goods. At trial, he argued that evidence regarding the motorcycle’s license plate and VIN should not be admitted because the officer’s search of the motorcycle in the home’s driveway violated the Constitution. The trial court rejected that argument;
“A motorcycle”. And they saw a shape under a cover that may or may not have been a motorcycle.
The obvious conclusion is that this is the motorcycle they were chasing, right? :dubious::rolleyes:
> [@](#):
>
> The trial court rejected that argument; Collins was convicted of receiving stolen property and sentenced to three years in prison, with all but two months of that time (which he had already served) suspended.
So the crime he was convicted of wasn’t even the crime they were looking for the motorcycle for.
---
### Author:  [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/5 "2018-01-10T00:44:50Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> The obvious conclusion is that this is the motorcycle they were chasing, right? :dubious::rolleyes:
There’s alot of motorcycles on social media - how did they choose this specific one is a fantastic question.
---
### Author:  [@BobBitchin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobBitchin)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/6 "2018-01-10T01:39:26Z")
> [@simster](#):
>
> There’s alot of motorcycles on social media - how did they choose this specific one is a fantastic question.
Customization?
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/7 "2018-01-10T01:43:38Z")
Ok, I have [an answer to that question](http://www.richmond.com/news/local/central-virginia/albemarle-case-over-warrantless-search-for-motorcycle-is-going-to/article_5044d436-5856-5797-b41a-985dbed91e7e.html):
> [@](#):
>
> According to the Virginia Supreme Court summary of the case, it began in the summer of 2013, when officers with the Albemarle Police Department twice attempted to catch and stop an orange-and-black Suzuki motorcycle that had been modified for drag racing.
>
> Each time, the motorcycle sped off, in one case at speeds up to 140 mph. The rider was believed to be the same man in both cases and wore blue jeans and Timberland-style boots.
>
> A video camera in one police car captured the license plate on the motorcycle. The plate turned out to have been inactive for several years. The person who had most recently registered the license plate told police that he sold the motorcycle to Ryan Austin Collins. He later testified that he had cautioned Collins that the motorcycle was stolen and did not have a title.
>
> Police found two photographs posted on Collins’ Facebook page with images of the motorcycle that they believed they had pursued. When shown the photographs, Collins denied any knowledge of the motorcycle or of the house also seen in the photographs.
>
> An informant told police the house in the Facebook photographs was located in Charlottesville, near the Albemarle line. An Albemarle officer went to the address and from the street spotted what appeared to be a motorcycle covered with a tarp.
>
> Enough of one wheel was exposed that the officer recognized distinctive chrome accents and the non-standard shape of the motorcycle. Also, the location and angle of the partially covered motorcycle matched that of the one depicted on Collins’ Facebook photos.
>
> The officer walked up the driveway, uncovered the motorcycle, saw that it appeared to be the same orange-and-black motorcycle that eluded him on July 25, and noted the vehicle identification number. Running the VIN through a computer search revealed that the bike had been stolen in New York several years earlier.
>
> Collins initially denied knowing anything about the motorcycle but eventually admitted buying it without a title for $3,500. He was arrested for receiving stolen property. The key to the motorcycle was found in Collins’ pocket.
With this newly-gleaned information, I am certainly much less sympathetic to Mr. Collins’ plight, but I am unsure if the officer did anything improper.
How much does the “imminent” factor come into play?
BTW, there’s a picture there of what the officer saw when he approached (or entered) the property.
---
### Author:  [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/8 "2018-01-10T02:00:03Z")
But that sounds to me like they had enough info to have got themselves a warrant, rather than just walk up.
---
### Author:  [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/9 "2018-01-10T02:05:39Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> Ok, I have [an answer to that question](http://www.richmond.com/news/local/central-virginia/albemarle-case-over-warrantless-search-for-motorcycle-is-going-to/article_5044d436-5856-5797-b41a-985dbed91e7e.html):With this newly-gleaned information, I am certainly much less sympathetic to Mr. Collins’ plight, but I am unsure if the officer did anything improper.
>
> How much does the “imminent” factor come into play?
>
> BTW, there’s a picture there of what the officer saw when he approached (or entered) the property.
With that - “enough of the bike was exposed” comment - that sounds like plain view - lifting the tarp is where i have an issue - but the bike was already identified at that point.
---
### Author:  [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/10 "2018-01-10T02:10:08Z")
> [@BobBitchin](#):
>
> Customization?
No - I was meant how they became ‘focused’ on this particular house and motorcycle - not how they determined that this bike was the one they had chased. The article linked to gives that info.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/11 "2018-01-10T02:53:32Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#):
>
> But that sounds to me like they had enough info to have got themselves a warrant, rather than just walk up.
That’s the way I see it. The police certainly had enough grounds to get a warrant. But I don’t see any circumstances that required them to act immediately without waiting for a warrant.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/12 "2018-01-10T02:59:03Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> The first case is Byrd v. U.S. Byrd’s fiance rents a car from a car rental agency and allows him to drive in violation of the car rental agreement. Does he have standing to assert a violation of the 4th amendment in a search of the car?
I’m not going to take a hard stand on this one but my feeling would be to find against Byrd. The police who stopped Byrd had already established he was not on the rental agreement. So I feel Byrd did not have the constitutional right to deny a search to the vehicle. I feel you should have to be the legal occupant of a location in order to assert constitutional protection over it.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/13 "2018-01-10T03:39:14Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> I’m not going to take a hard stand on this one but my feeling would be to find against Byrd. The police who stopped Byrd had already established he was not on the rental agreement. So I feel Byrd did not have the constitutional right to deny a search to the vehicle. I feel you should have to be the legal occupant of a location in order to assert constitutional protection over it.
Does a violation of the rental agreement make his occupation illegal? It might be a breach of the rental terms, but he really has no rights whatsoever to the car, similar to a thief?
As mentioned in the oral argument today, other terms of the contract are no cell phone use or no driving on gravel roads. If an officer sees the driver talking on his cell phone, does that make his occupancy of the car illegal, and then the driver has no Fourth Amendment protections?
---
### Author:  [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/14 "2018-01-10T04:02:27Z")
The problem in the Byrd case is the laughable suspicion that was the basis of the search in the first place, that he was driving with his hands in the 10 and 2 position, the way you are supposed to drive a car. If I recall the details correctly the police officer followed the car based on that suspicion until he claimed to have see a traffic violation, then pulled him over and requested the search. I expect the SCOTUS to accept this reasoning though.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/15 "2018-01-10T04:57:18Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> Does a violation of the rental agreement make his occupation illegal? It might be a breach of the rental terms, but he really has no rights whatsoever to the car, similar to a thief?
>
> As mentioned in the oral argument today, other terms of the contract are no cell phone use or no driving on gravel roads. If an officer sees the driver talking on his cell phone, does that make his occupancy of the car illegal, and then the driver has no Fourth Amendment protections?
I’m not seeing that as a parallel. If I’m driving my car improperly, it’s still my car and I can invoke ownership rights over it. I’m even willing to extend the concept of ownership to situations like a rental and agree people should be able to deny a search of an apartment or car that they’ve rented.
But a rental car that was being driven by somebody who hadn’t signed the rental agreement? That’s too far to me. If you accept that this guy had rights over the car, you’re essentially saying that all that’s required to establish a right is mere occupation. A person could declare that a zone of constitutional protection against searches surrounds them anywhere they go and automatically applies to any building or vehicle they’re inside of.
---
### Author:  [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/16 "2018-01-10T06:36:06Z")
The thing is, he drove the vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the renter. The rental company might not be happy with that, but there’s no real reason why that should have made any difference to the police. The aren’t parties to the rental contract (which is a civil matter to begin with, not a criminal matter).
---
### Author:  [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/17 "2018-01-10T07:50:11Z")
Regarding the Byrd case I’m surprised something like this hasn’t happened before. It seems inline with cases such as Georgia v Randolph, Fernandez v. California, and State v. Sobczak (WI), though none a perfect fit by any means.
36 years on the job I can’t tell you how many times we’ve washed our hands of situations by telling someone something is a civil matter and we can’t get involved. Yet Byrd seems to suggest the police can enforce civil agreements.
Let’s look at it concerning different forms of property:
Joe lives in an apartment. He’s the only one on the lease agreement. He invites Byrd to stay for a night while he goes out of town. If the police show up and want to search the apartment does Byrd have no ability to refuse consent?
What if it’s not an apartment but a hotel room?
What if it’s a DVD rented from Red Box? If Joe rented it and gave it to Byrd to watch, can the police confiscate it from Byrd because he had no agreement with Red Box to posses it?
At what point does an agreement between the owner and the renter become the business of the government to enforce? I would say only when the parties are in a civil courtroom arguing over it but not before. But Byrds prosecutors seem to think it’s their duty to take action even with no complaint from the car rental company. I say any misuse of the vehicle or the rental contract is between Byrds girlfriend and the rental company, not the police.
Had Byrd taken the vehicle without the renters consent I’d say it was a different situation. What if Byrds girlfriend had borrowed the car from Joe, and then allowed Byrd to drive it? Would that give him no power to deny a search? What if Joe came along later and stated he had no problem with the girlfriend allowing Byrd to drive his car? Would that negate the search?
---
### Author:  [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/18 "2018-01-10T07:51:32Z")
> [@TriPolar](#):
>
> The problem in the Byrd case is the laughable suspicion that was the basis of the search in the first place, that he was driving with his hands in the 10 and 2 position, the way you are supposed to drive a car.
But what if he was guilty of driving with his hands in the 10 and 2 position _while black_? I don’t know if he is black, but if so, then that makes the stop A-OK (at least in many police officers’ eyes) right?
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/19 "2018-01-10T07:58:02Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> … I’m generally conservative, but I side with the Defendants in both cases.
me too
---
### Author:  [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/20 "2018-01-10T13:55:14Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> Ok, I have [an answer to that question](http://www.richmond.com/news/local/central-virginia/albemarle-case-over-warrantless-search-for-motorcycle-is-going-to/article_5044d436-5856-5797-b41a-985dbed91e7e.html):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > According to the Virginia Supreme Court summary of the case, it began in the summer of 2013, when officers with the Albemarle Police Department twice attempted to catch and stop an orange-and-black Suzuki motorcycle that had been modified for drag racing.
> >
> > Each time, the motorcycle sped off, in one case at speeds up to 140 mph. The rider was believed to be the same man in both cases and wore blue jeans and Timberland-style boots.
> >
> > A video camera in one police car captured the license plate on the motorcycle. The plate turned out to have been inactive for several years. The person who had most recently registered the license plate told police that he sold the motorcycle to Ryan Austin Collins. He later testified that he had cautioned Collins that the motorcycle was stolen and did not have a title.
> >
> > Police found two photographs posted on Collins’ Facebook page with images of the motorcycle that they believed they had pursued. When shown the photographs, Collins denied any knowledge of the motorcycle or of the house also seen in the photographs.
> >
> > An informant told police the house in the Facebook photographs was located in Charlottesville, near the Albemarle line. An Albemarle officer went to the address and from the street spotted what appeared to be a motorcycle covered with a tarp.
> >
> > Enough of one wheel was exposed that the officer recognized distinctive chrome accents and the non-standard shape of the motorcycle. Also, the location and angle of the partially covered motorcycle matched that of the one depicted on Collins’ Facebook photos.
> >
> > The officer walked up the driveway, uncovered the motorcycle, saw that it appeared to be the same orange-and-black motorcycle that eluded him on July 25, and noted the vehicle identification number. Running the VIN through a computer search revealed that the bike had been stolen in New York several years earlier.
> >
> > Collins initially denied knowing anything about the motorcycle but eventually admitted buying it without a title for $3,500. He was arrested for receiving stolen property. The key to the motorcycle was found in Collins’ pocket.
>
> With this newly-gleaned information, I am certainly much less sympathetic to Mr. Collins’ plight, but I am unsure if the officer did anything improper.
>
> How much does the “imminent” factor come into play?
>
> BTW, there’s a picture there of what the officer saw when he approached (or entered) the property.
The motorcycle was in Charlottesville but the officer was from Albemarle. Wasn’t he outside his jurisdiction?
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278.md?page=2)