# 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:** 2
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/21 "2018-01-10T16:25:18Z")
> [@Senegoid](#):
>
> 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).
I’d argue the renter didn’t have the authority to give such permission. She didn’t own the car, the rental company did. As the actual owners of the car, the rental company can delegate ownership rights to people who sign agreements with them. But those rights are limited. A renter obviously can’t sell the car like they could a car they actually own. And, by a similar logic, the renter can’t pass on their ownership rights to another person.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/22 "2018-01-10T19:55:50Z")
From the cite in the OP -
> [@](#):
>
> The police stopped Byrd, and long story short, after determining that he was not an authorized driver of the rental car, searched the vehicle on that basis.
Is this a search subsequent to an arrest, or something similar? Did the police need his permission?
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/23 "2018-01-10T20:03:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> From the cite in the OP - Is this a search subsequent to an arrest, or something similar? Did the police need his permission?
>
> Regards,
> Shodan
Was he arrested for GTA or allowed to leave - still driving the same car?
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/24 "2018-01-10T20:13:20Z")
> [@simster](#):
>
> Was he arrested for GTA or allowed to leave - still driving the same car?
Neither - the search found 49 bricks of heroin and body armor. The police arrested him for drug possession (and other charges).
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/25 "2018-01-10T20:15:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Neither - the search found 49 bricks of heroin and body armor. The police arrested him for drug possession (and other charges).
>
> Regards,
> Shodan
Dayum.
my point, such as it is, if he was not the ‘authorized driver’ and that was indeed thier reasoning - he should have also been treated/charged as a car thief.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/26 "2018-01-10T20:48:56Z")
He wasn’t arrested for GTA. But I thought the search was because the police had established that he was not a legitimate user of the rental car. Not because he stole it, but because he was not on the rental agreement, and that he wasn’t on the rental agreement was why the police searched the car.
IOW, they thought they could search his car whether he agreed or not, because he was not in authorized possession of the vehicle. IANAL.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/27 "2018-01-10T21:21:16Z")
Could this be cleared up by the rental company requiring the the lessee to agree to waive 4th amendment rights in regard to the rental car? Would this be possible for an apartment?
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/28 "2018-01-10T21:32:07Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#):
>
> Could this be cleared up by the rental company requiring the the lessee to agree to waive 4th amendment rights in regard to the rental car? Would this be possible for an apartment?
It wouldn’t have helped in this case - he wasn’t the lessee.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/29 "2018-01-10T22:01:36Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#):
>
> Could this be cleared up by the rental company requiring the the lessee to agree to waive 4th amendment rights in regard to the rental car? Would this be possible for an apartment?
No reason for a lessee to have to waive their rights.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/30 "2018-01-10T22:15:31Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#):
>
> Could this be cleared up by the rental company requiring the the lessee to agree to waive 4th amendment rights in regard to the rental car? Would this be possible for an apartment?
What about a home owner’s association? By living in this community you agree to allow law enforcement to search your home anytime they wish. We don’t want crimes being committed in this neighborhood.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/31 "2018-01-10T22:18:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> He wasn’t arrested for GTA. But I thought the search was because the police had established that he was not a legitimate user of the rental car. Not because he stole it, but because he was not on the rental agreement, and that he wasn’t on the rental agreement was why the police searched the car.
Here’s the sequence of events.
Byrd was driving the car.
The police observed Byrd perform a minor traffic violation and stopped him.
The police observed that the car was a rental.
The police asked Byrd for his license and the rental agreement. When he produced the rental agreement, the police saw that Byrd was not the lessee.
The police ran Byrd’s name through the system and found that he had an outstanding warrant in another state. But the warrant did not automatically request extradiction.
The police had the other state contacted to verify they were not requesting Byrd’s arrest and extradiction.
The police were questioning Byrd about this information. They asked Byrd if they could search the vehicle. The police also told Byrd they did not need his permission because he was not the vehicle’s lessee.
Here’s a disputed issue. The police say Byrd gave them permission to search the vehicle. Byrd says he did not give the police permission.
The police searched the vehicle and found illegal items in it. Byrd was arrested.
Byrd challenged on three issues. He said there had not been grounds for the initial stop, that there had not been grounds to extend the stop as long as it was, and that the search was illegal because he did not give permission for it.
Lower courts found against Byrd on all three issues. They found that the police had reasonable grounds for stopping Byrd and extending the stop. They also held that Byrd did not have the right to deny a search of a vehicle because he was not part of the rental agreement.
That third issue is being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2018, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/32 "2018-01-10T22:23:41Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> I’d argue the renter didn’t have the authority to give such permission. She didn’t own the car, the rental company did. As the actual owners of the car, the rental company can delegate ownership rights to people who sign agreements with them. But those rights are limited. A renter obviously can’t sell the car like they could a car they actually own. And, by a similar logic, the renter can’t pass on their ownership rights to another person.
Gorsuch made a good point. Actual possession gives one exclusive possession of property except those with superior title.
Let’s say that before he got pulled over Byrd stopped at a convenience store. He comes out and I am sitting in the driver’s seat. Would he not have the authority to have me removed, or even remove me himself? What if he picked up a hitchhiker and then asked the hitchhiker to leave? He could do that, right?
How about this: you are housesitting for me. Unbeknownst to me, you have your buddy come over. I’ve explicitly told you that I do not like your buddy and he is not allowed in my house. You have him come over anyways while you go shopping. When your buddy is here, a homeless guy camps out in the garage. Can your buddy tell him to leave?
Since he was not a thief, at the time he was driving, Byrd had a greater possessory interest in the car than anyone in the world except for his fiance and the rental car company. He did not intend to steal the car, nor did he wrongfully deprive any person of their temporary possessory interest in the car (IOW, not grand theft auto nor joyriding).
Why should the government take a greater property interest than a possessor? Why should the government get involved in, what has also been mentioned upthread, a civil dispute?
---
### Author:  [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2018, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/33 "2018-01-11T00:16:51Z")
Now, I don’t know why Byrd wasn’t charged with it (maybe he was and it didn’t make the news, maybe they didn’t bother because it’s only a misdemeanor and he had all that heroin ) but it is [a crime](http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=39&sctn=28&subsctn=0) in PA to operate a motor vehicle without the **owner’s** consent. The owner is the rental agency. The rental contract itself is a civil matter - but Byrd driving the car without the rental company’s authorization is a crime. And I’ve seen people get arrested and convicted for driving rental cars when they are not on the agreement in NY under a similar law. ( Although it doesn’t always involve a rental car- it also covers the valet attendant who has authorization to park my car but not to take it on a trip for his own purposes.)
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2018, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/34 "2018-01-11T01:15:50Z")
> [@doreen](#):
>
> Now, I don’t know why Byrd wasn’t charged with it (maybe he was and it didn’t make the news, maybe they didn’t bother because it’s only a misdemeanor and he had all that heroin ) but it is [a crime](http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=39&sctn=28&subsctn=0) in PA to operate a motor vehicle without the **owner’s** consent. The owner is the rental agency. The rental contract itself is a civil matter - but Byrd driving the car without the rental company’s authorization is a crime. And I’ve seen people get arrested and convicted for driving rental cars when they are not on the agreement in NY under a similar law. ( Although it doesn’t always involve a rental car- it also covers the valet attendant who has authorization to park my car but not to take it on a trip for his own purposes.)
Be that as it may (and I haven’t researched the case law for the full scope of the law), it still does not mean that Byrd had no possessory interest in the car or an expectation of privacy that society would recognize as a reasonable one.
In every exclusionary rule case someone is committing a crime. It seems like a dangerous step to invalidate possession or reasonable expectations _ab initio_ because of the commission of a crime.
Further, what if it turned out to be the fiance’s heroin? Is the search retroactively invalid?
---
### Author:  [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2018, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/35 "2018-01-11T02:01:27Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#):
>
> Could this be cleared up by the rental company requiring the the lessee to agree to waive 4th amendment rights in regard to the rental car? Would this be possible for an apartment?
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> It wouldn’t have helped in this case - he wasn’t the lessee.
They already do. Every car I’ve rented, the agreement I sign with the owner lists the authorized drivers, and I explicitly waive my normal right to allow others to drive the vehicle with my permission.
---
### Author:  [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2018, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/36 "2018-01-11T02:38:25Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#):
>
> The motorcycle was in Charlottesville but the officer was from Albemarle. Wasn’t he outside his jurisdiction?
I can only answer definitively for my state but it is similar elsewhere. All police officers have statewide jurisdiction for arrests. There certainly is nothing stopping an officer from investigating a suspect outside of their town for a crime that occurred in their town. Think about how poorly it would work if every investigation that had an out of town suspect had to be handed off to other departments. It’s generally good form to inform another Department that you are in their town but it’s not necessary.
> [@doreen](#):
>
> Now, I don’t know why Byrd wasn’t charged with it (maybe he was and it didn’t make the news, maybe they didn’t bother because it’s only a misdemeanor and he had all that heroin ) but it is [a crime](http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=39&sctn=28&subsctn=0) in PA to operate a motor vehicle without the **owner’s** consent. The owner is the rental agency. The rental contract itself is a civil matter - but Byrd driving the car without the rental company’s authorization is a crime. And I’ve seen people get arrested and convicted for driving rental cars when they are not on the agreement in NY under a similar law. ( Although it doesn’t always involve a rental car- it also covers the valet attendant who has authorization to park my car but not to take it on a trip for his own purposes.)
It would not be covered under my state’s law. Taken without owners consent is for a theft when the suspect is known and or related to the owner. It’s a much less serious charge than car theft and is put on a summons. In New Jersey under these circumstances it wouldn’t be a crime.
---
### Author:  [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2018, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/37 "2018-01-11T03:12:44Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> Be that as it may (and I haven’t researched the case law for the full scope of the law), it still does not mean that Byrd had no possessory interest in the car or an expectation of privacy that society would recognize as a reasonable one.
I didn’t say it did. But there were a few posts that seemed to be taking the position that the fact that he wasn’t authorized didn’t make his occupancy illegal , and that his unauthorized driving was a civil matter, not a criminal one. That’s not necessarily true.
> [@](#):
>
> In every exclusionary rule case someone is committing a crime. It seems like a dangerous step to invalidate possession or reasonable expectations _ab initio_ because of the commission of a crime.
But not every case involves the question of whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle they aren’t entitled to possess. I’m not taking a position at this time about what the result should be , but in reality, his expectation of privacy was unreasonable if that statute actually means what it says. Because chances are excellent that if the car wasn’t searched right there, he would have been arrested for unauthorized use. The police don’t generally let people drive off with cars they are not authorized to drive - they impound them. Which means an inventory search would have been done at some point. And that wouldn’t have required his consent.
> [@](#):
>
> Further, what if it turned out to be the fiance’s heroin? Is the search retroactively invalid?
Why would that be the result? If Byrd is in possession of the car (whether or not his consent is required for a search) he’s in possession of everything in the car. There’s no way he’s there alone and she gets arrested based on the search. Maybe she gets charged if she admits it’s her heroin but I don’t think that puts her in a position to challenge the search.
---
### Author:  [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2018, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/38 "2018-01-11T06:10:38Z")
> [@doreen](#):
>
> he would have been arrested for unauthorized use.
Is that an actual crime under statute? What if the officer somehow knew Byrd wasn’t on the rental agreement before the traffic stop even occurred? Would that in itself be enough RS for a stop?
What if the officer sees the 17 year old son of his neighbor driving the neighbors new Mercedes and doesn’t believe the neighbor would let him do that. Would that be enough RS for a stop? What if said neighbor had given the boy permission to drive it. Would that nullify the bag of weed that was found on the front seat?
What if my daughter-in-law takes one of my cars without my knowledge. She’s not on the title, I didn’t tell her she could. But when I find out about it I have no problem with it. Prior to me finding out about it does her driving a car with no record of permission give the police reason to detain her and search the vehicle?
Bottom line is, Byrd is a shitbag. Sooner or later he is going to end up in prison. But do we want to neuter the 4th Amendment because we can’t wait until later? Using a car rental agreement to circumvent search and seizure protections seems weak to me.
---
### Author:  [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2018, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/39 "2018-01-11T12:10:36Z")
> [@pkbites](#):
>
> Is that an actual crime under statute? What if the officer somehow knew Byrd wasn’t on the rental agreement before the traffic stop even occurred? Would that in itself be enough RS for a stop?
It’s a misdemeanor according to what I linked. It’s hard to imagine how the officer would have known he wasn’t on the rental agreement before the stop unless someone at the rental company saw him drive away and reported it - but I would assume that if the rental agency called the police saying the only authorized driver was a woman and they saw her switch cars and a man drove away in the rental that would be RS to stop the car if a man was driving.
> [@](#):
>
> What if the officer sees the 17 year old son of his neighbor driving the neighbors new Mercedes and doesn’t believe the neighbor would let him do that. Would that be enough RS for a stop? What if said neighbor had given the boy permission to drive it. Would that nullify the bag of weed that was found on the front seat?
>
> What if my daughter-in-law takes one of my cars without my knowledge. She’s not on the title, I didn’t tell her she could. But when I find out about it I have no problem with it. Prior to me finding out about it does her driving a car with no record of permission give the police reason to detain her and search the vehicle?
These examples are completely different. First, you are talking about the stop itself being prompted by the unauthorized use - which is not what happened with Byrd. Second, you are talking about there not being any proof of permission - which is not nearly the same thing as there being proof that there was no permission.
But as long as we are bringing up different examples, say you go out one morning and your car is missing. You didn’t give anyone permission to drive it today, and everyone in your household is still home. You report the car stolen. An hour later the police find me driving it. You have not given me permission to drive it, and I claim I borrowed it from my friend. There is no proof that I stole the car - only that I am driving without your permission. It is entirely possible that I am telling the truth and I borrowed the car from my friend , who is actually the car thief. Is my consent needed to search the car that isn’t mine and that I have no permission to drive?
---
### Author:  [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2018, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278/40 "2018-01-11T12:52:03Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> What about a home owner’s association? By living in this community you agree to allow law enforcement to search your home anytime they wish. We don’t want crimes being committed in this neighborhood.
That’s different since the HOA doesn’t own the home. the resident does. But could I as an apartment owner, go to the cops and tell them that I have no objection to them searching any of the apartments I own? Or does renting an apartment grant the same 4th amendment rights to the tenant as if they were in a home they owned?
What about the underage child of an owner? Can a 15 year old give the cops permission to search their home? I suspect not.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-vehicle-search-cases-heard-at-supreme-court-today/806278.md?page=3)