Yet a third party can invalidate his because of a civil agreement they made?
I’d still like to know what would be the case if Byrd’s girlfriend had been in the car. If Byrd was driving as an unauthorized driver but she was a passenger and the name on the agreement, would she have had the right to deny a search? If it were a dwelling the answer is yes.
Does a renter hold a power of attorney over property they rent but don’t own while they are in possession of it or it’s control?
As UltraVires noted, your friend wouldn’t have standing; they’re not charged with a crime.
I’ve always said I’m not a lawyer. And this was a gap in my knowledge. I thought evidence was ruled inadmissible based on the act of the illegal search. But I checked and discovered I was wrong. As you point out, a person is not protected when somebody else is the object of an illegal search.
This surprises me. If the logic of making evidence inadmissible is to discourage illegal searches then it should follow that an illegal search covers any evidence that’s found; the Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect the right of the person being searched not the right of the person who owns evidence.
The question is whether he even had a Fourth Amendment right in this car to “invalidate”
His girlfriend could have absolutely refused a search. If the Court asserts that Byrd has a possessory interest in the car, what would happen if the girlfriend consented to a search, but Byrd refused? Would we get a Georgia v. Randolph scenario (holding that when one of the home’s legal occupant agrees to a search and the other refuses, no search can happen) or would her greater possessory interest overrule Byrd’s?
I’m not sure what you mean by “power of attorney.” Barring any restrictions in the lease agreement (which is what is at issue here) a renter can sublet his apartment to others or otherwise do anything he wishes with the portion of the property he controls. He can’t sell it, for example, because that would interfere with the superior title holder’s interest. He can’t mine coal on the property because that would cause “waste” to the remainder interest held by his landlord. But the general rule is that he “owns” what he has been given and can assign that to another.
But it is probably a good analogy to a renter subletting the apartment when the renter’s original agreement says “so subletting allowed.” Does the subletter now have no expectation of privacy in his home? Does it matter if he knows about the original agreement? What if he didn’t actually know, but could or should have known?
All interesting questions that this decision will hopefully address.
SCOTUS decision handed down today.
They UNANIMOUSLY sided with Byrd:
Police, who found dozens of bricks of heroin and body armor in the driver’s trunk, argued the man, Terrence Byrd, had no right to privacy given he was not on the rental agreement. The court disagreed with that argument.
Even as a LEO I strongly believe that is the right decision. Those officers should have gotten a warrant. And as ridiculous as it sounds, had they ruled against him I’m sure eventually some agency would use it in cases involving anything rental (Red Box DVD, library books, a stroller at the zoo, etc.).
The case isn’t completely done yet on a part of this issue:
***The court, however, remanded the case to the lower courts to examine whether Byrd had used subterfuge in renting the car and whether that mattered. ***
The 4th Amendment dodged a bullet today.
Whenever I see a car with a sagging rear-end I always think, “there is probably a body and dozens of kilos of heroin and body armor in the trunk.” I always assume the cops do, too. I guess this isn’t probable cause for a stop-and-search?
I guess Byrd still doesn’t get the heroin back, though. Someone must have taken a big loss that day.
Nobody implied that Byrd isn’t a shit bag.
He is.
But to catch a shit bag there still are Constitutional rights to be obeyed that we all have, including shit bags.
And even with the hurdles of the Constitution shit bags like Byrd eventually get put away. So there is no reason to try to get around those Constitutional protections. Without them we live in tyranny.
I’m just observing that some wholesaler somewhere must have lost a lot of money that day (assuming Byrd didn’t pay cash upfront for all that heroin), via the mildly-comical image of the government having to give him back the 47 bricks. I guess a certain level of police seizure is just recognized as a cost of doing business.
So, was this a landmark ruling, or simply reiterating what has always been?
Hardly a landmark ruling, but if it was reiterating what has always been, it wouldn’t have gotten to the Supreme Court.
Contra John Roberts, C.J., SCOTUS doesn’t call balls and strikes; it rules on the boundaries of the strike zone, and then the lower courts call the balls and strikes based on those rulings. Cases like these basically refine the definition of the strike zone in minor ways.
As I noted before, I agree with the decision. Kennedy, however, wasn’t entirely clear whether it was based upon a reasonable expectation of privacy, a possessory interest, or both. He gives lip service to each.
The question on remand seems odd. Let’s assume that Byrd knew that he could not rent a car because of his background and the whole rental agreement with his girlfriend was complete subterfuge. He convinced her to sign the paperwork knowing she would never drive the car and he would.
I still don’t see how that defeats the Fourth Amendment issue. It is not at all akin to a burglar squatting in someone’s summer cabin. There is no theft as Byrd (presumably) would have returned the car at the end of the rental period. There is no joyriding as the rightful possessor (the girlfriend) consented to being temporarily deprived of her title and interest in the property.
This is a civil contractual issue that the car rental place may have against the girlfriend or against Byrd. A contrary holding could have absurd consequences. Suppose a hotel (like most today) is 100% smoke free. If I smoke in the room (and intended to smoke in the room when I rented it), did I commit a trespass ab initio and my belongings can be searched at will? Am I in a no different position than if I had picked the lock and squatted in the room? Of course not.
What the hotel can do is impose the liquidated damages “cleaning fee” when I check out, or if they catch me smoking, they can eject me, or even ask for police assistance if I refuse to leave. But under the theory advocated by some, before removing me, the police can search all of my baggage because since I broke a rule, I have no possessory interest or reasonable expectation of privacy. That seems silly.
Do you see my point how some LEO’s might take it to a ridiculous, tyrannical extreme had it gone the other way?
“Hey, your girlfriend rented that baby stroller here at the zoo, not you. And she’s not here right now but in the restroom. You have no right to it, even though it’s your kid sitting in it! We’re searching it!”.
I don’t think so because when you rent a stroller at the zoo, there is no provision in the rental agreement that only person X, Y, or Z may push the stroller. So if your girlfriend rents a stroller and then entrusts it to you, you have an undisputed possessory interest in the stroller.
The argument in the rental car example is that the rental agency only rents it to authorized driver X. If someone else drives the vehicle, they are not authorized to do so because person X had no authority to let them drive it. As such, they are no different than a thief and have no possessory or REP interest in it.
Of course, we both and all members of the Supreme Court rejected such an argument. A simple violation of a term of a rental agreement does not divest a person of all possessory interests and a reasonable expectation of privacy, anymore than sneaking an extra guest or smoking in your hotel room would entitle the police to search it.
Yes there is. My Daughter-in-law rented one at a fair once and the small agreement she signed had a clause in it that said she would not transfer control or possession to another party. I was there with them and saw the paper. They also made her leave her DL with them. I’d have to look it up but I believe there is a statute here prohibiting using a driver license as a form of bond.
Oh, excellent analogy there. I’ll be using that, thanks.
Here’s another hypothetical.
I’m driving a rental from El Paso to Nashville and some state patrol decides I’m suspicious and pulls me over for some minor technicality, failure to signal lane change for example. He runs my license and I come back clean as a whistle and there’s nothing illegal in view. Basically there’s nothing he can find to justify searching without consent so he politely asks if I mind if he searches the vehicle and I politely decline. Can he then call the rental agency to get permission from them since they do actually own the vehicle? Or does my rental agreement temporarily nullify their right to consent?
I hope you don’t mind if I add another question to that. What if the police officer searches my rental car, but does find something. But what if it’s something left by a previous renter, or even an employee of the car rental agency? I’ve rented cars and never even opened the trunk.
If it were a legal search you’re screwed. You’re the operator and the item was within your sphere of control. “That isn’t mine” is a common but unsuccessful defense argument.
A few years ago a man rented a car and discovered a loaded handgun under the seat. He reported it to police who had the rental company trace records back and they discovered who left the gun there. That guy was cited for DC. But what if the renter hadn’t found that pistol and had, for some reason, the car searched? If he didn’t have a valid CCL he could have been charged with CCW.
A lot of that is going to depend on how much of what was found and how bad a day the cop was having. Also, there are some cops with the attitude that they just write everything up and let the DA sort it out. Better hope you don’t get pulled over by him/her.
But back to the guy who might show some discretion.
A couple of doobies or even a dime bag and your LEO’s in a good mood, he might just confiscate it and send you on your way.
The same situation and he’s just been chewed out by the sergeant, odds are you’re going downtown for a while.
If, on the other hand, he finds 10 kilos of coke in the spare tire well, it won’t matter what kind of day he’s having, you’re going to have a bad day and need a good lawyer.
Source: My ex-FIL is retired LEO.
That’s not for legal reasons, but profit!
Most people with kids in strollers only stay at a zoo/fair/event for 2-3 hours of the day. This clause prevents them from handing the stroller off to a friend or relative who arrives later and uses it for the rest of the day – with only one rental fee paid. If the first person has to return it when they leave, the rental company can then rent it out a second or third time that same day. Profit!
Collins v. Virginia decided today. 8-1 with Alito the lone dissent. Automobile exception doesn’t apply to the curtilage of the home.