Nice!
Actually, a lot of states have laws giving minimum height (& maximum) that the bumper must be above the road. (So that bumpers hit each other, rather than other parts of the car. Obviously written back when bumpers were real & effective, not just cosmetic plastic.) So you could be stopped for this. Generally, they give you a 10-day fix-it ticket. But if you don’t have insurance or a valid license, or smell of drink or drugs, etc. then the normal consequences will apply.
And those people are likely to take some retaliation against Byrd for their loss, caused by his bad driving. He’s probably lucky to be still in custody – might be safer there!
Jeez but you’re missing the point. If SCOTUS had ruled against Byrd I’m sure some LEO, somewhere, eventually would use something as benign as a stroller rental agreement as a way around the 4th Amendment. In a case like that the actual intent of the stroller rental company is moot. It still reads pretty much the same as a rental care agreement.
Miner nitpic…
Cars still have real and effective bumpers. The cosmetic plastic is technically a bumper cover.
Small comfort, I know, when a minor bump results in several hundred dollars worth of new paint. But there you have it.
Anyways, I’m three for three in agreement with the Supremes on these rulings. The court that is. I have no idea what the singers think about it.
Yes, the intent of the stroller company is moot- but the precise wording of the contract is not. It is entirely possible to write the agreement in such a way that prohibits me from turning the stroller over to my sister when I leave at 3 pm that still allows my father-in-law to push the stroller with my one year old while I ride the carousel with my three year old.
Beautiful opinion. Alito’s view would destroy the Fourth Amendment. A search can always be found to be “reasonable” when doing a balancing test in a particular investigation. Unfortunately, in some of my cases, judges fall back on this erroneous Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
In other words, suppose the police are trying to get a serial killer off of the streets. A ten minute search of your home is an intrusion on your privacy, sure, but in comparison to the governmental interest (and societal interest) of getting this mad man off of the streets, it is minimal.
So is it not “reasonable” to subject yourself to a quick ten minute search of your home if it helps get a serial killer off of the street? In every case…and I mean every case…one can make the argument that the search complained of is “reasonable” given the government objective. That balancing test was never contemplated by the Fourth Amendment and it is simply lazy judging (looking at you Justice Alito) to fall back on that trope.
I agree with the opinion, but that’s not what Alito is doing. He’s not engaging in interest balancing - he’s talking about reasonableness which is the basis of the 4th amendment.
Alito thinks the curtilage doesn’t make any difference in the vehicle exception to the 4th amendment. I think that’s wrong, but it’s not interest balancing.
I’m more surprised the court didn’t consider the part of the unenclosed driveway as part of the open field - part of the property and not part of the curtilage. My cursory evaluation was that any area of the property that a bystander could go uninhibited by any type of barrier (no matter how trivial to circumvent) would not be considered curtilage. Hedge wall could create curtilage, open driveway, not curtilage. Not sure whybi thought that, apparently that’s not controlling.
:smack:
Not talking about the goddamned stroller company. We’re talking about a law enforcement officer using the agreement as PC to search the stroller and any contents thereof, which is pretty much what happened in the Byrd case. Had Byrd gone the other day I could imagine officers taking it to extremes, hence my stroller example.
I’m shooting at the hip here, but why does a driveway have to be covered to be curtilage?
The part of the opinion that I was most interested in was in the final paragraph. If I can afford a house with a garage, this doesn’t happen. If I have a driveway the cops can search at will?
It is analogous to Florida v. Jardines. A person has a license to come onto my driveway to knock on the door to sell girl scout cookies or to ask if I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, but nobody gives an implied license to search for evidence.
That isn’t a pasture…it is part of my home.
And what I’m talking about is that whether what you imagine could really happen depends on exactly how the stroller rental agreement is written- yeah , if Byrd went the other way *and * there is some reason why a cop might legally stop someone with a stroller and ask for some equivalent of license and registration ( which there isn’t, because I am not required to register the stroller I own or even carry the receipt or rental agreement with me) and the stroller agreement is written almost exactly like a car rental agreement, to the extent of listing exactly is authorized to be in possession of a stroller on the agreement, then perhaps a cop trying to use the lack of authorization on the contract as a reason to search without consent might work. But if the stroller agreement doesn’t restrict who can be in possession of a stroller and explicitly list the only persons authorized to be in possession, then it definitely wouldn’t get past the first court.
And that is why Byrd was decided the way it was. I rent a car intending to drive all the way. After we get to the hotel, my wife wants to go to the convenience store to get drinks or snacks. If she is pulled over, she could be frisked and searched at will under the government’s argument. That’s a ridiculous proposition and the Solicitor should be ashamed.
Not covered per se, but impeded. That was my understanding. So if you have a gate, fence, etc. That could create curtilage. A hedge wall surrounding the area could create curtilage. But a wide open expanse surrounding the house that provides no impediment to entry - id say not curtilage.
The curtilage idea is to extend the privacy interest of the homeowner. Not exactly private if all manner of creature could venture in without restriction. I have an interest in this because carrying a firearm on your person is typically illegal in .CA. At home, it’s legal. On your property outside your curtilage is illegal, but in the curtilage is fine. The difference determines if one is committing a felony or not.
What if I cannot afford a fence?
Outta luck would be my guess. I wouldn’t want to be a test case.
As a defendant I mean. I’d gladly be a plaintiff in strategic litigation. I’ve volunteered (in general) but thus far haven’t gotten the call.
I know this was posted a bit back but I am curious about it because I would assume the girlfriend does not have the ability to legally consent to his use of the car. Which is to say, as a legal matter, she does not have the legal right to give permission to anyone else to drive the car. Only the rental company can do that.
More a point of order…not sure that changed the jurisprudence on this.
doreen doesn’t seem to understand a few things, one being how the first court erred in their decision in the first place, resulting in the SCOTUS ruling in the end. I am a LEO and I can clearly see how if Byrd went the other way there would be extremes (even if only rarely) to which it would be pushed.
It seems, per the SCOTUS ruling, it did.
I find this puzzling. What would the exigent circumstances be other than it is a vehicle which is easily removed? If that qualifies, then the rest of the opinion is wrong.
I am glad SCOTUS ruled the way they did. I’m not surprised Alito was the hold out.