The parties in this case are Terrence Byrd and the United States government.
In September of 2014, Byrd's at-the-time girlfriend and mother of his children had rented a vehicle
from Avis, a rental car company.
Byrd had been granted permission from Latasha Reed and given the car keys to drive the vehicle.
Byrd had been driving on a highway when an officer pulled Byrd over for a traffic violation
and asked for his license and the rental car agreement.
In the rental car agreement, Byrd was not listed as an authorized driver.
The officer then asked Byrd if he had any contraband within the vehicle.
Byrd conceded that he did have a marijuana joint.
The officer asked Byrd if he could search the vehicle.
Byrd did not consent to the search, but the officer proceeded to tell Byrd that he could
search the vehicle regardless of his consent because he was not authorized under the rental
agreement.
Upon searching the vehicle, the officer discovered blocks of heroin and body armor within the
trunk of the vehicle.
As a result of that search, Byrd was indicted for several crimes.
The core issue in this case is whether a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in
a rental vehicle when the driver is not listed under the rental agreement but has permission
from someone who is authorized under the rental agreement.
So the Constitution does not explicitly mention privacy, but privacy is a concept that can
be found in a number of rights that the Constitution gives rise to.
The Fourth Amendment states that a person has a right to be free from unreasonable searches
and seizures of their person, houses, papers, or effects.
A vehicle would fall under the effects provision of the Fourth Amendment.
There is a legal distinction between owning and renting property, but in the context of
the Fourth Amendment and privacy, that line isn't so clear.
The strongest argument that Byrd can make is that Fourth Amendment protections don't
hinge on contractual rights and don't hinge on ownership.
There are Supreme Court cases that establish that an overnight guest of a home has a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the home.
That's Minnesota v. Olson.
It didn't matter whether or not the overnight guest owned the home.
The court still decided that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In another case, Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court determined that an individual
has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a phone booth.
In that case, the individual didn't own the phone both as well.
The government is arguing that privacy is rooted in property rights.
And here, because Byrd does not have cognizable property interests within the rental vehicle,
he does not have a privacy right protected by the Fourth Amendment.
He's not authorized under the rental agreement.
He can't exclude others from driving the vehicle.
Even though he has permission from his girlfriend, she's a renter.
She's not someone that owns the vehicle.
And so, given that the property belongs to someone else, he can't claim a protected interest
in driving the vehicle.
If the Supreme Court decides that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the
vehicle, then contracts may start to play a greater role in determining whether or not
Fourth Amendments interests are protected.
For more infomation >> US Navy joins search for missing crew from Iranian tanker - Duration: 1:55. 
For more infomation >> SpaceX Launches Rocket Carrying Classified Payload for US Government - Duration: 1:00. 
For more infomation >> US Ending Immigration Protections for Salvadorans - Duration: 1:02. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét