TERRENCE BYRD v. UNITED STATES
Supreme Court of the US, Kennedy, May 14, 2018,
Searches – A driver in “otherwise lawful possession” of a rental car can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car even if he’s not on the rental agreement
(Concur – Thomas with Gorsuch – More information is needed to determine if the rental car is Byrd’s “effect”)
(Concur – Alito- The court on remand is free to consider the 4th Amendment claim fully or decide the appeal on an alternate ground)
Facts:
In 2014, a Pennsylvania State Trooper pulled over a car driven by Terrence Byrd.
The trooper could see that it was a rental car because of the barcode on the window. When the trooper approached Byrd, Byrd was “visibly nervous” and “was shaking and had a hard time obtaining his driver’s license.” Byrd handed the trooper an interim license and the rental agreement, stating that his friend had rented the car.
The trooper saw that Byrd was not on the rental agreement and a record check for Byrd came back with prior weapons and drug charges as well as a non-extradition warrant from New Jersey for a probation violation.
Another trooper arrived on scene and the troopers noted that Byrd was “not on the renter agreement,” to which the other trooper replied “yeah, he has no expectation of privacy.”
The troopers then asked Byrd if he had anything illegal in the car. Byrd replied that he had a “blunt” in the car. Despite this admission, the troopers sought consent to search the vehicle and eventually searched the car without consent.
In the trunk, the troopers found body armor. At this point, one of the troopers walked toward Byrd and told him that he would be handcuffed. Byrd ran. Once he was caught, Byrd admitted that there was heroin in the car.
Located in the trunk of the car were 49 bricks of heroin.
At trial, Byrd sought to suppress the heroin as the result of an unconstitutional search.
The trial court found that Byrd had no standing to challenge the search and the Third Circuit agreed.
Byrd sought review from the Supreme Court, arguing that he was the driver of the car and therefore had standing to challenge its search.
Held: The Supreme Court agreed that as a “general rule,” the driver of a rental car has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car even if he’s not on the rental agreement.
Note: It is important to note that the Court did NOT decide that Byrd in fact had a reasonable expectation of privacy. He appears to have fraudulently obtained control of the car (tricked the car company into renting it to his accomplice, who then gave it to him). In that case, he would have “no greater expectation of privacy than a car thief.”
Searches – The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches
Searches – A police officer conducts a “search” where they invade someone’s “reasonable expectation of privacy”
Searches – Whether someone’s expectation of privacy is “legitimate” or “reasonable” can be determined in part based on what we as a society feel is “reasonable” as well as concepts of property law.
Searches – Mere presence on or in property is not enough to have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in that property
Note: For example, if a car is stopped and searched by the police after picking up a hitchhiker, the hitchhiker can’t automatically challenge the search just because he was in the car at the time
Searches – The right to exclude someone from property will generally (though not always) also have a reasonable expectation of privacy on that property
Example from the Case: Someone staying at his friend’s apartment for a few days had a reasonable expectation in his friend’s apartment where he “had complete dominion and control over the apartment and could exclude others from it.”
Searches – Someone in lawful possession of a rental car has the right to exclude others. This also gives them a reasonable expectation of privacy.
From the Case: For “Fourth Amendment purposes there is no meaningful difference between the authorized-driver provision” in the rental contract and provisions such as “driving the car on unpaved roads or driving while using a handheld cellphone.”
Searches – Someone wrongfully at the scene of a search, however, does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy
From the Case: A burglar plying his trade in a summer cabin during the off season may have a thoroughly justified subjective expectation of privacy, “but it is not one which the law recognizes as legitimate” or reasonable.
Searches – A car thief does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car that he has stolen
From the Case: The Court leaves for remand two of the Government’s arguments: that one who intentionally uses a third party to procure a rental car by a fraudulent scheme for the purpose of committing a crime is no better situated than a car thief; and that probable cause justified the search in any event. The Court of Appeals has discretion as to the order in which these questions are best addressed. Case sent back to the lower courts for further consideration.