More good news for limitations on the government!!

[This_person]

In September 2014, Terrence Byrd decided he wanted to take a drive. As he didn’t have a car, he borrowed a car his girlfriend–in a sign of the times, he had been with his girlfriend for 17 years and they had five children together–had rented. Byrd was not on the rental agreement and the rental agreement stated that the only drivers permitted had to be listed on the agreement. Mr. Byrd departed dystopic New Jersey and headed for points west. He was driving on I-81 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he drew the suspicions of a Pennsylvania state trooper David Long. Long noted that Byrd was driving a rental car with the seat in heavily reclined position. His hands were suspiciously at the 10-and-2 position. What was most damning was that he was driving within the speed limit but stayed in the left lane too long after passing a truck. Trooper Long pulled Byrd over.

Long examined the rental contract, found Byrd was not on it, his check of Byrd revealed he had drug and weapons convictions and so Trooper Long decided to search the car based on the fact that Byrd wasn’t an authorized driver. Long didn’t find anything…except body armor and 49 bricks of heroin in the trunk. Byrd was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He appealed contending that even though he wasn’t on the rental agreement he did not surrender some expectation of privacy in the case of a police search. The Third Circuit upheld his conviction and the case headed to the Supreme Court.

1. The mere fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy.
…
(b) ...“One of the main rights attaching to property is the right to exclude others,” and “one who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of the right to exclude.” Ibid. This
general property-based concept guides resolution of the instant case.
(c) The Government’s contention that drivers who are not listed on rental agreements always lack an expectation of privacy in the car rests on too restrictive a view of the Fourth Amendment’s protections.
…
(2) The Government also contends that Byrd had no basis for claiming an expectation of privacy in the rental car because his driving of that car was so serious a breach of Reed’s rental agreement that the rental company would have considered the agreement “void” once he took the wheel. But the contract says only that the violation may result in coverage, not the agreement, being void and the renter’s being fully responsible for any loss or damage, and the Government fails to explain what bearing this breach of contract, standing alone, has on expectations of privacy in the car.

This was a solid decision by the Court and it was great to see that Justices from Gorsuch to Sotomayor could look at the government’s case and think it was nuts.




I actually agree - more limitations on the government are good limitations on the government. You don't get to pull someone over for having their hands at 10 and 2, and you don't get to search cars because someone has been convicted in the past. Do I support Byrd's carrying multiple bricks of heroin? Of course not, but there wasn't a damned reason to pull him over or search his car, and he should not have been convicted based on poorly-obtained evidence. The ends do NOT justify the means.

 

[GURPS]

You don't get to pull someone over for having their hands at 10 and 2, and you don't get to search cars because someone has been convicted in the past. Do I support Byrd's carrying multiple bricks of heroin? Of course not, but there wasn't a damned reason to pull him over or search his car, and he should not have been convicted based on poorly-obtained evidence. The ends do NOT justify the means.

dude its PoPo does it all the time ....

 

[This_person]

dude its PoPo does it all the time ....

And, I am 100% pro-cop, pro-protecting me and mine.

But, I believe you are accurate in your joke here that they do it all the time (not all cops, just enough to give the rest a bad name), and this is good news because they shouldn't.

The TSA should not exist in the way they do. The entire "government agent searching you without a warrant and taking legal objects from you, like water and pocket knives" thing is grossly against the fourth amendment, and should be stopped. The "I pulled you over because you were weaving on the road and *sniff-sniff* I smell something funny so I'm going to search your entire car, self, and trunk" thing is just as wrong. If they smell something funny, arrest them and get a search warrant. Put your name and definition of "funny" on paper and hand it to a judge. We will see how many of your searches lead to arrests and what percentage were just "fishing" before.

 

[GURPS]

But, I believe you are accurate in your joke here that they do it all the time (not all cops, just enough to give the rest a bad name), and this is good news because they shouldn't.

been there suffered that