SCOTUS rules in favor of 4A in Collins v. Virginia

[Chris0nllyn]

tldr: Cops were investigating traffic incidents involving a particular motorcycle they believed to be stolen. They looked on this guy's Facebook page and found pictures of the bike. An officer went to the house and from the street saw what looked to be a bike under a tarp in the guy's yard. Without a warrant, they went onto his property and lifted the tarp, ran the plate and VIN, found out it was in fact stolen, and went back to his car to wait for the homeowner to arrive, only to arrest him. The officer and lower courts found that the officer was justified under the 4A's automobile exception.

SCOTUS ruled 8-1 that the automobile exception of the 4A doesn't apply to warrantless entry to one's property to search a vehicle. The lone dissent came from Justice Alito, stating,

The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches. What the police did in this case was entirely reasonable. The Court’s decision is not.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1027_7lio.pdf

 

[vraiblonde]

I agree with Alito. Then we wonder why we have so much crime in this country - it's because of stupid judicial decisions like this.

 

[awpitt]

I can see where Alito is coming from here. I've never really been sure if the 4A protections extend to the outside areas of one's property or not. I will say that it doesn't seem like time was an issue. The police could've easily gotten a warrant for the property before entering and lifting the tarp. Had they done so, this would've never been in court to begin with. I'm surprised at the 8-1 vote.

 

[black dog]

I agree with Alito. Then we wonder why we have so much crime in this country - it's because of stupid judicial decisions like this.

Alito said yes, because he's super liberal and progressive.
That have no right to come on you property without a warrant for search for something thats not in plain sight.

 

[black dog]

I can see where Alito is coming from here. I've never really been sure if the 4A protections extend to the outside areas of one's property or not. I will say that it doesn't seem like time was an issue. The police could've easily gotten a warrant for the property before entering and lifting the tarp. Had they done so, this would've never been in court to begin with. I'm surprised at the 8-1 vote.

How do the police know whats under said tarp?? Its private property and its not in plain sight..
They have to wait until a officer sees said motorcycle and then get a warrant..

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I agree with Alito. Then we wonder why we have so much crime in this country - it's because of stupid judicial decisions like this.

From the 8 other judges:

This Court has similarly declined to expand the scope of other exceptions to the warrant requirement. Thus, just as an officer must have a lawful right of access to any contraband he discovers in plain view in order to seize it without a warrant and just as an officer must have a lawful right of access in order to arrest a person in his home so, too, an officer must have a lawful right of access to a vehicle in order to search it pursuant to the automobile exception. To allow otherwise would unmoor the exception from its justifications, render hollow the core Fourth Amendment protection the Constitution extends to the house and its curtilage, and transform what was meant to be an exception into a tool with far broader application.

 

[Kyle]

How do the police know whats under said tarp?? Its private property and its not in plain sight..
They have to wait until a officer sees said motorcycle and then get a warrant..

Actually with the social media photos from his Facebook page they'd likely have had enough for a warrant.

they really should have followed procedure. If so the dirtbag would be convicted of the crime instead of getting a free pass.

 

[GURPS]

The police could've easily gotten a warrant for the property before entering and lifting the tarp. Had they done so, this would've never been in court to begin with.

Indeed ...

hey I see a bike shape under this tarp, here are pictures from Facebook of a similar bike ...


that ain't enough for SW ?

 

[Kyle]

Indeed ...

hey I see a bike shape under this tarp, here are pictures from the perps Facebook of a similar bike ...


that ain't enough for SW ?

 

[glhs837]

I agree with Alito. Then we wonder why we have so much crime in this country - it's because of stupid judicial decisions like this.

Ah, no, dont let them take your rights like that. We have crime becuase of other things, not bad police work. "Hey, fellow Officer Bob, I see a TV in that window, lets kick down the door and check the serial number, might be the TV that got stolen over on Oak Street last week."

If you dont have enough for a warrant, then you dont get to search. It's pretty simple. My property is my property. Do it right. This is a nation of laws, dont like'em, change'em. This is nt the Kingdon of Vrai, where "common sense" rules. Becuase history shows us that common sense is code for "Whatever the King Wants". and we dont have a King, we have "The Law".

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

I can see where Alito is coming from here. I've never really been sure if the 4A protections extend to the outside areas of one's property or not. I will say that it doesn't seem like time was an issue. The police could've easily gotten a warrant for the property before entering and lifting the tarp. Had they done so, this would've never been in court to begin with. I'm surprised at the 8-1 vote.

I'd rather the court err on the side of the individual rights of the people, than side with the government.

 

[vraiblonde]

Alito said yes, because he's super liberal and progressive.
That have no right to come on you property without a warrant for search for something thats not in plain sight.

I do not think people should get away with stealing things just because they're clever enough to hide it.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

I do not think people should get away with stealing things just because they're clever enough to hide it.

Aren't you for the protections that the Constitution provides us with?

 

[vraiblonde]

Aren't you for the protections that the Constitution provides us with?

Of course, until the crime lovers want to quibble over what is meant by "unreasonable".

 

[glhs837]

Of course, until the crime lovers want to quibble over what is meant by "unreasonable".

Yep, that's me, Crime Lover See, it's that "quibble over whats unreasonable" bit. It's not a quibble, but a legal point. Thats why we, as a nation of laws, have laws that do just that, define reasonable. Allowing cops to decide whats reasonable has a great and storied history. The Chicago cops who ran what amounted to CIA blacksites, they thought that was reasonable. That fat cop from Annapolis who smacked a kid around for riding a skateboard, he thought that was reasonable. Those cops in DC who decided to adetain those free range kids? Reasonable. Saddams goons who tossed prisoners off the roof, sure, why not.

 

[black dog]

Actually with the social media photos from his Facebook page they'd likely have had enough for a warrant.

they really should have followed procedure. If so the dirtbag would be convicted of the crime instead of getting a free pass.

It seemed so simple at the time, If only some LE would just put fourth what they were taught in the academy.

 

[black dog]

Of course, until the crime lovers want to quibble over what is meant by "unreasonable".

Would it be unreasonable to you both if local LE walked up to your RV this evening during tv time and lifted up your side storage doors looking for a stolen purse from a few rv's down the road?

 

[Merlin99]

Ah, no, dont let them take your rights like that. We have crime becuase of other things, not bad police work. "Hey, fellow Officer Bob, I see a TV in that window, lets kick down the door and check the serial number, might be the TV that got stolen over on Oak Street last week."

If you dont have enough for a warrant, then you dont get to search. It's pretty simple. My property is my property. Do it right. This is a nation of laws, dont like'em, change'em. This is nt the Kingdon of Vrai, where "common sense" rules. Becuase history shows us that common sense is code for "Whatever the King Wants". and we dont have a King, we have "The Law".

I agree with this 100%.

 

[This_person]

Of course, until the crime lovers want to quibble over what is meant by "unreasonable".

So, let's take it a little bit differently - what if it was in the garage, but the garage door was open? Should the cop be able to enter the garage?

How about if they simply drone over the place with a camera? Then the cop himself isn't entering the area, right?

It is far better the guilty go free than the free are no longer free.

 

[PsyOps]

It is far better the guilty go free than the free are no longer free.

And this seems to be the conundrum Americans face. People want to know they are safe. How far are they willing to go to ensure they are safe? The founders knew it would be far more dangerous giving more power to the government, resulting in the people being less free. Are you more comfortable being less free if it meant making it easier for LE to catch the bad guys? Or are you willing to take the risk of some of the bad guys getting away with it to ensure you are more free? This country is slowly leaning closer to the former.