The SCOTUS Reviewed two 4th Amendment vehicle search cases this week

"nermal" (nermal) 01/11/2018 at 09:09 • Filed to: I KNOW MY RIGHTS

0

8

Interesting stuff, haven’t seen this covered here or on the FP. The SCOTUS reviewed two cases of vehicular searches that were disputed, citing the 4th Amendment.

On case one, some shithead got his girlfriend to rent a car, which he then drove, despite not being listed as a driver on the rental agreement. He got pulled over for hogging the left lane on a highway. Once the officers found that he wasn’t listed on the rental agreement, and that he had outstanding warrants in another state, they asked to search the car. They say he said yes then no, he says he said no. They said it doesn’t really matter anyways and proceeded, and found 49 bricks of heroin in the trunk.

According to what I found on the internet, 1 brick = 50 bags. 1 bag = $20 or so. That means he had 2,450 doses of heroin worth about $49k.

The argument here is whether or not the cops needed his permission to search the car. If it was his car, they would. If it was a stolen car, they would not.

On the second case, another shithead lead police on a multiple high speed chases on a motorcycle, and eluded them each time. He eventually went to his girlfriend’s house and parked the bike, with a cover over it. The police tracked him back to the girlfriend’s house, lifted the cover on the motorcycle to confirm the plate #, and then arrested him.

The argument on this one is whether the police were in violation by lifting the cover to read the plate, without having a warrant.

Link for more reading:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

450X_FTW > nermal 01/11/2018 at 09:52

0

Case 1: if the vehicle was not legally his to be driving, I imagine it would be impounded at which point it would have been searched anyway?

Case 2: the bike was in public viewing, the plate was not. Should not stand in court.

nermal > 450X_FTW 01/11/2018 at 10:12

0

Agreed on #2.

On #1, the vehicle wasn’t “stolen”, the girlfriend that rented it gave permission for the shitbag to drive it. It’s definitely a violation of the rental agreement, but does that change the legal requirements for the police to search it?

450X_FTW > nermal 01/11/2018 at 10:32

0

Ah okay, thought he just took it without permission. Makes more sense

BigBlock440 > nermal 01/11/2018 at 10:35

2

He got pulled over for hogging the left lane on a highway.

Huh, the article I read just said a “minor traffic infraction”. This makes me feel better that a left lane camper was finally pulled over.

Urambo Tauro > nermal 01/11/2018 at 11:03

0

I don’t feel like there was any conclusion-jumping here for anyone to have to resort to suggesting that “the ends justify the means” (at least not in the first case). Which is good, because that is a very slippery slope. Unless I’m missing an important detail, it feels like the cops proceeded in a totally natural and logical manner that should be legal.

Even though the first case started out as nothing more than a routine traffic stop, the necessary papers-checking brought up a very suspicious situation. Of course they should be allowed to investigate by searching the car, whether the driver likes it or not. If not on-site, then in the impound lot. Just don’t give the driver a chance to hide or tamper with the evidence.

As for the second case, I’d like to know how they “tracked” the bike home, as it sounds like they lost actual sight of it. If they knew for sure that they were following the exact same bike as seen in the chases, then I think that the law ought to allow them to follow it wherever it goes, whether the rider likes it or not. But if they only managed to narrow it down to a neighborhood, and started going around lifting covers on a bunch of different bikes without consent, then no I don’t like that one bit.

nermal > Urambo Tauro 01/11/2018 at 11:43

0

On the second case, from my understanding they had the plate # from the bike, and it was a “known suspect” due to the suspect running from police multiple times. They weren’t going around lifting covers on random bikes, just on the one at the location of a “known suspect”.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > nermal 01/11/2018 at 21:10

0

#2 depending on the state it could be illegal to block or cover the lisence plate of the vehicle, adding another layer of complexity.

Maxima Speed > nermal 01/21/2018 at 15:10

0

My opinion would be that, because the permission given to the boyfriend was a violation of the rental agreement the permission was null. I don’t think rental house expectation of privacy could be applied here.