A Charlottesville-area man was convicted in 2014 of receiving stolen property — the motorcycle, which twice had been used to elude police — after an officer who suspected it was stolen walked onto private property and removed a tarp covering the bike without a search warrant. [More]And look who has no problem finding a "single issue" tie- in -- when they want to.
[Via Mack H]
3 comments:
The facts as described by the police (not necessarily the true facts) would seem to be probable cause for a minor invasion such as lifting a tarp on a vehicle in the driveway.
The question is, can the cop do it on his own authority or must he say 'Your Honor, may I?' first?
And what are they doing about the guy who admitted to selling a stolen motorcycle?
Speaking of which, what kind of moron sells a stolen bike with his own plate mounted on it?
"Speaking of which, what kind of moron sells a stolen bike with his own plate mounted on it?"
Hah, exactly.
As for the warrantless 'minor invasion' the Rutherford Intitute has an answer to that:
* https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/rutherford_institute_asks_supreme_court_to_stop_police_from_carrying_out_wa
[SNIP]
“The ‘automobile exception’ arose out of the Prohibition era in order to crack down on bootleggers who were using vehicles to smuggle liquor,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Yet even with this exception on the books, police cannot merely disregard the Fourth Amendment whenever it suits their purposes. As the Supreme Court itself has recognized, ‘Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure.’”
======
Basically, if Herring (Virginia) wins, it's open-season for cops on your curtilage. I fear it would nullify Jardines:
Florida v. Jardines
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Jardines
Orin Kerr finally weighs in here:
* https://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/03/a-few-thoughts-on-collins-v-virginia
Note that Volokh finally left Bezos-World for freer pastures.
[SNIP]
Virginia's brief argues that even if the bike was on curtilage, the automobile exception allows the entrance into the curtilage to search it. In effect, Virginia argues that the automobile exception allowing automobile searches implies a searching-to-get-to-the-automobile exception. From page 28 of the state's brief:
>>>[B]y necessary implication, authorization to search an area gives authority to access the area. See [United States v. Ross (1982)] at 820-21 ("A lawful search of fixed premises generally extends to the entire area in which the object of the search may be found."). Because Rhodes was permitted to search Collins's motorcycle, he was permitted to access it in order to search it.<<<
But that can't be right. Fourth Amendment doctrine always works sequentially. You have to take each search and seizure separately. And the legal authorization to get to a place to conduct a search or seizure is always distinct from the legal authorization to conduct the search or seizure once you're there.
Post a Comment