Scotus To Hear Warrantless Motorcycle Search !
- Thread starter GOYABEAN
- Start date
Carlos Hathcock
.450/400 Nitro Ex
HEAR
Sounds like an interesting case.
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
spat
.950 JDJ
This seems odd trying to apply the vehicle exception at all, the exception is about searching a car, not searching *for* a car.
He didn't search the motorcycle and find contraband, he searched a tarp in a private driveway and found a motorcycle.
He didn't search the motorcycle and find contraband, he searched a tarp in a private driveway and found a motorcycle.
My prediction: They are going to pass on this one.
Prosecution will (successfully) argue that the motorcycle is easily moved, they had reasonable suspicion it was there, and were extremely limited in their search. Possibly even that they never entered any structure to search for it, so it won't fall under "curtilage".
Prosecution will (successfully) argue that the motorcycle is easily moved, they had reasonable suspicion it was there, and were extremely limited in their search. Possibly even that they never entered any structure to search for it, so it won't fall under "curtilage".
Law is a funny thing.
Now if the motorcycle was in a garage with the door open under the tarp is it the same thing?
I believe rights need to be protected, but in this case they had more than reasonable suspicion that the stolen motorcycle used to run from the police was under the tarp. I dont have a problem with that, now if it was not the stolen motorcycle if anything else was found that would be a different story. Sounds like good police work and not a fishing expedition. Not to mention that the suspect had the covered motorcycle in place where it was visible from the road. You would thing he would have had it out of sight.
Now if the motorcycle was in a garage with the door open under the tarp is it the same thing?
I believe rights need to be protected, but in this case they had more than reasonable suspicion that the stolen motorcycle used to run from the police was under the tarp. I dont have a problem with that, now if it was not the stolen motorcycle if anything else was found that would be a different story. Sounds like good police work and not a fishing expedition. Not to mention that the suspect had the covered motorcycle in place where it was visible from the road. You would thing he would have had it out of sight.
spat
.950 JDJ
Why couldn't they just get a warrant though ? They had enough cause to get a warrant, but the bike isnt any more portable than most of the rest of the stuff they search for.
If it was a stolen TV under the tarp, could they apply the "vehicle exception" too ? Its not hard to move a TV either.....
because... Lazy! It's not like someone could move whatever was under the tarp without then knowing, waiting and watching until the warrant arrived.
Yup, agree! Problem is the court gives wide berth to LE as long as there was no malice or intent regarding those so called "Rights"... Lol, I don't think it's cool they entered property and exposed what was covered by the tarp. The covering obviously creates the expectation of privacy, as he didn't want it seen. Contrabandor not... They had enough information to create a "probable cause" and I can't see them not getting the warrant. If they could see the tarp and suspected it contained the stolen bike, they should have just stayed there and waited. Is why I say it's just laziness and arrogance!
That said... The dirtbag knew he had a stolen bike and was stupid enough to post it on FB!?!? He deserves what he gets (for both)!!! Fuck em'
JosERW
.40 S&W
Who cares? Let me know when they take a Second Amendment case that actually helps law abiding citizens.
GuyMontag
.44 mag
You don't deserve 2nd Amendment protections if you're truly this stupid or indifferent to the importance of ALL the Amendments.
This isnt a vehicle exception case. This will hinge on whether cops can enter unfenced, open property and move a non-fixed covering to observe property otherwise visible from a location they have the ability to lawfully occupy.
Basically, is this the same as looking through a window from a public sidewalk, or does crossing onto unenclosed private property exclude the evidence.
I say the state wins this one. Evidence left outside in an unfenced area with a flimsy covering does not have an expectation of privacy.
Basically, is this the same as looking through a window from a public sidewalk, or does crossing onto unenclosed private property exclude the evidence.
I say the state wins this one. Evidence left outside in an unfenced area with a flimsy covering does not have an expectation of privacy.
If you have to move something to see what's underneath, that seems like a pretty clear expectation of privacy.
GuyMontag
.44 mag
Given all the resources of the State, and ease with which warrants are obtained, this instance is a clear example of how far down the rabbit hole we've already fallen. Enough already. Get the damn warrant, THEN do the search.
Bob
6.5 Creedmoor
I get where you're going with it. But that's exactly the constitutional question that the court is being asked to address.
From the application for writ of certiorari:
"QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a home, and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house."
From the opposition brief:
"QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception allows a warrantless daytime inspection of a motorcycle’s vehicle identification number and license plate, when the motorcycle is parked in the defendant’s driveway, adjacent to the steps leading to the front door of the house, and when the officer has probable cause to believe that the motorcycle is stolen and has twice been used to elude police."
Also from the opposition brief:
REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION
I. The Virginia Supreme Court correctly held that the automobile exception applies when the vehicle is located in a driveway, is visible from the street, and is readily mobile
A. The automobile exception applies because Officer Rhodes had probable cause to believe that the motorcycle was stolen and had been used to elude police
B. The motorcycle’s presence in the driveway does not defeat the automobile exception because the motorcycle had ready access to the street