Byrd v. United States
200 L. Ed. 2d 805, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2803, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A driver in lawful possession and control of a rental car has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle under the Fourth Amendment, even if the rental agreement does not list them as an authorized driver. A mere breach of a car rental agreement does not automatically forfeit this constitutional protection.
Facts:
- Latasha Reed rented a Ford Fusion from a Budget car-rental facility in New Jersey, while petitioner Terrence Byrd waited outside.
- The rental agreement Reed signed specified that permitting an unauthorized driver to operate the vehicle was a violation of the agreement.
- Reed did not list any additional drivers on the rental paperwork.
- Immediately after renting the car, Reed gave the keys to Byrd.
- Byrd placed his personal belongings in the trunk of the rental car.
- Byrd then departed alone in the car, heading toward Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
- Pennsylvania State Troopers initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle driven by Byrd.
- During the stop, Byrd stated to the troopers that he had a marijuana cigarette, or 'blunt', in the car.
Procedural Posture:
- Terrence Byrd was charged with federal drug and other crimes in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (a federal trial court).
- Byrd filed a motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the rental car, arguing the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
- The District Court denied the suppression motion, concluding that Byrd lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy because he was not an authorized driver on the rental agreement.
- Byrd entered a conditional guilty plea, which preserved his right to appeal the court's ruling on his suppression motion.
- Byrd, as appellant, appealed the denial of his motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit, with the United States as appellee, affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that its precedent established that an unauthorized driver of a rental vehicle has no expectation of privacy.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a driver who has lawful possession and control of a rental car, but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement, have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle sufficient to challenge a police search under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. A driver in lawful possession of a rental car has a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment protects privacy interests rooted in concepts of property law, specifically the right to possess, control, and exclude others from a space. An individual who has been given permission to use a rental car by the renter has this lawful possession and control, similar to an overnight guest in a home. The mere violation of a provision in a private rental agreement, which primarily allocates financial risk between the contracting parties, does not extinguish a person's legitimate expectation of privacy from government intrusion. The Court distinguished this situation from that of a car thief, who would have wrongful possession and therefore no legitimate expectation of privacy.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Concurring in the judgment, Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Gorsuch) expressed skepticism about the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test from Katz v. United States. He suggested that the proper Fourth Amendment analysis should focus on its original meaning, specifically whether the rental car could be considered Byrd's 'effect.' This property-based inquiry would depend on what kind of property interest is required and which body of law (e.g., modern state law or 1791 common law) defines that interest. However, because the parties did not adequately brief these questions, he agreed with the Court's decision to remand without deciding them.
Concurring - Justice Alito
Concurring in the judgment, Justice Alito emphasized that the ability of an unauthorized driver to assert a Fourth Amendment claim is a fact-specific inquiry. He listed several relevant factors for consideration on remand, including the specific terms of the rental agreement, the circumstances of the rental, the reason the unauthorized driver was operating the vehicle, and the legality of their conduct under state law. He joined the majority opinion on the understanding that the lower courts were free to reexamine Byrd's claim or decide the appeal on another ground, such as the existence of probable cause for the search.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a significant circuit split, rejecting a bright-line rule that would have denied Fourth Amendment protection to any driver not listed on a rental agreement. By focusing on 'lawful possession' rather than strict contractual compliance, the Court reinforces the principle that constitutional rights are not determined by the terms of private contracts. The ruling provides greater protection for individuals in common situations, such as a friend or family member driving a rental car, and steers the Fourth Amendment analysis away from technicalities of rental agreements and back toward the core concepts of possession and the right to exclude.
Unlock the full brief for Byrd v. United States