Byrd v. United States - Unauthorized drivers still possess expectation of privacy in rental cars

The Supreme Court of the United States recently released an opinion determining what, if any, reasonable expectation of privacy a driver of a rental car possesses when the driver is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement. The Court held that....

Below is a summary of the case and a link to the case for your review.

________________________________________________________________________

Facts

Defendant, Terrence Byrd, drove with an acquaintance to a rental car company to rent a car. The acquaintance went inside and rented a vehicle. She did not list Byrd on the rental agreement as an authorized driver, and Byrd's relationship to the acquaintance did not qualify him as an authorized driver under the general provisions in the company's policy. Acquaintance left the building, handed the rental car keys directly to Byrd, and drove away in the car she arrived and Byrd leaving in the rental vehicle.

Byrd went home and put some personal effects in the trunk and began the nearly six hour drive to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Along the way he passed a Pennsylvania state trooper who was suspicious of the way Byrd was driving and that this was a rental, so he followed Byrd. A short time later he stopped Byrd for a possible traffic violation.

Byrd was "visibly nervous" and "was shaking and had a hard time obtaining his driver's licence" when the trooper spoke to him. Eventually Byrd produced an interim license and the rental agreement, admitting a friend had rented the car. Another trooper arrived and while the trooper 1 was processing the paperwork, trooper 2 was speaking with Byrd. Byrd again admitted a friend had rented the vehicle. Trooper 1 confirmed that Byrd was not on the rental agreement, and the two troopers concluded together that Byrd had no expectation of privacy in the vehicle. A search of Byrd's name revealed two actual names, one being an alias, and also that Byrd had a history of weapons and drug charges. He also had a warrant, but it stated that New Jersey did not want him arrested and extradited.

Troopers had Byrd exit the vehicle and asked if he had anything illegal in the car. Byrd said he did not, and troopers asked for consent to search. Byrd then admitted he had "a blunt" in the car and offered to get it for the troopers did not allow him to collect it, continuing to ask for consent to search the car. Troopers then informed Byrd that they did not need his consent because he was not on the rental agreement. Troopers then began to search the car, and first found body armor. They decided to take Byrd into custody, but he fled. Another trooper had arrived and the three of them pursued him and Byrd surrendered, admitting there was heroin in the car as well. Troopers collected 49 bricks of heroin from the trunk of the car.

While one of the troopers testified in pretrial proceedings that he had probable cause to search the vehicle based upon Byrd's actions and statements, but the federal district court denied, and the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, based solely on the issue of standing to challenge a search when one is not on the rental agreement.

SCOTUS granted cert to address the circuit split on that issue: Does a driver of a rental car have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car when he or she is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement? 

Analysis 

The basis of the government's argument in this case was that unauthorized drivers will never have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car. The government further argued that because of the rental agreement being violated, they could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car. The Court rejected this as too broad of a limit on the 4th Amendment, and said it would also be unreasonable to state that simply violating a rental agreement disqualified one's right to be free from unreasonable searches. The Court cited examples such as driving while using a handheld cell phone, or driving on non-paved surfaces as violations of the rental agreement as well, yet nobody would argue those violations take away one's reasonable expectation of privacy. In short, a breach in contract is not sufficient to overcome the 4th Amendment.

The Court then turned to a lawful possession analysis. The government argued that Byrd used a strawman third party to rent the car because he knew his record would disqualify him, and therefore did not lawfully possess the car. However, this argument was not brought up at the District Court or Court of Appeals, and it was unclear from the record whether this action would be a violation of state law. Therefore, the Court refused to address this issue on appeal now, and part of the remand was to determine if Byrd lawfully possessed the car, or whether his subterfuge was akin to theft.

The Court held that while a person may be an unauthorized user and not on the rental agreement, if they are otherwise lawfully in possession of the rental car, they possess a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court remanded the case to answer two of the government's arguments: 1- One who intentionally uses a third party to procure a rental car by a fraudulent scheme for the purpose of committing a crime is no better suited than a car thief; and 2- that probable cause justified the search regardless of an unauthorized user's reasonable expectation of privacy. So while Byrd may have won the battle, it is still very possible that he may lose the war. It seems likely to me at least, that these two arguments will ultimately prevail once adequately addressed by the lower courts.

Here is a link to the full case, including two short concurring opinions that raise a couple other interesting questions: Byrd v. United States