Supreme Court greenlights driver rights in rental car case

Law Journals

The Supreme Court said Monday that people who borrow rental cars from friends or family are generally entitled to the same protections

against police searches as the authorized driver.

The justices ruled unanimously that as a general rule someone who is "in otherwise lawful possession and control of a rental car" has a

reasonable expectation of privacy in the car even if the rental agreement doesn't list the person as an authorized driver. That means

police can't generally search the car unless they have a warrant or what's called "probable cause" to believe a crime has been

committed.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, noted there "may be countless innocuous reasons why an unauthorized driver might get

behind the wheel of a rental car and drive it," including that the renter is drowsy or drunk and that the renter and a friend "think it is

safer for the friend to drive them to their destination."

The Trump administration had argued that anyone driving a rental car but not listed on a rental agreement does not have an expectation

of privacy in the car. That would mean that police who pulled over a rental car with an unauthorized driver could search the car without

the person's consent. The Supreme Court rejected the government's argument, saying it "rests on too restrictive a view" of protections

in the Fourth Amendment.

Attorneys arguing for protections for unauthorized drivers had noted that 115 million car rentals take place annually in the United States.

They said that if the government won, police would have an incentive to pull over a rental car driver who commits a traffic violation

because police would know they could search the car if the driver isn't on the rental agreement.

The case the justices ruled in dates to 2014 and involves Terrence Byrd, who was driving a car rented by his fiance when a state trooper

pulled him over on a Pennsylvania highway for an alleged minor traffic violation. He acted nervous during the stop and told troopers he

had a marijuana cigarette in the car. Officers eventually decided to search the car.

Because the rental agreement didn't authorize Byrd to drive the car, troopers told him they didn't need his consent for the search. And

when troopers opened the trunk, they found body armor and about 2,500 little bags of heroin. Byrd later acknowledged he planned to sell

the drugs for roughly $7,000, and a court sentenced him to 10 years in prison.

Related listings

  • Gamers in court for first time after Kansas 'swatting' death

    Gamers in court for first time after Kansas 'swatting' death

    National Legal News 06/15/2018

    Two online gamers whose alleged dispute over a $1.50 Call of Duty WWII video game bet ultimately led police to fatally shoot a Kansas man not involved in the argument will make their first appearances in court Wednesday in a case of "swatting" that h...

  • Kansas court avoids ruling on execution for student's death

    Kansas court avoids ruling on execution for student's death

    Legal Compliance 06/15/2018

    The Kansas Supreme Court has postponed a decision on whether the state can execute a man convicted of kidnapping, raping and strangling a 19-year-old college student.The high court on Friday upheld the capital murder conviction of Justin Eugene Thurb...

  • NY high court nixes Trump's bid to delay defamation suit

    NY high court nixes Trump's bid to delay defamation suit

    U.S. Court Watch 06/15/2018

    New York's highest court on Thursday turned down President Donald Trump's latest bid to delay a defamation suit filed by a former "Apprentice" contestant who accused him of unwanted groping and kissing.The ruling by the state Court of Appeals didn't ...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.