Byrd v. United States

138 S.Ct. 1518 (2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D and Latasha Reed drove in D’s Honda Accord to a Budget car-rental facility. D stayed in the parking lot while Reed went to the Budget desk and rented a Ford Fusion. The agreement required her to certify that she had a valid driver’s license and had not committed certain vehicle-related offenses within the previous three years. An addendum to the agreement, which Reed initialed, provides the following restriction on who may drive the rental car: “I understand that the only ones permitted to drive the vehicle other than the renter are the renter’s spouse, the renter’s co-employee (with the renter’s permission, while on company business), or a person who appears at the time of the rental and signs an Additional Driver Form. These other drivers must also be at least 25 years old and validly licensed. “PERMITTING AN UNAUTHORIZED DRIVER TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE IS A VIOLATION OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT. THIS MAY RESULT IN ANY AND ALL COVERAGE OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THE RENTAL AGREEMENT BEING VOID AND MY BEING FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES.” Reed did not list an additional driver. Reed returned to the parking lot and gave the keys to D. Reed left in D's Honda, and D left in the rental car. D returned to his home and put his personal belongings in the trunk of the rental car. D departed in the car alone and headed toward Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. D passed State Trooper Long. Long was suspicious because D was driving with his hands at the “10 and 2” position on the steering wheel, sitting far back from the steering wheel, and driving a rental car. Long knew the Ford Fusion was a rental car because one of its windows contained a barcode. He decided to follow D and, a short time later, stopped him for a possible traffic infraction. D was “visibly nervous” and “was shaking and had a hard time obtaining his driver’s license.” D handed an interim license and the rental agreement to Long, stating that a friend had rented the car. Long noticed D was not listed as an additional driver on the rental agreement. Trooper Martin arrived at the scene. Martin conversed with D. Long commented to Martin that D was “not on the renter agreement,” to which Martin replied, “yeah, he has no expectation of privacy.” A computer search returned two different names for D. D had prior convictions for weapons and drug charges as well as an outstanding warrant in New Jersey for a probation violation. After learning that New Jersey did not want D arrested for extradition, the troopers asked D to step out of the vehicle and patted him down. They asked for his consent to search the car. D said he had a marijuana blunt in it. They continued to seek his consent to search the car, though they stated they did not need consent because he was not listed on the rental agreement. They began a search of the car. They got to the car’s trunk, and opened up and took things out of a large cardboard box, where he found a laundry bag containing body armor. Martin walked toward D and said he would be placing him in handcuffs. D began to run away. When the troopers caught up to D, he surrendered and admitted there was heroin in the car. The troopers resumed their search of the laundry bag and found 49 bricks of heroin. D moved to suppress the evidence. The troopers said they had probable cause to search the car after D stated it contained marijuana. The District Court held that D lacked “standing” to contest the search because he was not on the rental agreement. D was convicted and appealed. They determined that D had no expectation of privacy and therefore no standing to challenge a search of the vehicle. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.