Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Officer McCall saw the driver of an orange and black motorcycle with an extended frame commit a traffic infraction. The driver eluded McCall’s attempt to stop the motorcycle. A few weeks later, Officer Rhodes saw an orange and black motorcycle traveling well over the speed limit, but the driver got away from him, too. The officers compared notes and concluded that the two incidents involved the same motorcyclist. The officers learned that the motorcycle likely was stolen and in the possession of D. After discovering photographs on D's Facebook profile that featured an orange and black motorcycle parked at the top of the driveway of a house, Rhodes tracked down the address of the house, drove there, and parked on the street. D's girlfriend lived in the house and D stayed there a few nights per week. Rhodes saw what appeared to be a motorcycle with an extended frame covered with a white tarp, parked at the same angle and in the same location on the driveway as in the Facebook photograph. Rhodes, who did not have a warrant, exited his car and walked toward the house. He stopped to take a photograph of the covered motorcycle from the sidewalk, and then walked onto the residential property and up to the top of the driveway to where the motorcycle was parked. Rhodes pulled off the tarp, revealing a motorcycle that looked like the one from the speeding incident. He then ran a search of the license plate and vehicle identification numbers, which confirmed that the motorcycle was stolen. Rhodes took a photograph of the uncovered motorcycle, put the tarp back on, left the property, and returned to his car to wait for D. D returned home. Rhodes walked up to the front door of the house and knocked. D answered, agreed to speak and admitted that the motorcycle was his and that he had bought it without title. Rhodes arrested D. D was indicted for receiving stolen property. D filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence Rhodes had obtained as a result of the warrantless search of the motorcycle. D argued that Rhodes had trespassed on the curtilage of the house to conduct an investigation in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion. D was convicted. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed explained that the case was most properly resolved with reference to the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception. Rhodes had probable cause to believe that the motorcycle was contraband and that the warrantless search, therefore, was justified. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co