Drivers Have Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday (May 14, 2018) in Byrd v. United States that the driver of a rental car could have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car even though the rental agreement did not authorize him to drive it. In Byrd, state troopers stopped Terrence Byrd while he was driving a rental car alone on a Pennsylvania interstate. Once the troopers realized he was not an authorized driver (i.e. not listed as a driver on the rental agreement), they went ahead and searched the car...

The Court explained that as in any Fourth Amendment case, the starting point is to determine whether the individual has demonstrated a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the place searched.

When it comes to places like houses and cars, the Court has developed a kind of sliding scale: owners and those in lawful possession (like tenants) “almost always” have a reasonable expectation of privacy, while short-term visitors do not. On the one hand, it’s not enough to simply happen to be somewhere in order to contest a search, but you don’t have to have a strict property interest in the place either, since overnight guests can contest a police search. 

Perhaps the more interesting question in the case, however, was whether the Budget Rent a Car agreement that Byrd’s friend signed before giving him the keys should have negated Byrd’s expectation of privacy in the car. That agreement provided in capital letters that permitting an unauthorized driver to drive the car was a violation of the rental contract that could void its coverage. The government argued that this provision automatically nullified Byrd’s expectation of privacy in the car.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court refused to go down this road. Your Fourth Amendment Rights Shouldn’t Come with Terms and Conditions!  (EFF, May 15, 2018)  (Washington Examiner, May 14, 2018)