Sevila, Saunders, Huddleston & White
Call Today For A Consultation | Toll Free: 800-239-4122
Contact Menu

Assertive Advocacy.
Quality Representation.

Just how far does the expectation of privacy extend?

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that those who borrow a rental car from a relative or friend must be afforded the same police search and seizure protections that the person authorized to drive the vehicle would enjoy. In its decision, the court ruled that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy if they are legally driving a rental car, even if they are not technically the authorized driver of the vehicle.

The Supreme Court reasoned that there could be many innocent reasons for a person to be driving a friend or relative's rental car. For example, the renter could be intoxicated or could be too tired to drive. The Supreme Court wanted to avoid a situation in which an officer would be incentivized to pull over rental car drivers, knowing they'd be legally permitted to perform a search of the vehicle if the driver was unauthorized to drive the vehicle.

This case is significant because "probable cause" is a higher standard than "reasonable suspicion." While there may be reasonable suspicion to pull a motorist over, such as a traffic offense, reasonable suspicion alone is not enough to perform a search of the vehicle. It is important that the higher probable cause standard is upheld, so police do not unlawfully overstep their bounds in violation of one's privacy rights. Evidence obtained in an illegal search cannot be used against the accused in a trial, a fact that could make or break the outcome of a criminal trial.

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that those who borrow a rental car from a relative or friend must be afforded the same police search and seizure protections that the person authorized to drive the vehicle would enjoy. In its decision, the court ruled that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy if they are legally driving a rental car, even if they are not technically the authorized driver of the vehicle.

The Supreme Court reasoned that there could be many innocent reasons for a person to be driving a friend or relative's rental car. For example, the renter could be intoxicated or could be too tired to drive. The Supreme Court wanted to avoid a situation in which an officer would be incentivized to pull over rental car drivers, knowing they'd be legally permitted to perform a search of the vehicle if the driver was unauthorized to drive the vehicle.

This case is significant because "probable cause" is a higher standard than "reasonable suspicion." While there may be reasonable suspicion to pull a motorist over, such as a traffic offense, reasonable suspicion alone is not enough to perform a search of the vehicle. It is important that the higher probable cause standard is upheld, so police do not unlawfully overstep their bounds in violation of one's privacy rights. Evidence obtained in an illegal search cannot be used against the accused in a trial, a fact that could make or break the outcome of a criminal trial.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
email us for a response

Learn How We Can Help

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Sevila, Saunders, Huddleston & White
30 North King Street
Leesburg, VA 20176

Toll Free: 800-239-4122
Phone: 703-468-0432
Fax: 703-771-4161
Leesburg Law Office Map

Back to top