to drive the car, nor did his fiancée’s consent
validly authorize him to drive it under the
conditions of the rental agreement. The
National Association for Public Defense
submitted an amicus brief explaining that
in the modern “sharing economy,” this new
practice of “collaborative consumption”
should be acknowledged and legitimized
by the Court, as these are the methods
and means by which the economically
disadvantaged are able to access
automobiles when car ownership is out of
their reach.
Collins presents another aspect of the
Fourth Amendment and expectation of
privacy in vehicles: while it is settled law
that an officer needs a warrant to search
a home and its curtilage, it is now before
the Court to decide whether part of that
protected curtilage includes a car parked
outside and close to the house on the
property. Traditionally, there has been an
“automobile exception” to the warrant
requirement — the reasoning being that,
due to a vehicle’s high mobility, an officer
can search a vehicle without a warrant, so
long as that officer has probable cause that
the vehicle contains evidence of a crime.
In this case, an officer observed
a particular motorcycle in Collins’s
driveway, covered with a tarp. The officer
lifted the tarp, confirmed the motorcycle
was stolen, and then waited for Collins
to return home, when he then went
to the front door to ask him about the
motorcycle. Collins confessed to having
purchased the motorcycle, despite
knowing that it was stolen, and the
officer arrested him for receiving stolen
property. Collins appealed his conviction
on the grounds that the officer’s initial
search (lifting the tarp without a warrant
to examine the motorcycle underneath
it) was illegal. The trial court held that
the officer had sufficient probable cause
to fall under the automobile exception.
The appeals court agreed, and the
Virginia Supreme Court even went so
far as to reason that the automobile
exception applies to vehicles parked on
private property, even when the vehicles
themselves are not immediately mobile.
The National Rifle Association (NRA)
and the Cato Institute — just two of many
amici filing briefs in support of Collins —
both submitted briefs that put forth strong
historical arguments reaching back to the
foundations of the Fourth Amendment,
stating that its original purpose was
principally to protect the sanctity and
privacy of the home, a right rooted in
ancient common-law “castle doctrine.”
Focusing heavily on the colonial invasions
of home and privacy suffered by colonists
at the hands of British soldiers and the
right to defense of one’s home, the NRA’s
brief wove together the importance of the
Fourth Amendment for the protection
of the Second, stating that the Fourth
Amendment expectation of protection
from unreasonable search and seizure
is a foundational requirement for the
protection and exercise of many of our other
constitutional freedoms.
24 Q4 - 2017 www.ParalegalToday.com
The Cato Institute’s historical discussion
takes that point further, stating that to allow
a warrantless search of a vehicle parked on
curtilage is fundamentally incompatible
with the Fourth Amendment, particularly
with its prohibition against government
trespass. By allowing officers to make such
warrantless searches on curtilage, Cato
argues, they are opening the door to more
and more seizures of private property under
the “plain view” doctrine — much in the
fashion of the British soldiers of yore.
The early months of the Supreme Court
term are deceptively calm to most observers,
but to those who understand the quiet
workings of the highest court in the land, it
has been an exciting start. Stay tuned!
Want to listen to an oral argument?
Recordings of arguments are posted on the
Supreme Court’s website by the Friday of
the week the argument was held. Listen
here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_
arguments/argument_audio/2017.
Sarah R. Coats, MPS, RP® is a registered
paralegal and teaching assistant for George
Washington University’s Paralegal Studies
program of which she is an alumna. Coats’
work has taken her from small boutique
firms to large K Street firms to nonprofit
legal services to the U.S. Supreme Court, to
her current position with the Denver City
Attorney’s Office. When she was growing up,
Coats’ heroes were Sandra Day O’Connor,
Thurgood Marshall, and Indiana Jones, and
even in adulthood, she has never lost her
fascination with the Court (or Indiana Jones).
/www.ParalegalToday.com
/oral_