Ryan Collins purchased an orange and black motorcycle with an extended frame. The problem was that he bought the bike with no title. It was stolen goods.
Officer Matthew McCall of the Abemarle County Police Department in Virginia observed the driver of a black and orange motorcycle with an extended frame commit a traffic violation, but the driver eluded him. A few weeks later Officer David Rhodes of the same police department saw the driver of an orange and black motorcycle with an extended frame traveling well over the speed limit. He pursued the motorcycle in a high-speed chase that reached speeds of over 140 miles per hour but the vehicle eluded him.
The two officers compared notes and concluded that they had encountered the same driver. Further investigation, including an interview with the person who sold the motorcycle to the driver, revealed that the orange and black motorcycle was stolen.
Office Rhodes did a Facebook search and found a photo of the orange and black motorcycle parked in a driveway. He tracked down the address and drove to the street, where he saw what appeared to be a motorcycle with an extended frame covered with a white tarp under a parking port in the driveway. This was the house of Ryan Collins’ girlfriend, whom he lived with two or three days each week.
Officer Rhodes walked up the driveway to the parked motorcycle, lifted up the tarp, and ran a search of the license plate number and VIN, which confirmed that the vehicle was stolen. Collins presently returned home and agreed to speak with Officer Rhodes. He admitted the motorcycle was his and that he had bought it without title. Officer Rhodes arrested Collins, who was later indicted by a Virginia grand jury for receiving stolen property.
Collins filed a pre- trial motion to suppress the evidence Office Rhodes had obtained by means of the warrantless search on his property. The motion was denied, and Collins was convicted. He appealed his conviction, but the conviction was upheld by the Virginia Court of Appeals and the Virginia Supreme Court. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted a writ of certiorari.
In an 8-1 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that the search violated Collins’ Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It enshrines the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures and that no warrants shall issue except upon a showing of probable cause.
The most basic general rule is that a person’s home may not be searched without a warrant. This includes not just the house itself, but the “curtilage” surrounding it. Curtilage is an area of land attached to a house and forming one enclosure with it. Both the house and its cartilage are protected. I like to think of the house as the muscle and the curtilage as the cartilage. Both need protection in order for the while organism to function effectively. Just a little mnemonic device I came up with that I’m sure is not terribly original. Or another way to think of it is that if a man’s home is his castle, its curtilage is his moat. But I digress.
In the instant case the part of the upper driveway where the motorcycle was parked in a covered location was part of the curtilage of the home.
There is an automobile exception to the requirement for a warrant. This exception was first articulated in a Prohibition era case involving the driver of a vehicle illegally transporting liquor. The rationale behind the automobile exception in that case related to the ready mobility of vehicles, which made obtaining a warrant unreasonable when the vehicle could make a speedy escape. This rationale was later supplanted by the additional rationale that the pervasive regulation of motor vehicles (requirements for insurance, safety and emissions testing, registration, etc.) attenuate the privacy interest in a motor vehicle.
The Collins case presented the Court with a fact scenario at the intersection of the curtilage principle and the motor vehicle exception. The Court found that Officer Rhodes had overstepped his bounds by trespassing on the home’s curtilage without a warrant. To apply the automobile exception in the instant case would have eroded the core protections of the 4th Amendment without vindicating the rationale of the motor vehicle exception. No one would argue that if the Officer had seen the motorcycle in the home’s living room through the window, that he could have entered the home without a warrant. The same principle applied to the home’s curtilage.
The Court declined Virginia’s invitation to create a curtilage carve out Rule, protecting for example, only specific complete enclosures such as a garage in which the vehicle was parked. Such a rule would discriminate against those who are unable to afford a garage. And the humblest cottage in the realm is entitled to as much protection as the most majestic manor.
Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he agreed that the Officer had conducted an unreasonable warrantless search. However, he questioned the Court’s authority to compel States to apply the exclusionary doctrine of suppressing evidence obtained through an unreasonable search. He felt that states should be free to apply other remedies for such a violation, such as tort remedies, disciplinary action, federal civil rights remedies, etc.
Justice Alito was the lone dissenting voice. He felt the Officer’s actions were perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. He noted that if the motorcycle had been parked curbside, there would be no question that the Officer could have conducted his search. He found it arbitrary that a mere 30 foot stroll up the driveway should make the action unlawful. He quoted a character from Dickens, who said “if that is what the law says … then the law is a ass — a idiot.”
Be that as it may, it seems to me that the Officer could easily have obtained a warrant based on probable cause under the circumstances and should have done so. The vehicle would likely still have been there another day for him to search — with a properly executed warrant in hand.
See Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. ________ (2018).
This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted
