Collins v. Virginia

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,359
    SoMD / West PA
    Can law enforcement search a vehicle without a warrant on private property?

    16-1027 COLLINS, RYAN A. V. VIRGINIA

    Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-supreme-court/1748177.html

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1027.html
     
    Last edited:

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    If they could determine, from the street, that it was a stolen bike, then I would think it would fall under the plain site exception. I see this case coming down to how much of the bike was visible from the street.
     

    MikeTF

    Ultimate Member
    Don't post pictures of stolen vehicles on facebook, parked beside your house, and the officer will not have 'probable cause' which does not require a warrant. Better yet, don't receive stolen property, drive a motorcycle without a license, violate traffic laws, or evade the police at 140 mph+.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Don't post pictures of stolen vehicles on facebook, parked beside your house, and the officer will not have 'probable cause' which does not require a warrant. Better yet, don't receive stolen property, drive a motorcycle without a license, violate traffic laws, or evade the police at 140 mph+.

    You need probable cause to get a warrant. Having probable cause does not negate the need for one rather q prerequisite.

    If some jack booted government thug comes on your land without a warrant then he is no different than any other home invader and he comes from the biggest mafia of them all the state.
     

    MikeTF

    Ultimate Member
    You need probable cause to get a warrant. Having probable cause does not negate the need for one rather q prerequisite.

    If some jack booted government thug comes on your land without a warrant then he is no different than any other home invader and he comes from the biggest mafia of them all the state.
    The facts of this case supported a finding of probable cause sufficient to allow Officer Rhodes to search the motorcycle under the automobile exception. As a result of his prior investigation, Officer Rhodes had several reasons to believe the motorcycle was contraband. Eric Jones had informed Officer Rhodes that he sold Collins the motorcycle with the warning that it was stolen. Therefore, when he arrived at the Dellmead Lane residence on September 25, 2013, Officer Rhodes already suspected that the motorcycle which had eluded him and Officer McCall was stolen property. The motorcycle was in plain view from the street and Officer Rhodes immediately recognized its distinct features. In denying Collins' motion to suppress, the trial court found that, despite the tarp, the motorcycle's unique “stretched out” frame and chrome wheels were visible to Officer Rhodes from his lawful position on the street. The location and angle of the partially covered motorcycle matched that of the uncovered motorcycle in Collins' Facebook photograph. Accordingly, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals properly held that Officer Rhodes had probable cause to search the motorcycle.
    Source (the OP's original link): http://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-suprem...t/1748177.html
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Seems to me that they had enough for a warrant, but simply decided not to get one.

    I think its hard to say how this will go. They really should have got a warrant, there were no justifiable exigent circumstances.

    The constitution does not allow shortcuts.
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    They could rule the search out, but the evidence in under inevitable discovery since the dhmbass posted pictures online.

    Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
     

    Dogabutila

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 21, 2010
    2,359
    You guys need to familiarize yourselves with warrant exceptions, exigent circumstances, and the automobile exemption.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,359
    SoMD / West PA
    You guys need to familiarize yourselves with warrant exceptions, exigent circumstances, and the automobile exemption.

    I think that is the point of this case.

    The officer saw a motorcycle outline because a tarp was covering the motorcycle, only a partial wheel was visible to public areas (street).

    There was plenty of supporting evidence (for a lack of a better word), because the perp plastered pics on facebook.

    This is no different that a car being in a garage that LE saw through a window from the street.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I think that is the point of this case.

    The officer saw a motorcycle outline because a tarp was covering the motorcycle, only a partial wheel was visible to public areas (street).

    There was plenty of supporting evidence (for a lack of a better word), because the perp plastered pics on facebook.

    This is no different that a car being in a garage that LE saw through a window from the street.

    Plain view only applies if the officers are lawfully present on the property for some other reason. They were not lawfully present on the property for any reason.

    This case seems to broaden the "automobile exception" to any auto in plain view on anyone property. Since everyone has an automobile, this would basically gut the 4th amendment.

    Odds are, they took this case to curtail the auto exception and send this back. Really, the officers should have got a warrant.
     

    Dogabutila

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 21, 2010
    2,359
    The automobile exception has nothing to do with plain view. It's an exception to the warrant clause. The automobile exception allows officers with probable cause to perform a search without a warrant. Everybody seems to agree that the officers had cause, but some feel that walking up on the property without a warrant is an infringement of rights.

    The automobile exception requires firstly that officers have probable cause before the search can be conducted. If the officers recognized the bike from the street then that's probable cause. It's not like they can walk up to everybodies car to search them. The exception exists because of long held exigent circumstances doctrine which allows officers to reasonably perform a search or seizure on a criminal that may flee or to prevent the destruction of evidence. SCOTUS has ruled that vehicles, because of their nature being mobile are "inherent exigencies". The time it takes to get a warrant and specificity required in detailing the place to be searched mean that vehicles (especially stolen ones) may be moved or destroyed before the warrant can be approved or executed.


    See Carroll vs US, US vs Ludwig, California vs Carney
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,359
    SoMD / West PA
    The automobile exception has nothing to do with plain view. It's an exception to the warrant clause. The automobile exception allows officers with probable cause to perform a search without a warrant. Everybody seems to agree that the officers had cause, but some feel that walking up on the property without a warrant is an infringement of rights.

    The automobile exception requires firstly that officers have probable cause before the search can be conducted. If the officers recognized the bike from the street then that's probable cause. It's not like they can walk up to everybodies car to search them. The exception exists because of long held exigent circumstances doctrine which allows officers to reasonably perform a search or seizure on a criminal that may flee or to prevent the destruction of evidence. SCOTUS has ruled that vehicles, because of their nature being mobile are "inherent exigencies". The time it takes to get a warrant and specificity required in detailing the place to be searched mean that vehicles (especially stolen ones) may be moved or destroyed before the warrant can be approved or executed.


    See Carroll vs US, US vs Ludwig, California vs Carney

    I am not arguing that.

    Do either of those cases involve walking onto private property to lift a tarp to see what is underneath it?
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.

    MrNiceGuy

    Active Member
    Dec 9, 2013
    270
    The automobile exception has nothing to do with plain view. It's an exception to the warrant clause. The automobile exception allows officers with probable cause to perform a search without a warrant. Everybody seems to agree that the officers had cause, but some feel that walking up on the property without a warrant is an infringement of rights.

    The automobile exception requires firstly that officers have probable cause before the search can be conducted. If the officers recognized the bike from the street then that's probable cause. It's not like they can walk up to everybodies car to search them. The exception exists because of long held exigent circumstances doctrine which allows officers to reasonably perform a search or seizure on a criminal that may flee or to prevent the destruction of evidence. SCOTUS has ruled that vehicles, because of their nature being mobile are "inherent exigencies". The time it takes to get a warrant and specificity required in detailing the place to be searched mean that vehicles (especially stolen ones) may be moved or destroyed before the warrant can be approved or executed.


    See Carroll vs US, US vs Ludwig, California vs Carney

    A vehicle parked on private property with no one attempting to operate it, partially concealed beneath a cover which makes it impossible to operate does not add up to exigent anything. Had someone else walked up to the bike and attempted to uncover and operate it while the officer waited for a warrant, THAT would create the exigent circumstances which would allow the officer to proceed without a warrant in order to prevent the removal of evidence of a crime.

    The proper, legal (per the US Constitution) course of action was to call in for a warrant while maintaining surveillance of the suspected stolen property from a lawful vantage point (e.g. the public street). Once the warrant is granted (probably in a matter of minutes, given the level of evidence supporting it), the officer makes a search and seizes the persons and/or things as appropriate given the scope of the warrant. If someone approaches the motorcycle, the officer provides a verbal warning to stand clear of it. If that someone then uncovers the motorcycle and appears to attempt to operate it (e.g. sits down on it, produces a key, turns it around, or otherwise demonstrates obvious intent), the officer acts under the exigent circumstances allowance to detain the individual and seize immediate control of the motorcycle.

    None of this provided undue risk to anyone involved nor to the successful seizure of the property in question. None of this required any significant time investment. None of this required any undue process. In fact, failure to act in this manner was a violation of due process. Barring exigent circumstances (which did not exist in this case since the vehicle in question had no operator), any property owner/leasee has a reasonable expectation that no search or seizure shall be performed by any agent of the government without a lawfully issued warrant supported by a reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrongdoing. It doesn't matter how obvious it was to the officer or anyone else looking at it through the 20/20 vision of hindsight because the next case that's slightly less obvious will have this as precedent, which leads to the next case which is even less obvious, so on and so forth until you've so far encroached on the Fourth Amendment that its words ring hollow.
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,531
    Columbia
    A vehicle parked on private property with no one attempting to operate it, partially concealed beneath a cover which makes it impossible to operate does not add up to exigent anything. Had someone else walked up to the bike and attempted to uncover and operate it while the officer waited for a warrant, THAT would create the exigent circumstances which would allow the officer to proceed without a warrant in order to prevent the removal of evidence of a crime.

    The proper, legal (per the US Constitution) course of action was to call in for a warrant while maintaining surveillance of the suspected stolen property from a lawful vantage point (e.g. the public street). Once the warrant is granted (probably in a matter of minutes, given the level of evidence supporting it), the officer makes a search and seizes the persons and/or things as appropriate given the scope of the warrant. If someone approaches the motorcycle, the officer provides a verbal warning to stand clear of it. If that someone then uncovers the motorcycle and appears to attempt to operate it (e.g. sits down on it, produces a key, turns it around, or otherwise demonstrates obvious intent), the officer acts under the exigent circumstances allowance to detain the individual and seize immediate control of the motorcycle.

    None of this provided undue risk to anyone involved nor to the successful seizure of the property in question. None of this required any significant time investment. None of this required any undue process. In fact, failure to act in this manner was a violation of due process. Barring exigent circumstances (which did not exist in this case since the vehicle in question had no operator), any property owner/leasee has a reasonable expectation that no search or seizure shall be performed by any agent of the government without a lawfully issued warrant supported by a reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrongdoing. It doesn't matter how obvious it was to the officer or anyone else looking at it through the 20/20 vision of hindsight because the next case that's slightly less obvious will have this as precedent, which leads to the next case which is even less obvious, so on and so forth until you've so far encroached on the Fourth Amendment that its words ring hollow.

    Well stated.:thumbsup:
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,918
    Messages
    7,258,733
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom