Terrence Byrd v. United States

Inigoes · Sep 28, 2017

The SCOTUS accepted a case about a felon in possession of body armor.

16-1371 BYRD, TERRENCE V. UNITED STATES

Terrence Byrd entered a conditional guilty plea to charges of possessing heroin with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possessing body armor as a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 931(a)(1).

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1777387.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1371.html

rockstarr · Sep 28, 2017

im assuming the case is because it isn't illegal to possess body armor, even if prohibited?

danb · Sep 28, 2017

No, the case appears to be about:

Whether petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when petitioner was not an authorized driver under the rental agreement.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2017/07/18/16-1371_byrd_opp_revised.pdf

another 4th amendment case.

MDFF2008 · Sep 28, 2017

I can't see why they are wasting their time with this case. I can't seem it being anything more than a 9-0 have a nice day in jail.

esqappellate · Sep 30, 2017

gprimr1 said:
I can't see why they are wasting their time with this case. I can't seem it being anything more than a 9-0 have a nice day in jail.

The case is huge. The issue is really whether a passenger in a vehicle has any 4th Amendment rights

Kiwiknoll · Sep 30, 2017

This sounds riddiculous to me. (i am interested to hear your backlash). If passenger has expectation of privacy through a open window during a stop, what are the rammifications? Sounds similar to the guy who exposed himsely at his storm door, and was acquitted because he had an expectation of privacy in his own home. I wonder what the case would do regarding passenger accomplices to things like drive up drug sales? and if the passenger has that expectation, how long before the driver does too? Finally, no more pull overs for not wearing seat belts.

Aside:I had a model neighbor. She liked baking naked. I expected her privacy several times.

Kiwiknoll · Sep 30, 2017

Really interesting. According to wikipedia, Smells are not private(drug sniffing dog used without probable cause), but sections of jailhouses are. Trash is public, but phone booths arent). I do enjoy and expect my privacy and am happy with the idea that this is being evaluated, but in this case i think I am rooting for the non-privacy ruling regarding the passenger.

MrNiceGuy · Oct 1, 2017

esqappellate said:
The case is huge. The issue is really whether a passenger in a vehicle has any 4th Amendment rights

I'd be quite shocked to find that a passenger has any less rights than a vehicle operator. If anything, I should think they'd have more based on the fact that they aren't exercising (what is generally ruled to be) their driving privilege. How, precisely, is a motor vehicle different from a phone booth in terms of a passenger and their privacy expectations? Particularly now that mobile phones are ubiquitous, the analogy is even stronger. It's a phone booth on wheels; leave 'em alone.

Kiwiknoll · Oct 1, 2017

As all good stories start, "I knew this guy..." in this case i really did... who was passenger in a vehicle when the driver attempted to sell drugs to an undercover cop. He was arrested as an accomplice to the crime. Cost him a lucrative career.

Are you saying he should not have been charged? Truly im devils advocate here, and interested in the outcome, but also a great proponent for due process and privacy rights. As my signature says i have great concerns for overcriminalization and the possibility that we are only free until targeted by the establishment.

Still, the phone booth was just a quote from the wiki, so i dont want us wandering down that road.... Do you feel a passenger in a stop should be treated as a non entity? Im pretty certain for example, that seatbelt laws apply to driver and all passengers. now i am wondering if it is the driver who gets the ticket or if each unbelted passenger would be ticketed...???

Kiwiknoll · Oct 1, 2017

I wonder what the rule is about sounds now too. Is an officer hears shots inside a home that seems like it would constisute probable cause, but what if the owner were simply using a nail gun? Are we therefore to believe smells, sounds, and on sight of an officer are all potential privacy breaches? Obviously i have my reading cut out for me now....

Anyone have a tutorial on what an american should expect as far as privacy and 4th amendment rights go?

Inigoes · May 23, 2018

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a driver who is not listed on a rental car agreement still has a right to privacy when pulled over by police.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1371_1bn2.pdf

krucam · May 23, 2018

Believe this was a good ruling...

press1280 · May 23, 2018

It's also worth noting this case is part of a deep circuit split, and a split that has been in existence for some 20 years.
Although it's annoying when the court keeps passing on one 2A case after another, cases like this can help put things in perspective.

Blacksmith101 · May 27, 2018

Implications in the search of Manafort's storage unit case?

Boondock Saint · May 27, 2018

krucam said:
Believe this was a good ruling...

Indeed.

Inigoes · May 27, 2018

Blacksmith101 said:
Implications in the search of Manafort's storage unit case?

Manafort's lawyers did not waste any time, using the opinion in one of their montions to get evidence tossed.

Keep an eye for the Collons v Virginia opinion.

Terrence Byrd v. United States

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Head'n for the hills

Major Deplorable

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics