The Supreme Court waded into the debate over police searches of vehicles for the second time Tuesday as it heard oral arguments in a case questioning whether police need a warrant to search a covered motorcycle located on private property under the Fourth Amendment’s vehicle exception.
The case involves Ryan Collins, who twice eluded police in Albemarle County, Va., while riding a motorcycle in 2013. Police found the motorcycle parked on a parking patio near a house belonging to Collins’ girlfriend. The motorcycle was covered by a tarp.
Officers lifted the tarp, and ran its vehicle identification number. Upon running the VIN, police saw the motorcycle had been stolen, and arrested Collins.
Collins argued the police conducted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and said police needed a warrant because the motorcycle was within the “curtilage,” or the area around the home, which is protected under the Fourth Amendment.
However, the trial court, state appeals court, and the Virginia Supreme Court ruled the search was constitutional.
The Virginia Supreme Court cited the Fourth Amendment’s vehicle exception, which allows officers to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe the vehicle was involved in criminal activity, in its ruling.
The justices raised concerns about the location of the motorcycle when police conducted the search, given the fact that it was not located on the street outside the home, where Collins’ girlfriend lived, but rather just outside the house on a paved parking patio.
At one point, Justice Elena Kagan reminded Trevor Cox, who argued for the state of Virginia, the home is considered a “sacrosanct” place, and that has included the area around the home. She told Cox if that were the case today, “you lose here.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch also raised concerns about the location of the motorcycle, and questioned whether police would need a warrant to search cars located in a garage or carport.
This was a point Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg addressed as well, questioning in one instance whether those who could afford houses with garages would have different Fourth Amendment protections than those who do not own homes with garages, since property could be in plain view of law enforcement.
