who was collins vs virginia lawyer for appeals

What was the court case Collins v Virginia?

 · The Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the search lawful under the warrant requirement’s exigent circumstances exception. 29× 29. Collins v. Commonwealth, 773 S.E.2d 618, 623–24 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). First, the officer had probable cause to believe that the motorcycle was evidence of a crime. 30× 30. Id. at 622.

What was Collins'argument in the Rhodes v Collins case?

 · Collins appealed his case to the Court of Appeals of Virginia (the “Court of Appeals”), arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the trial court. Although the Court of Appeals recognized that the automobile exception might not apply in Collins’s case, it determined ...

Does Collins have Fourth Amendment standing in Virginia?

 · RYAN AUSTIN COLLINS, PETITIONER v. VIRGINIA. on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of virginia [May 29, 2018] Justice Alito, dissenting. The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches. What the police did in this case was entirely reasonable. The Court’s decision is not.

Can a warrant exception be justified under Collins v Collins?

by Jack E. Call, Professor of Criminal Justice, Radford University, E-mail: jcall@radford.edu. A recent article in the Virginia Criminal Justice Bulletin discussed Collins v.Virgina, a recent decision from the Virginia Supreme Court.[1] The article suggested that the court’s holding that the police did not need a warrant to search a motorcycle on private property failed to clarify …

Who won the Collins v Virginia case?

Decision. On a vote of 8 - 1, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the automobile exception did not permit a warrantless search of a vehicle parked in the driveway of a home.

What was the ruling of Collins v Virginia?

The Court ruled 8–1 that the automobile exemption does not include the home or curtilage and that vehicles that are stored within the home's curtilage cannot be searched without a warrant. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by all but Justice Samuel Alito.

What did the US Supreme Court decide in Oliver v us?

United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984), is a United States Supreme Court decision relating to the open fields doctrine limiting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Open fields cannot support a reasonable expectation of privacy and are thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

What did the Court rule in South Dakota v Opperman?

The Court held that police can inventory a vehicle that has been lawfully impounded, even without a warrant. Inventory procedures for impounded vehicles are taken in order to protect the owner's property and to protect police from claims of stolen items as well as potential danger.

What is the Carroll Doctrine?

That became known as the Carroll doctrine: a vehicle could be searched without a search warrant if there was probable cause to believe that evidence is present in the vehicle, coupled with exigent circumstances to believe that the vehicle could be removed from the area before a warrant could be obtained.

Is the exclusionary rule?

The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Who won Oliver v United States?

6–3 decision Yes. In a 6-3 vote, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. wrote for the majority, stating that the open field doctrine applies to both cases. Individuals cannot legitimately expect privacy for activities conducted out in the open except in the area immediately surrounding their house.

What is the Payton rule?

This note examines the rationale of the 'Payton rule,' which requires that, absent consent or exigent circumstances, police must have an arrest warrant before they can arrest a suspect in his/her home.

What amendment is re Oliver?

The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that criminal prosecutions require the defendant "... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In this case, a witness in a Michigan grand jury hearing was convicted and sentenced to jail without ...

Who won California vs ciraolo?

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that warrantless aerial observation of a person's backyard did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

What is the issue in Knowles v Iowa?

Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from further searching a vehicle which was stopped for a minor traffic offense once the officer has written a citation for the offense.

What did the court say about Michigan vs long?

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed Long's conviction for possession of marijuana on the basis that the search of his vehicle was impermissible under the federal and state constitutions.

Why should the Court not expand the automobile exception?

Collins argues that the Court should not expand the automobile exception because the current law sufficiently covers the legitimate needs for searches in curtilage. Collins argues that, when there is actually no time for a warrant, the exigency doctrine is enough to solve the problem.

What year did Albemarle County police record a motorcycle?

In June and July 2013, Albemarle County police officers twice recorded a distinctive black and orange motorcycle eluding police pursuit by traveling significantly over the speed limit. The police car video camera photographed the motorcycle’s license plates and driver.

Which amendment allows police to search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house?

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.

Is it legal to search a vehicle without a warrant?

In opposition to the motion, the Commonwealth of Virginia argued that, in Carroll v. United States and Maryland v. Dyson, the U.S. Supreme Court established an automobile exception to the probable cause requirement, and determined that it is lawful to search a vehicle without a warrant because automobiles are easily moved.

Can police search a car without a warrant?

The Cato Institute maintains that, if police can search an automobile on private property without a warrant, they can also conduct such a search of any other portable container. Virginia counters that limiting a search based completely on curtilage would impede police investigations.

What happened to Officer Rhodes?

While investigating traffic incidents involving an orange and black motorcycle with an extended frame, Officer Rhodes learned that the motorcycle likely was stolen and in Collins’ possession. On Collins’ Facebook profile, Rhodes discovered photographs of an orange and black motorcycle parked in the driveway of a house. From the street, Rhodes could see what appeared to be the motorcycle under a tarp, in the location shown in the photograph. Without a search warrant, Rhodes walked up the driveway, removed the tarp, confirmed that the motorcycle was stolen by running the license plate and vehicle identification numbers, replaced the tarp, and returned to his car to wait. When Collins returned, Rhodes arrested him. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress, citing the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception. The Supreme Court reversed. The automobile exception does not permit the warrantless entry of a home or its curtilage to search a vehicle therein. Curtilage, the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home, is part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes. When an officer physically intrudes on the curtilage to gather evidence, a Fourth Amendment search has occurred and is presumptively unreasonable absent a warrant. The part of the driveway where the motorcycle was parked is curtilage. The scope of the automobile exception extends no further than the automobile itself; its proposed expansion would undervalue the core Fourth Amendment protection afforded to the home and its curtilage and untether the exception from its justifications.

What amendment did the Supreme Court reverse?

When Collins returned, Rhodes arrested him. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress, citing the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception. The Supreme Court reversed. The automobile exception does not permit the warrantless entry of a home or its curtilage to search a vehicle therein.

What is curtilage in the Fourth Amendment?

Curtilage, the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home, is part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes. When an officer physically intrudes on the curtilage to gather evidence, a Fourth Amendment search has occurred and is presumptively unreasonable absent a warrant.

What was the Supreme Court's decision in Coolidge v. New Hampshire?

New Hampshire.[4] In Coolidge, the Supreme Court held that a warrantless search of Coolidge’s car, parked on his own property, required a warrant. That decision seemed inconsistent with other decisions in which the Supreme Court permitted warrantless searches of motor vehicles, so long as the vehicle was readily mobile and there was probable cause to think that contraband or evidence of a crime was in the vehicle. In Collins, the motorcycle was on private property, raising the obvious question of whether the holding in Coolidge applied and required the police to act with a warrant.

What is curtilage in law?

[9] . A common definition of curtilage is the area immediately surrounding the home, used for private activities associated with the use of the home.

Background

In Albemarle County, Virginia, Officer David Rhodes observed from the street what appeared to be a motorcycle with a distinctive appearance under a tarp parked on the property of a home in which the Charlottesville resident Ryan Austin Collins was staying.

Supreme Court

Collins petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari on whether the Fourth Amendment protected his rights of privacy for the area a few feet from the boundaries of his home. The Supreme Court agreed in September 2017 to hear the case. The Court heard oral arguments on January 9, 2018.

External links

Text of Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. ___ (2018) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)