Does the Fourth Amendment apply when a rental car is stopped and the driver is not an authorized driver? As a general rule, yes, the Supreme Court ruled recently in Byrd v. United States.
Terrence Byrd and his girlfriend, Latasha Reed, drove to Budget car rental center. Reed went in and rented a Ford Fusion, while Byrd stayed in his car. Reed signed the rental contract stating that she would be the only driver, and it included notice that the agreement would be violated if an unauthorized driver drove the vehicle. Nevertheless, Byrd drove off in the Fusion and Reed left driving Byrd's car, a Honda.
Byrd headed toward Pittsburgh. He provoked suspicion, according to the Court, "because he was driving with his hands at the '10 and 2' position on the steering wheel, sitting far back from the steering wheel, and driving a rental car." The opinion does not identify Byrd's race, but that explanation strongly suggests that Byrd provoked suspicion for driving while black. In any event, Byrd was stopped "for a possible traffic infraction." The police officer described him as "visibly nervous." After inspecting the rental agreement and finding that Byrd was not an authorized driver, the law enforcement officers decided that Byrd had no Fourth Amendment protections, search the car and recovered drugs.
The Court ruled in Byrd's favor holding that, "as a general rule, someone an otherwise lawful possession and control of a rental car is a reasonable expectation of privacy in it even if the rental agreement does not list him or her as an authorized driver."
The Court didn't give Byrd a complete victory, however. The case was sent back to the lower courts to address the question of whether one who intentionally uses a third-party to procure a rental car by fraudulent scheme for the purpose of committing a crime may have Fourth Amendment protections. In other words, did Byrd use Reed to get a rental car for the purpose of using the rental car to deliver drugs to Pittsburgh?
Comments