Last week we reported on Collins v Virginia making its way to the Supreme Court, a Fourth Amendment case challenging a police officer’s right to lift a bike cover to look at a (stolen) motorcycle in a private driveway without a warrant. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard both sides’ arguments: The Petitioner is Matthew Fitzgerald on behalf of Ryan Collins, who was convicted of his charges and has been in jail for the last three years. The Respondent is the Attorney General of Virginia.
What’s interesting is the list of Other parties involved in the case, which you can find here at Supremecourt.gov. All these are weighing in on the Collins side of the case.
| Anand Agneshwar Counsel of Record | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 250 W. 55th St. New York, NY 10019 anand.agneshwar@apks.com | 212-836-8000 |
| Party name: The Rutherford Institute | ||
| Douglas Harry Hallward-Driemeier Counsel of Record | Ropes & Gray, LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006-6807 Douglas.Hallward-Driemeier@ropesgray.com | 202-508-4776 |
| Party name: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | ||
| William Robert Peterson Counsel of Record | Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1000 Louisiana Street Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 william.peterson@morganlewis.com | 7138905188 |
| Party name: American Motorcyclist Association | ||
| Andrew John Pincus Counsel of Record | Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 apincus@mayerbrown.com | 202-263-3000 |
| Party name: The Cato Institute | ||
| Anthony Brian Sanders Counsel of Record | Institute for Justice 520 Nicollet Mall Suite 550 Minneapolis, MN 55402 asanders@ij.org | 612-435-3451 |
| Party name: Institute for Justice | ||
| Leslie A. Shoebotham Counsel of Record | Loyola University New Orleans College of Law 7214 St. Charles Avenue Campus Box 901 New Orleans, LA 70118 shoeboth@loyno.edu | 5048615683 |
| Party name: Fourth Amendment Scholars | ||
| Mahesha Padmanabhan Subbaraman Counsel of Record | Subbaraman PLLC 222 S. 9th St., Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 mps@subblaw.com | 612-315-9210 |
| Party name: Restore the Fourth, Inc. | ||
| David H. Thompson Counsel of Record | Cooper & Kirk, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 dthompson@cooperkirk.com | 202-220-9600 |
| Party name: The National Rifle Association Freedom Action Foundation | ||
| Herbert William Titus Counsel of Record | 2400 Carolina Road Cheasapeake, VA 23322 jmorgan@mindspring.com | 7033565070 |
| Party name: Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, et al. | ||
| Robert Jeffrey Olson | William J. Olson PC 370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4 Vienna, VA 22180-5615 wjo@mindspring.com | 703-356-5070 |
| Party name: United States Justice Foundation, et al. | ||
Quite a who’s who of heavy hitters, including our own American Motorcyclist Association, right along with the National Rifle Association. Apparently a lot of people are concerned with keeping themselves safe from unlawful searches, even if they’re leaving their stolen goods in partial view of the street.
Part of the AMA’s amicus brief has this to say:
Removal of a motorcycle’s cover without the owner’s permission would be, at the least, highly suspicious. It would almost certainly be understood as a prelude to theft (either of the motorcycle itself or personal possessions stored on the motorcycle) or vandalism.
The cover on a motorcycle can thus be understood as the rough equivalent of the top of a convertible. Even when the cover (or car) is unlocked, its removal still intrudes upon the reasonable expectations of privacy of the vehicle’s owner.
Motorcycles should receive no less protection from unreasonable searches than other vehicles. When the police removed the cover from Petitioners’ motorcycle, a search occurred. And as Petitioner contends, because that search occurred without a warrant and in the curtilage of a home, the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
Amicus and its members urge this Court to hold that motorcyclists’ protections against unreasonable searches and seizures should not be limited based on the type of vehicle at issue.
CONCLUSION Amicus expresses no opinion regarding petitioner’s ultimate guilt or innocence. Motorcycle theft is a serious crime that warrants serious punishment, but motorcycles should not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia, which fails to respect these rights, should be reversed.
I didn’t read what the NRA had to say, but you can read that and plenty more here.
SCOTUS heard the arguments yesterday, and Petitioner Counsel Fitzgerald tells MO he’s not expecting a decision until sometime this Spring. In the meantime, we got an excellent new word to use, “curtilage.” That would be “the area immediately surrounding a house, including any closely associated buildings and structures.”