Supreme Court limits warrantless vehicle searches near homes

Law Journals

The Supreme Court is putting limits on the ability of police to search vehicles when they do not have a search warrant.

The court sided 8-1 Tuesday with a Virginia man who complained that police walked onto his driveway and pulled back a tarp covering his motorcycle, which turned out to be stolen. They acted without a warrant, relying on a line of Supreme Court cases generally allowing police to search a vehicle without a warrant.

The justices said the automobile exception does not apply when searching vehicles parked adjacent to a home.

The court ruled in the case of Ryan Collins, who was arrested at the home of his girlfriend in Charlottesville, Virginia. Collins had twice eluded police in high-speed chases in which he rode an orange and black motorcycle.

The authorities used Collins' Facebook page to eventually track the motorcycle to his girlfriend's home.

Collins argued that police improperly entered private property uninvited and without a warrant.

Virginia's Supreme Court said the case involved what the Supreme Court has called the "automobile exception," which generally allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they believe the vehicle contains contraband.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said for the court Tuesday that the state court was wrong. Sotomayor said that constitutional protections for a person's home and the area surrounding it, the curtilage, outweigh the police interest in conducting a vehicle search without a warrant.

Dutch court says time ripe for law to recognize 3rd gender

A court in the Netherlands says that lawmakers should recognize a neutral, third gender, in a groundbreaking ruling for a person who does not identify as male or female.

The court in the southern city of Roermond said Monday that the person's gender could not be definitively determined at birth. The person was registered as male but later had treatment to become a woman and successfully applied to have her gender officially changed to female.

However the applicant later sought to be listed as a "third gender" — neither male nor female.

The court said in a statement that "the time is ripe for recognition of a third gender," adding that "it is now up to lawmakers."

Transgender activists hailed the ruling as a revolutionary step in Dutch law.

Related listings

  • Justices allow Arkansas to enforce abortion restrictions

    Justices allow Arkansas to enforce abortion restrictions

    Law Journals 05/27/2018

    The Supreme Court is allowing Arkansas to put in effect restrictions on how abortion pills are administered. Critics of a challenged state law say it could effectively end medication abortions in the state.The justices did not comment Tuesday in reje...

  • An Epic Supreme Court Decision on Employment

    An Epic Supreme Court Decision on Employment

    Law Journals 05/16/2018

    False dichotomy, meretricious piety, and pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain misdirection are vital arrows in the quiver of any lawyer or judge, no matter of what persuasion. These tricks were on particularly egregious display in Epic Sys...

  •  Democrats Claim Victory In Wisconsin's Supreme Court Race

    Democrats Claim Victory In Wisconsin's Supreme Court Race

    Law Journals 04/17/2018

    In Wisconsin Tuesday, Milwaukee County Judge Rebecca Dallet won a seat on the state Supreme Court, riding a wave of Democratic enthusiasm to victory in this (officially) nonpartisan election.The race drew national attention, mostly from big-name Demo...

USCIS to Begin Accepting Applications under the International Entrepreneur Rule

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today it is taking steps to implement the International Entrepreneur Rule (IER), in accordance with a recent court decision. Although the IER was published during the previous administration with an effective date of July 17, 2017, it did not take effect because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a final rule on July 11, 2017, delaying the IER’s effective date until March 14, 2018. This delay rule was meant to give USCIS time to review the IER and, if necessary, to issue a rule proposing to remove the IER program regulations.

However, a Dec. 1, 2017, ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in National Venture Capital Association v. Duke vacated USCIS’ final rule to delay the effective date. The Dec. 1, 2017, court decision is a result of litigation filed in district court on Sept. 19, 2017, which challenged the delay rule.