Byrd v. United States, Docket No. 16-1371

Fourth Amendment: Probable cause: Standing:

(…) It is worth noting that most courts analyzing the question presented in this case, including the Court of Appeals here, have described it as one of Fourth Amendment “standing,” a concept the Court has explained is not distinct from the merits and “is more properly subsumed under substantive Fourth Amendment doctrine.”

The concept of standing in Fourth Amendment cases can be a useful shorthand for capturing the idea that a person must have a cognizable Fourth Amendment interest in the place searched before seeking relief for an unconstitutional search; but it should not be confused with Article III standing, which is jurisdictional and must be assessed before reaching the merits. Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U. S. 125, 129 (2011) (“To obtain a determination on the merits in federal court, parties seeking relief must show that they have standing under Article III of the Constitution”). (…) Because Fourth Amendment standing is subsumed under substantive Fourth Amendment doctrine, it is not a jurisdictional question and hence need not be addressed before addressing other aspects of the merits of a Fourth Amendment claim. On remand, then, the Court of Appeals is not required to assess Byrd’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car before, in its discretion, first addressing whether there was probable cause for the search, if it finds the latter argument has been preserved.

Though new, the fact pattern here continues a well-traveled path in this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Those cases support the proposition, and the Court now holds, that the mere fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court leaves for remand two of the Government’s arguments: that one who intentionally uses a third party to procure a rental car by a fraudulent scheme for the purpose of committing a crime is no better situated than a car thief; and that probable cause justified the search in any event. The Court of Appeals has discretion as to the order in which these questions are best addressed.

(U.S.S.C., May 14, 2018, Byrd v. United States, Docket No. 16-1371, J. Kennedy)

La notion de "standing" dans le cadre des affaires relatives au IVè Amendement n'est pas à confondre avec la notion juridictionnelle de "standing" au sens de l'Art. III.

La présente espèce se situe dans la continuité de la jurisprudence rendue par la Cour en application du IVè Amendement. Dans le contexte de cet Amendement, un Tribunal doit déterminer si le prévenu pouvait raisonnablement compter sur le respect, par l'autorité, de ses affaires privées, et doit déterminer s'il existait une "cause probable" permettant la "search" sans se soucier de l'"expectation of privacy" du prévenu. L'ordre dans lequel le Tribunal traite ces deux questions est sans importance.