## Facts

- Latasha Reed rented a car from Budget in New Jersey and signed an agreement warning that allowing an unauthorized driver would violate the contract; no additional drivers were listed.
- After Reed obtained the car, she gave the keys to Terrence Byrd, who drove alone toward Pittsburgh and stored personal belongings in the trunk.
- Pennsylvania state troopers stopped Byrd near Harrisburg for a traffic infraction (improper use of the left lane).
- The troopers learned the car was a rental, Byrd was not listed on the rental agreement, and Byrd had prior drug and weapons convictions and an outstanding warrant; Byrd also said he had a marijuana cigarette in the car.
- The troopers told Byrd they did not need his consent to search because he was not on the rental agreement, searched the car, and found body armor and 49 bricks of heroin in the trunk.
- Federal authorities charged Byrd with federal drug and related offenses.
- The district court denied Byrd’s motion to suppress, holding he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy because he was not an authorized driver; the Third Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether an unlisted driver with the renter’s permission has a Fourth Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car.

## Issues

1. Whether a driver who has the renter’s permission to use a rental car, but is not listed on the rental agreement, has a reasonable expectation of privacy sufficient to challenge a search under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether a rental agreement’s unauthorized-driver clause, by itself, eliminates an otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy.
3. What additional circumstances (such as theft or fraud) may defeat an unlisted driver’s Fourth Amendment claim.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Third Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that the mere fact a driver is not listed on the rental agreement does not, by itself, defeat an otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy when the driver is in lawful possession or control of the car.
- The Court left for remand whether Byrd’s possession should be treated as akin to a car thief’s (including if obtained through a fraudulent scheme) and whether probable cause justified the search regardless of the rental-agreement issue.

## Legal Principles

- Fourth Amendment standing depends on whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, informed by sources outside the Amendment, including property concepts and social understandings.
- Property concepts are instructive; lawful possession or control of property usually supports a legitimate expectation of privacy because it commonly includes the right to exclude others.
- Breach of a private rental contract term restricting authorized drivers, standing alone, does not eliminate an otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy.
- A person who possesses a vehicle in a manner comparable to a thief (including through certain fraudulent procurement) generally lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in that vehicle.

## Conclusion

An unlisted driver of a rental car can have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment when in lawful possession or control with the renter’s permission; rental-contract boilerplate alone does not negate standing, but theft-like or fraudulent possession and independent probable-cause grounds remain open on remand.


Byrd v. United States, 584 U.S. 395 (2018)