Collins v. Commonwealth
790 S.E.2d 611
Va.2016Background
- Collins was charged and convicted of receiving stolen property after police linked him to an orange-and-black Suzuki motorcycle that had twice eluded officers at high speed.
- Police obtained a Facebook photo showing the motorcycle parked in a driveway by a house associated with Collins; officers went to that address and, from the street, observed a tarp-covered object with exposed wheel consistent with the motorcycle.
- Officer Rhodes walked up the driveway, lifted the tarp to confirm the motorcycle and recorded its VIN; a VIN check showed the motorcycle was stolen; Collins was later arrested and found with a key.
- Collins moved to suppress the VIN evidence, arguing Rhodes had trespassed onto private property and performed a warrantless search of the motorcycle (or tarp) in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- The trial court denied suppression; the Court of Appeals affirmed based on exigent circumstances; the Supreme Court of Virginia granted review and affirmed based on the automobile exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Collins) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer’s entry onto driveway and lifting of tarp violated Fourth Amendment | Rhodes trespassed on curtilage and conducted an unlawful warrantless search; evidence seized should be suppressed | Officer had probable cause and lawful reason to investigate; removal of tarp and VIN check were lawful under vehicle-search doctrines | Search was lawful under the automobile exception; suppression denied |
| Whether probable cause existed to search the motorcycle | No probable cause to justify warrantless intrustion onto private property | Prior eluding incidents, informant, Facebook photo, seller’s admission about theft, and visible bike features gave probable cause | Court found probable cause to believe motorcycle was stolen |
| Whether automobile exception requires immediate mobility or public location | Automobile exception should not apply to a vehicle parked on private driveway or when mobility is not immediate | Exception is a bright-line rule: if vehicle is readily mobile and probable cause exists, no warrant required; mobility need not be immediately actual | Exception applies even if vehicle was on private property and not immediately being driven away |
| Whether lifting tarp was a distinct unlawful search of an object (tarp) rather than a vehicle | Lifting the tarp is a search of the tarp (not the vehicle) and thus not covered by automobile exception | Lifting tarp was done to identify the vehicle and reveal VIN; analogous to moving cover or papers to see VIN—search of vehicle/identifying characteristic | Majority treats action as search of the vehicle (revealing VIN) and applies automobile-exception; dissent disagrees, calling it a search of the tarp and not covered by automobile exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (established an automobile exception based on vehicle mobility)
- Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (automobile exception applies where probable cause to search vehicle exists; no separate exigency required)
- Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (explaining mobility rationale for automobile exception)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (warrantless vehicle searches reasonable if facts would justify a warrant)
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (automobile-exception principles apply to readily mobile motor homes/vehicles not tied to location)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (plurality discussion of exigency and vehicles; cited on limits but not controlling for private-property rule)
- New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (no reasonable expectation of privacy in VINs and identifying marks on vehicles)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches; warrant requirement baseline)