{"title":"The Constitutional Risks of Ridesharing: Fourth Amendment Protections of Passengers in Uber and Lyft","authors":"G. Martinez","doi":"10.25148/LAWREV.13.3.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Fourth Amendment provides limited protections for automobile passengers against governmental intrusion. A passenger is only protected against unreasonable searches in places where he harbors a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court has not yet considered the reasonable expectation of privacy of passengers in Uber and Lyft. The modern transportation innovations require that the Court consider the reasonableness of the existing Fourth Amendment doctrine. In application, the doctrine does not adequately protect Uber and Lyft passengers, because it fails to consider how transportation advances have evolved society’s privacy expectations. To remedy these shortcomings, the Court must establish consistent jurisprudence for privacy rights in vehicles. Introduction ................................................................................................552 I. Remembering the Antique Fourth Amendment Doctrine ...............556 A. The Fourth Amendment and Privacy Interests ........................556 B. An Individual’s Diminished Expectation of Privacy in Automobiles .............................................................................559 1. The Automobile Exception ................................................560 a. The Scope of Searches Under the Automobile Exception .....................................................................561 i. California v. Acevedo’s Container Rule ...............562 2. Search Incident to Arrest in the Automobile Context ..............562 a. Passenger’s Privacy Rights: Wyoming v. Houghton’s Common Enterprise Assumption ................................563 II. Something Old and Something New: Traditional For-Hire Vehicles and Modern For-Hire Vehicles .......................................................565 A. Fourth Amendment Taxonomy of Passenger Rides ................565 1. For-Hire Vehicles ...............................................................567 *J.D. candidate, 2019, Florida International University (FIU) College of Law. The author would like to thank Joëlle Moreno, Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development & Professor of Law at FIU College of Law, for her guidance and feedback on this Comment and throughout my journey at FIU College of Law. 08 MARTINEZ.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/11/19 1:00 PM 552 FIU Law Review [Vol. 13:551 2. Traditional For-Hire Vehicles: A Passenger’s Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in a Taxicab ..................................567 3. Modern For-Hire Vehicles: The Advent of Technology Based Transportation .........................................................569 III. Confronting an Old Problem in a New Setting: Predicting The Privacy Interests of Passengers in Modern For-Hire Vehicles .......571 A. Revisiting The Fourth Amendment Doctrine ..........................571 B. Passengers in Modern For-Hire Vehicles Have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Under Katz v. United States ...............572 1. The Geographical Composition of the Interior Cabin of Modern For-Hire Vehicles Supports Passengers’ Subjective Expectation of Privacy. ......................................................573 2. Passengers Have Lawful Control over Modern For-Hire Vehicles by Virtue of Their Right to Exclude. ..................574 C. The Common Enterprise Rule is Outdated ..............................576 1. The Nature of Modern For-Hire Rides Negates the Validity of the Common Enterprise Assumption .............................577 2. The Introduction of a Fact Driven Analysis for the Common Enterprise Assumption .......................................................578 a. The Appearance of a Modern For-Hire Vehicle Suggests to a Reasonable Officer that a Common Enterprise Does Not Exist ......................................................................579 D. The Search Incident to Arrest Doctrine Permits Unreasonably Intrusive Searches of Modern For-Hire Passengers .................580 IV. Resolution .......................................................................................582","PeriodicalId":300333,"journal":{"name":"FIU Law Review","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FIU Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25148/LAWREV.13.3.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Fourth Amendment provides limited protections for automobile passengers against governmental intrusion. A passenger is only protected against unreasonable searches in places where he harbors a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court has not yet considered the reasonable expectation of privacy of passengers in Uber and Lyft. The modern transportation innovations require that the Court consider the reasonableness of the existing Fourth Amendment doctrine. In application, the doctrine does not adequately protect Uber and Lyft passengers, because it fails to consider how transportation advances have evolved society’s privacy expectations. To remedy these shortcomings, the Court must establish consistent jurisprudence for privacy rights in vehicles. Introduction ................................................................................................552 I. Remembering the Antique Fourth Amendment Doctrine ...............556 A. The Fourth Amendment and Privacy Interests ........................556 B. An Individual’s Diminished Expectation of Privacy in Automobiles .............................................................................559 1. The Automobile Exception ................................................560 a. The Scope of Searches Under the Automobile Exception .....................................................................561 i. California v. Acevedo’s Container Rule ...............562 2. Search Incident to Arrest in the Automobile Context ..............562 a. Passenger’s Privacy Rights: Wyoming v. Houghton’s Common Enterprise Assumption ................................563 II. Something Old and Something New: Traditional For-Hire Vehicles and Modern For-Hire Vehicles .......................................................565 A. Fourth Amendment Taxonomy of Passenger Rides ................565 1. For-Hire Vehicles ...............................................................567 *J.D. candidate, 2019, Florida International University (FIU) College of Law. The author would like to thank Joëlle Moreno, Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development & Professor of Law at FIU College of Law, for her guidance and feedback on this Comment and throughout my journey at FIU College of Law. 08 MARTINEZ.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/11/19 1:00 PM 552 FIU Law Review [Vol. 13:551 2. Traditional For-Hire Vehicles: A Passenger’s Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in a Taxicab ..................................567 3. Modern For-Hire Vehicles: The Advent of Technology Based Transportation .........................................................569 III. Confronting an Old Problem in a New Setting: Predicting The Privacy Interests of Passengers in Modern For-Hire Vehicles .......571 A. Revisiting The Fourth Amendment Doctrine ..........................571 B. Passengers in Modern For-Hire Vehicles Have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Under Katz v. United States ...............572 1. The Geographical Composition of the Interior Cabin of Modern For-Hire Vehicles Supports Passengers’ Subjective Expectation of Privacy. ......................................................573 2. Passengers Have Lawful Control over Modern For-Hire Vehicles by Virtue of Their Right to Exclude. ..................574 C. The Common Enterprise Rule is Outdated ..............................576 1. The Nature of Modern For-Hire Rides Negates the Validity of the Common Enterprise Assumption .............................577 2. The Introduction of a Fact Driven Analysis for the Common Enterprise Assumption .......................................................578 a. The Appearance of a Modern For-Hire Vehicle Suggests to a Reasonable Officer that a Common Enterprise Does Not Exist ......................................................................579 D. The Search Incident to Arrest Doctrine Permits Unreasonably Intrusive Searches of Modern For-Hire Passengers .................580 IV. Resolution .......................................................................................582