The Constitutional Risks of Ridesharing: Fourth Amendment Protections of Passengers in Uber and Lyft

G. Martinez
{"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
拼车的宪法风险:第四修正案对Uber和Lyft乘客的保护
第四修正案为汽车乘客提供了有限的保护,使其免受政府的侵扰。乘客只有在他有合理的隐私期望的地方才受到不合理搜查的保护。最高法院尚未考虑优步和Lyft对乘客隐私的合理期望。现代交通运输的革新要求法院考虑现有第四修正案原则的合理性。在实际应用中,这一原则并没有充分保护优步和Lyft的乘客,因为它没有考虑到交通运输的进步如何演变了社会对隐私的期望。为了弥补这些缺陷,法院必须为车辆隐私权建立一致的法理。介绍 ................................................................................................ 552年1 .牢记古老的第四修正案原则...............556一个。第四修正案和隐私利益 ........................ 556年b .隐私的个人期望减少汽车 .............................................................................559年1。汽车异常 ................................................560年,汽车下的搜索范围例外 .....................................................................i.加州诉Acevedo集装箱规则...............562 2。汽车环境下的搜索事件到逮捕..............562 a。乘客的隐私权利:怀俄明诉霍顿的常见的企业的假设 ................................ 563年2一些旧的和新的东西:传统租用车辆和现代租用车辆 ....................................................... 565年一个。第四次客运分类修正案................565年1。租用车辆 ...............................................................567 * J.D.2019年佛罗里达国际大学法学院候选人作者要感谢Joëlle Moreno,负责学院研究与发展的副院长兼法学院教授,她对这篇评论的指导和反馈,以及我在FIU法学院的整个旅程。传统的出租车辆:乘客在出租车上对隐私的合理期望..................................567 3。现代租用车辆:交通技术的出现 ......................................................... 569年3新环境下的老问题:现代出租汽车乘客隐私利益预测.......571一个。回顾《第四条修正案》教义 .......................... 571年B.在Katz诉美国一案中,现代出租车辆中的乘客有合理的隐私期望...............572年1。的地理构成现代租用车辆的内部舱室支持乘客隐私的主观期望 . ......................................................573 2。乘客凭借排他权对现代出租车辆拥有合法控制权. ..................574常见的企业规则已经过时了 ..............................576年1。现代出租汽车的性质否定了共同企业假设的有效性.............................577 2。引入一个事实驱动的分析常见的企业的假设 .......................................................578 a。现代租用车辆的外观建议一个合理的军官,一个共同的企业是不存在的 ...................................................................... 579年从搜查事件到逮捕原则允许对现代出租乘客进行不合理的侵入性搜查.................四、解决 ....................................................................................... 582年
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信