Well, welcome to todays class where we are moving on as usual in this class, were going to be talking about the power of governments to regulate the economy in different situations. But we are. One thing that you need to keep in mind when because were this class is historical in nature, when youre trying to answer how much power the government has to regulate the economy, the answer is going to be it depends and its going to depend. On a number of factors. The first is historical era, and up until now, weve exclusively focused on the Marshall Court and were going to leave that behind now. You took a quiz on that. You dont need to remember it right now. Were moving on for the next part of the class. Were going to be in whats called the lochner era, which took place at sort of the height of the Industrial Revolution leading up through the great depression. Then there was a major set of changes after the 1930s, and then there was well end the semester by looking at more recent Supreme Cou
Transform a violation of a car rental agreement into a real unlisted drivers have no ability to even in folk support. The first amendment. The rule should be rejected for three reasons. Ignoring a persons privacy expectation 20 locks his personal property in a cars locked trunk with the commission permission of the printer it is contrary to the expectation of privacy which looks to privacy expectations and not contract terms and not property rights. While the contract violation alleged is not negate Fourth Amendment rights, it is notable that his presence in the car was not improper. Restoring of his personal the storing of his items in the trunk was not a violation. Perhaps not. Given permission by the renter to store his items in the locked trunk and the government does not argue that was impermissible. Oppose he had in a passenger. And the renter was there. , even if he was a passenger if the person who rented the car gave his permission to lock his belongings and he has a strangers
Three reasons. The privacy expectations when he locks his personal property in the cars locked trunk with the permission of the renter is contrary to this courts reasonable expectation of privacy test which looks to privacy expectations and not Contract Terms and not Property Rights and while the contract violation alleged here does not negate Fourth Amendment rights, its notable that mr. Byrds presence in the car and the government does not dispute this was not improper. His storing of his personal items in the trunk was not even a contract violation. Could he have been could he have been the renter given his criminal record . Perhaps not, your honor, but he was given permission by the renter to store his items in the locked trunk and the government does not argue that this was impermissible. Suppose hed been just a passenger . And the renter was there. Likewise, even if he was the passenger, if the person who has rented the car gives him permission to lock his own personal property i
Supreme court oral argument in byrd v. United states. The case hinges on the drivers right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court is deciding if that extends to a rental car that the driver did not rent and is not authorized to operate under the rental agreement. The oral argument lasts about an hour. Youll hear argument this morning in 1631 byrd versus united states. Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court, in this case, the government seems to transform a violation of a car rental agreement into a rule where unlisted drivers from no ability to even invoke the Fourth Amendment and the proposed rule should be objected for three reasons and ignoring the privacy expectations when he locks his personal property in the cars locked trunk with the permission of the renter is contrary to this courts reasonable expectation of privacy test which looks to privacy expectations and not Contract Terms and not Property Rights and while the contract violation alleged here does not negat
Where unlisted drivers have no ability to even invoke the Fourth Amendment and the proposed rule should be objected for three reasons. First, ignoring the privacy expectations when he locks his personal property in the cars locked trunk with the permission of the renter is contrary to this courts reasonable expectation of privacy test which looks to privacy expectations and not contract terms and not Property Rights and while the contract violation alleged here does not negate Fourth Amendment rights, its notable that mr. Byrds presence in the car and the government does not dispute this was not improper. His storing of his personal items in the trunk was not even a contract violation. Could he have been could he have been the renter given his criminal record . Perhaps not, your honor, but he was given permission by the renter to store his items in the locked trunk and the government does not argue that this was impermissible. Suppose hed been just a passenger . And the renter was ther