Podcast appearances and mentions of Collins V Virginia

**Today's episode is brought to you by Framebridge! To custom frame your favorite things, go to framebridge.com promo code: OA** Today's episode takes a deep dive into two recent 8-1 decisions by the Supreme Court:  Collins v. Virginia and Sveen v. Melin.  What makes a decision nearly unanimous, and what causes that lone Justice to dissent?  Listen and find out! Our first 8-1 case involves two unique aspects of the 4th Amendment:  the "curtilage" exception and the "automobile" exception.  Which one takes precedence, why, and which Supreme Court justice vehemently disagreed?  Find out if you agree with Thomas -- and whether the law is "a ass."  (Seriously!) Our second 8-1 case is Sveen v. Melin, which involves whether the state of Missouri can legislate certain presumptions regarding "governing instruments."  It's the Contracts Clause!  Seem arcane?  It won't after you listen to our breakdown! After that, we answer a fun listener question about how a law firm makes someone a partner in light of our assessment of the Eagan Avenatti law firm in Episode 181. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #80 regarding negligence per se and an impromptu ice rink.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on the David Pakman Show, with a two-part appearance discussing whether President Trump can be indicted and if so, whether he can pardon himself.  You can watch the video on YouTube. And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Collins v. Virginia, and here to check out Sveen v. Melin. The other decision Andrew referred to was the landmark case of Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

In Collins v. Virginia, police searched a motorcycle which was partially hidden under a tarp outside a private residence. The police believed the motorcycle was the same one they had seen earlier committing traffic violations, and had been reported stolen. Later it was found out that the motorcycle was indeed stolen and the owner, who lived in the private residence, had known the vehicle was stolen before purchase.At trial, the owner tried to suppress the motorcycle as evidence because the police officers had not obtained a warrant before searching under the tarp. Under the Fourth Amendment automobile exception, is a police officer permitted to enter private property without a warrant in order to search a vehicle near the house? On May 29th, 2018, the Supreme Court decided 8-1 that such a search was not permitted under the Fourth Amendment.Greg Brower will join us to discuss the decision and its implications.

In Collins v. Virginia, police searched a motorcycle which was partially hidden under a tarp outside a private residence. The police believed the motorcycle was the same one they had seen earlier committing traffic violations, and had been reported stolen. Later it was found out that the motorcycle was indeed stolen and the owner, who lived in the private residence, had known the vehicle was stolen before purchase.At trial, the owner tried to suppress the motorcycle as evidence because the police officers had not obtained a warrant before searching under the tarp. Under the Fourth Amendment automobile exception, is a police officer permitted to enter private property without a warrant in order to search a vehicle near the house? On May 29th, 2018, the Supreme Court decided 8-1 that such a search was not permitted under the Fourth Amendment.Greg Brower will join us to discuss the decision and its implications.

In this podcast, defense attorney James R. Doerr discusses the recent Supreme Court case Collins v. Virginia (2018).  Discussion centers on the Court’s determination of whether the automobile exception of the Fourth Amendment applies to the warrantless search of a driveway of a private residence, or whether the area is constitutionally protected curtilage.    

Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (2018). Episode 495 (Duration 11:20) Police need a warrant to search a vehicle on private property. Issue This case presents the question whether the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter the curtilage of a […] The post Collins v. Virginia: The Vehicle Exception Does Not Supersede The Warrant Requirement When Vehicle Is On Private Property first appeared on IllinoisCaseLaw.com.

Welcome back to Counting to 5, a podcast about the United States Supreme Court. In this episode, I review the Court’s two new opinions in argued cases: Collins v. Virginia and Lagos v. United States. Show Notes News and Developments: Culbertson v. Berryhill: SCOTUSBlog Case Page Order inviting amicus curiae City of Hays, Kansas v. … Continue reading Episode 050: Livestream — Curtilage and Restitution

Collins v. Virginia | 01/09/18 | Docket #: 16-1027

In Collins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to reaffirm that your home is truly your castle. Jay Schweikert discusses the Cato Institute’s brief in the case. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.