This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Petitioner Terrence Byrd is represented by counsel Robert M. Loeb.
Petitioner argues that the government seeks to turn a violation of a car‑rental agreement into a rule that prevents unlisted drivers from invoking the Fourth Amendment.
Petitioner contends that a person given permission by the renter to store personal items in the trunk has a reasonable expectation of privacy in it.
According to Mr. Loeb, petitioner asserts that criminal trespassers or car thieves do not have such privacy expectations.
According to Petitioner, petitioner references precedent from Rakas and Jones regarding wrongful presence in a car.
Background and question before the Court
Petitioner argues that the case concerns whether an unlisted driver of a rental car can invoke the Fourth Amendment.
Justice Sotomayor asks whether a person who is not an authorized driver, such as the son of a car owner, has an expectation of privacy in the vehicle.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Terrence Byrd)
According to Petitioner, the government is trying to create a rule that bars unlisted drivers from invoking the Fourth Amendment.
According to Petitioner, a person given permission by the renter to store personal items in the trunk has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
According to Mr. Loeb, criminal trespassers or car thieves do not have a privacy expectation in the trunk.
According to Petitioner, the case draws on precedent from Rakas and Jones concerning wrongful presence in a vehicle.
Respondent (United States)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the petitioner could have been the renter given his criminal record.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether that allows the petitioner to escape from those provisions.
Justice Gorsuch asked about the clear line that can be drawn regarding privacy expectations.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor questioned whether a son of a car owner who is not an authorized driver has an expectation of privacy.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan noted that the individual has been using the car as a place where he has some privacy.
Justice Alito asked about other criminal activity and how it affects the line between permissible and impermissible conduct.
- [1] 2ce2bfe066dd0b372d72-r1-85c0ffbd9353bfcc.pdf, p. 5
- [2] 2ce2bfe066dd0b372d72-r1-85c0ffbd9353bfcc.pdf, p. 6
- [3] 2ce2bfe066dd0b372d72-r1-85c0ffbd9353bfcc.pdf, p. 24
- [4] 2ce2bfe066dd0b372d72-r1-85c0ffbd9353bfcc.pdf, p. 67
- [5] 2ce2bfe066dd0b372d72-r1-85c0ffbd9353bfcc.pdf, p. 68
- [6] 2ce2bfe066dd0b372d72-r1-85c0ffbd9353bfcc.pdf, p. 71
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Petitioner, it may clarify whether permission to store personal items creates a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle’s trunk.
Petitioner argues that criminal trespassers and car thieves do not have a privacy expectation in the trunk, distinguishing them from authorized users.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 2ce2bfe066dd0b372d72-r1-85c0ffbd9353bfcc.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.