Right now they are doing a 4th amendment case where a gal had a rental car and let her friend drive it (though the guy wasn't listed as a driver on the rental forms). The dude got pulled over and cops searched the car and found a bunch of illegal stuff. They didn't have a warrant. The court is hearing arguments about the constitutionality of the police action.
"The Fourth Amendment protects people from suspicionless searches of places and effects in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Does a driver in sole possession of a rental vehicle reasonably expect privacy in the vehicle where he has the renter's permission to drive the vehicle but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement?"
Alito was leading the questioning and it seemed like he was supporting the right of the police to do a search when Gorsuch interjected:
"Mr. Faigin, you keep saying that," Gorsuch said, "but as a matter of property law, now and forever, a possessor would have a right to exclude other people but for those with better title. So someone in this position would have a right, I think you'd agree, to exclude someone who's attempting to get in the car to hijack it, carjack it. You'd also have a right to throw out a hitchhiker who had overstayed his welcome....I think you're having to argue that the government has a special license that doesn't exist for any other stranger to the car."
This is already the 3rd or 4th time Gorsuch is butting heads with the other R's on the court because he is coming from a much more libertarian viewpoint. The dude is quickly turning into my favorite Justice. I hope we get more like him.
more details can be found: http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/01/neil- ... butt-heads