Generally speaking, no a driver ILLEGALLY driving a rental car should not expect the same rights and privacy as somebody driving their own vehicle. It's not just some oops.. I broke a contract with a car rental company, it's actually a crime in many states. It's technically driving a stolen veh...
Do you have some case precedent or statutes you can provide references to back your statement that a person whom is allowed to borrow a vehicle, which they may or may not know is a rental car, and will be returning the vehicle, all within the scope of the agreement made with the person who let them borrow the vehicle?? Re:”oops”
+1 @immibis it doesn't have any correlation; I'm assuming that comment was made based on stereotyping, perhaps even at a subconscious level. Just my guess when I read it.
@Nij That is not how rental agreements work, at all. Someone in lawful possession of someone else's vehicle does not inherently have the right to extend possession to parties not named in the contract.
@immibis Esp. in border states, since vehicles used to transport drugs get seized or stolen, drug runners have turned to renting cars instead. Rental agencies don't appreciate this-- when you lose or destroy a car, you get blacklisted, which means you have to get someone with a clean history to rent the car for you (and keep you off the papers) on future runs. Since drug mules are now known to be driving around in rental cars unauthorized, laws get passed to deal with this situation, which happen to be the same circumstances the FoF found himself in.
@DeanMacGregor The renter is in breach of contract. The driver had no permissions to the vehicle -- the owner didn't grant them, and the renter had no right to grant them.
@MatthewRead this doesn't make it a criminal act however; its still a civil matter. Do you have statutory law or case precedent to provide references to your argument? Im open minded and can admit being wrong, but I need facts to base that on Sir.
@MrThoughtIKnewItAll I'd also be very interested -- I was just speaking to the point of illegality, not criminality. Apologies if those terms are generally used synonymously here.
The definition of theft almost invariably requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession. This is clearly not the case - the unauthorised driver intends to return it to the authorised renter, with a finite time period before it is returned to its owner. Breach of contract by the renter, certainly, but it is not, by definition theft. @Ivan
@Nij I believe most rental contracts forbid authorized drivers from letting anyone not on the agreement drive the car though... so the person in possession is not allowed to give permission. At that point it would be theft wouldn't it?
No, it wouldn't, because theft has a definition, and there is more than just taking possession involved. For example: "Theft or stealing is the act of ... dishonestly and without claim of right, taking any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property ..." and "... In this section, taking does not include obtaining ownership or possession of, or control over, any property with the consent of the person from whom it is obtained, whether or not consent is obtained by deception." So:
1. It's not taking and therefore not theft by definition. 2. There is no intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property (nor a likelihood of this occurring, as required in other sections) and therefore not theft by definition.
How is it that the police officers knew that the driver was not authorized when they pulled him over to do the search? They didn't, and couldn't have. They found that out along the way.
The person that was driving the car (borrower) had no contract with the car rental company and has not violated terms of anything. They borrowed a car from a friend, and might or might not have known it was a rental car, and might have been under the impression they were fully authorized to drive the car since they were given permission. The person who rented the car may have been in violation of their contract with the rental car company (I don't know if they allow undeclared drivers... most don't like it but some may allow it).
Discussion on answer by user16029: Do…
Discussion on answer by user16029: Do…