[HN Gopher] US vs. Poller: Ruling says police can use iPhones to...
___________________________________________________________________
US vs. Poller: Ruling says police can use iPhones to circumvent
tinted windows
Author : coloneltcb
Score : 38 points
Date : 2023-07-17 21:44 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (drive.google.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (drive.google.com)
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| This precedent is nice. I'd prefer less blacked-out windows on
| the road. I often wonder why a person wants to be so obscured.
| Around me, the worst contenders are the lifted G-Wagons with
| basically black mirrors for windows. What are they hiding from?
| tptacek wrote:
| This seems like a sideshow, given:
|
| _The body-cam video also shows that one of the detectives was
| able to see inside the car without the assistance of an iPhone by
| cupping his hands around his eyes and looking through the
| windshield._
|
| The police were also there serving an arrest warrant on the owner
| of the car, so keep in mind they had broad discretion to search
| incident to the arrest --- as the record here shows, the police
| originally attempted to _open_ the car.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Definitely a sideshow. But this is still important case law.
| The police can use a commonly available technology (iPhone) to
| observe things through some kind of obfuscated barrier. They've
| been allowed to do this with a flashlight (darkness) and now
| they're allowed to do it with iPhones (tinted windows).
|
| Seems perfectly fine to me.
| tptacek wrote:
| This particular obfuscated barrier is already disfavored by
| the law; for instance, where I live, window tints sufficient
| to block inspection of the passenger compartment of the car
| by an officer standing next to the car are already
| effectively illegal.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| If the window tint can be "peered through" by an iPhone
| (commonly available technology), is it still illegel? This
| court said no, it's not.
| tptacek wrote:
| The statute is written in terms of visible light
| transmittance, so this ruling isn't going to help people
| with dark tinted windows.
| trashcanman wrote:
| Wait you access a google drive document and the user sharing gets
| your email address. Sketch
| sophiebits wrote:
| I believe that's only the case when opening a non-public doc
| (such as one shared with your entire company).
| x86a wrote:
| The owner of the Google Doc is Orin Kerr (Prof. at UC Berkeley)
| if it makes you feel any better or worse
| https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1681018140724166657
| dzdt wrote:
| Source? I've wondered about that but had the opposite
| impression.
| trashcanman wrote:
| I've seen it firsthand when I shared a doc
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Right click -> open incognito
|
| Be careful in Vegas btw
| darkclouds wrote:
| Wiretaps are sense enhancing technology and precedent has been
| set with court's having to issue permission to wire tap.
|
| And an iphone is not standard equipment issue for cops, ergo the
| cop was acting like a criminal by using non standard equipment in
| effect behaving like their own militia, over stepping the law.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| Fairly obvious ruling. If a civilian is allowed to do it, so is a
| police officer.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I need vehicle window tint that works like those LCDs on aircraft
| windows, so I can black out everything with a single central
| switch.
|
| Tint laws only apply to vehicles while operating, right?
| blackfawn wrote:
| Sounds great until something shorts or fails and the tinting
| goes full opaque while driving!
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| The annoying thing is when the flight crews black them out for
| everybody with a single central switch and you have a 14+ hour
| flight with the lights off and windows disabled and can't even
| get a dimmed view outside. Great for the flight attendants who
| cut down on workload by trying to get all the passengers to
| sleep the entire flight.
| w-ll wrote:
| Is this because the camera sensors leak more in the IR spectrum,
| and the tint doesnt block IR.
| coldtea wrote:
| The whole notion of "expectation of privacy" and the medieval
| theology arguments around it, is so BS, and yet people are so
| conditioned to it.
|
| It should be a set of clear cut cases: "your house is private",
| "your car is (or isn't)", and so on, and anything private should
| need a warrant. Courts shouldn't get to decide, or interpret
| various techniques attempted to bypass this...
| tptacek wrote:
| You'll need to take that up with the authors of the 4th
| Amendment, who left this matter up to the courts when they gave
| people in the US the right to be free from "unreasonable"
| searches, where "unreasonable" is a term of art that
| effectively means "it's up to the judiciary".
|
| More to the point, this theological business of determining
| where the expectations of privacy are is exactly the business
| of declaring what is and isn't private that you're asking them
| to work out.
| babyshake wrote:
| Would shining a flashlight have the same effect?
|
| Also, I don't like police overreach but I wouldn't think getting
| tinted windows gives you any legal right to people not being able
| to see inside your car, just that it won't be easy for them to
| casually look over and see inside your car.
| duxup wrote:
| > I wouldn't think getting tinted windows gives you any legal
| right to people not being able to see inside your car
|
| Especially considering how much tint is allowed is often
| regulated by the state so that you can safely see out. The idea
| that you can see through it already is a thing.
| retrac wrote:
| I always understood the limit on tinting to be bidirectional
| in its safety benefit. The driver needs to see, but the
| driver also needs to be seen. As a pedestrian, if I can't see
| the driver, I don't know if they can see me. I wonder how
| often drivers in heavily tinted vehicles gesture and don't
| realize they can't be seen?
| duxup wrote:
| I agree seeing another driver who isn't paying attention
| approaching an intersection has saved me several times.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| The linked order addresses that point--
|
| _> The Supreme Court has foreclosed such an argument, holding
| that a police officer did not violate a driver's reasonable
| expectation of privacy when he used a flashlight to look inside
| the windows of a car that was subject to a traffic stop. See
| Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 739-40 (1983)._
| ssalka wrote:
| If we're going by the "plain view doctrine", you can cover up
| any item in your car with e.g. a blanket, and an officer would
| not legally be able to move the blanket to see what's
| underneath without a warrant, probable cause to search, or
| permission from the vehicle owner (I'd add the caveat that
| seeing the shape of a gun underneath a blanket could probably
| pass for probable cause).
|
| So, moving that boundary from "the blanket" to "the window" to
| me seems pretty reasonable, _except_ that a window tint doesn
| 't completely obscure what's behind it like a blanket would. A
| tinted window fundamentally can't protect from plain view in
| the same way that non-transparent object can; the owner would
| be better off hanging curtains from inside the car.
| [deleted]
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| > This is a case that arises at the intersection of the Fourth
| Amendment [unreasonable search and seizure] and the technological
| capabilities of an Apple iPhone. The defendant Christopher Poller
| allegedly stashed two guns and illegal drugs on the front seat of
| his car. He parked the car on a road in front of his apartment
| and then went inside. Because the windows of the car were heavily
| tinted, he probably thought no one could see inside. But he was
| mistaken. The police came along and -- by holding up an iPhone to
| the window of the car and activating the iPhone's camera
| viewfinder function -- they could clearly see the guns and drugs
| inside the car.
|
| The police officers just used iPhone's camera capability to look
| through the tinted window and see the firearms and drugs in the
| car.
| mayoff wrote:
| I just tried this with my iPhone 12 mini on my cars, which were
| parked in my garage out of direct sunlight. I was shocked by how
| well it worked.
| nthitz wrote:
| > activating the iPhone's camera viewfinder function
|
| what exactly does that mean?
| geraldwhen wrote:
| Sounds like they opened the camera app and looked at the image
| produced on the screen.
| floxy wrote:
| Seems like this logic would also allow police to use WiFi to see
| through the walls of your house?
|
| https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wi-fi-routers-used-to-dete...
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| "sense-enhancing technology like the camera function of an
| iPhone that is in general public use."
|
| the language doesn't make it clear whether "in general public
| use" is the full scope or "in general public use, for the
| purpose adopted by law enforcement in this case".
|
| iPhones and wifi are in general public use; the former is
| widely used to illuminate or look at things, the latter is
| rarely, if ever, used to see through the walls of a house.
|
| If that's even a thing.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| The closest thing I can think of is "in common use", as
| (poorly) defined in Caetano v Massachussets:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
| bagels wrote:
| Does it define "sense enhancing"? X-Rays could enhance vision
| by converting x-rays in to visible light.
| adolph wrote:
| Also the new generation of mm wave radar devices, which can see
| through some materials. Here is a good rerun of an Andreas
| Spiess video covering some recent-ish sensors:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU-Rrwf1vr0
| [deleted]
| henryfjordan wrote:
| No, the ruling goes out of it's way to say that putting
| something on the front seat of a car doesn't provide an
| expectation of privacy. Your home is very different in the eyes
| of the law. You can't use IR cameras to see into a home
| already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
|
| Edit: After re-reading, I think you may have a point that Wifi
| is a commonly-used technology and might technically be allowed.
| I'd imagine the supreme court might change the standard if that
| happened though. They generally treat the home as more sacred.
| TomatoTomato wrote:
| What about the trunk of your car?
| tptacek wrote:
| You have an expectation of privacy for the contents of your
| trunk, but it's less firm than that of your house --- your
| trunk can be searched without a warrant to "inventory" it
| if it's merely impounded, without suspicion or an arrest.
|
| If the police had a device that enabled them to see into
| car trunks, it would likely constitute a search requiring
| "reasonableness" to use it.
| fragmede wrote:
| Which it should be noted, they do. Semi-truck sized x-ray
| machines exist, especially at border control, but also
| elsewhere, and is used to see inside of semi-trucks.
| Using that same device against a car seems entirely
| feasible. But as you point out, if they impound the
| vehicle, they can just inventory the trunk directly,
| assuming they have the key. If you have a locked safe in
| the trunk, I don't think they're (legally) allowed to
| x-ray it to find out what's inside of _that_ , although
| they can parallel-reconstrution their way to having a
| reason after the fact.
| tptacek wrote:
| Since the time of the founders, you've had essentially no
| rights to privacy at border crossings.
|
| "Parallel construction" is a message board argument. At
| the point where you've decided the law doesn't matter, we
| can just stop talking about this stuff, because none of
| it matters.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Under what conditions is a car impounded? For a car to be
| impounded it already was somewhere it shouldn't have been
| or the driver themselves impaired in some way. Of course
| they need to be able to search trunks in such a case.
| riffic wrote:
| au contraire. cops can do literally whatever they want and
| they routinely use parallel construction to get a conviction
| within the letter of the law.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
|
| believing anything else is incredibly naive.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Why not use spy satellites and just watch you all the time?
| Or clever Van Eck, or Wifi micro-disturbances?
|
| Cops are basically plumbers. They are blue collar workers,
| making mediocre pay and working insane hours. (Plumbers
| actually make MORE than cops for their 40, cops just work a
| lot of overtime...) Cops are most likely to just not really
| chase an investigation versus doing twice the work to use
| some kind of illegal evidence gathering.
| Klonoar wrote:
| Cops get away with stuff they shouldn't: details at 11.
|
| That said, I just want to point out that you have no idea
| whether they believe that or are simply quoting the
| relevant legal history. What's with the naive comment?
|
| Every time I see something like this I have to think it
| contributes to degrading discussion quality here; we can
| probably assume the general audience of this site are not
| obtuse on this matter and wade in with a different tone.
| riffic wrote:
| > history
|
| thanks that sums my point up in a single cherry picked
| word.
| bshipp wrote:
| As long as the material presented in court is acquired via
| legal methods, no laws are being broken, are they? Now, if
| officers use legal loopholes to take illegally-acquired
| evidence and somehow make it legal, that's a practice that
| should be rooted out and those involved prosecuted. But as
| long as officers can construct a legal case completely
| independent of the poisonous tree, what's the issue?
| Ancapistani wrote:
| Interesting.
|
| Wiki says this is specific to thermals, which operate
| ~1,000-14,000nm. I wonder if it would also be applicable to
| night vision? Those are sensitive ~500-900nm. Visible light
| is ~400-700nm.
| duxup wrote:
| The courts in the US have been pretty specific about car vs
| home. They don't seem to treat them as the same.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Ironically, there have been SCOTUS rulings that state that
| your vehicle is an extension of your home.
| klyrs wrote:
| I'm gonna use this next time my (Marine) cousin asks me for
| a ride to the airport. God bless the 3A
| websap wrote:
| Too bad for the unhoused I guess?
| duxup wrote:
| I don't know. I do know the courts treat homes and cars
| differently.
| saveferris wrote:
| Ohhhh, now that is interesting. I think I'd say you don't have
| an expectation of privacy when you park your car on a public
| street, people can look into the windows and if they are tinted
| then using a device to "see" through the tint doesn't go over
| the line to circumvent your expectation of privacy - if items
| were in the trunk....maybe that elevates the expectation of
| privacy but leaving something on the seat or something that can
| be seen looking into the windows of a car parked out in public
| seems like you should not expect a high level of privacy.
|
| Your house/apartment on the other hand...you should expect a
| high/higher level of privacy there, even looking into the
| windows - if something is found looking into the windows it
| should not be admissible as evidence without a warrant.
|
| I do not know if the law actually distinguishes privacy if it's
| a car vs a residence.
| more_corn wrote:
| It does. Your car is on a public street. You have no
| expectation of privacy on a public street. Also the law
| explicitly addresses tint. You cannot tint the windshield and
| front windows past a certain poknt.
|
| Your home is private . You have an expectation of privacy
| there.
| tptacek wrote:
| This isn't accurate. You do have some enforceable
| expectations of privacy in a motor vehicle parked on a
| public street --- the trunk, the contents of the glove box,
| the contents of closed containers in plain view in the
| passenger's compartment. What you don't get is privacy for
| any of the parts of the car that would ordinarily be in
| plain view to someone outside the car.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Of course there are limited expectations of privacy in a
| vehicle. The glovebox, trunk, a box in the back seat, a
| duffel bag in the front seat, anything concealing the
| contents has an expectation of privacy. And no, you don't
| just automatically lose your 4th amendment rights just
| because you're on a public street.
|
| Tinting laws are for motor safety, not for the surveillance
| state. Notably, limousines are fully tinted in the rear as
| well as most passenger buses. And of course, cargo vans etc
| are fully enclosed.
| tptacek wrote:
| No, it's not accurate that tinting laws are exclusively
| for driver safety.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Those were WiFi routers inside the room. They didn't see
| through walls.
|
| Unfortunately, I don't see how the logic wouldn't basically be
| sound based on the existing criteria that, if technology
| existed and was in widespread public use that allowed ordinary
| people to routinely see through walls, then yes, being behind a
| wall would not give you a reasonable expectation of privacy.
|
| Assuming we ever reach that point, the Supreme Court would
| either need to come up with a new test of what constitutes a
| search or we'd need to ban such devices so people could still
| expect privacy in their own homes.
| floxy wrote:
| >They didn't see through walls.
|
| https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/see-through-
| wa...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-17 23:02 UTC)