US vs. Poller: Ruling says police can use iPhones to circumvent tinted windows

Seems perfectly fine to me.

That's definitely how I want to approach a car of an individual with a warrant for their arrest.

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.

> 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).

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.

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.

Edit: After re-reading, I think you may have a point that Wifi is a commonly-used technology and might technically be allowed. It might depend on whether your phone or wifi router could be used as a detector with the right software. I'd imagine the supreme court might change the standard if that happened though. They generally treat the home as more sacred.

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.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU-Rrwf1vr0

People have crazy relationships sometimes.

Scuffed 22" alloy wheels, mismatched half-bald no-name tyres, bubbly black window tint film, bubbly Gucci-print gold-on-carbon wrap on the bonnet and tailgate, "Arabic prayer" CD dangly tassley thing hanging from the mirror, huge exhaust pipes.

No tax, no MOT (last MOT failed quite comprehensively on various serious defects), no insurance.

Like, come on, guy, try *not* to be the reason that stereotypes exist, eh?

Be careful in Vegas btw

Fine for your fancy boardroom, not so good for a vehicle when a minor hardware fault can instantly render the driver blind.

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.

That is often not the way it works, most especially when it comes to obtaining evidence.

If some random person breaks into your house, goes through your files until they find documentation of some crime, and then hands that over to the police, it would generally be admissible in court as evidence against you.

Whereas if the cops broke into your house and went through your files without a warrant that specifically permitted that, any evidence they acquired that way would be poisoned and inadmissible.

What makes you think a police officer isn’t allowed to use “non standard equipment” in the course of an investigation? If a private citizen is allowed to use an iPhone to look through the tint on a car window, so is a cop.