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...
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wi-fi-routers-used-to-dete...
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.
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.
"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.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R2013...
It seems very unlikely that anybody parallel constructed anything here, since an officer was able to see the guns with the assistance of a visor made of his fingers.
It could simply have been in a car accident and its driver taken to hospital. It may even have been off the road by the time it was towed to the impound. I see this happen several times a week.
I would have not been happy if that was searched and inventoried.
Does the expectation of privacy go up and down depending if the mobile home is driving?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
believing anything else is incredibly naive.
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.
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.
thanks that sums my point up in a single cherry picked word.
They can and do violate the law (without consequence) until they find a foothold that allows them to fabricate the appearance of a legally obtained chain of evidence. Then, they fully suppress the evidence about how that information was originally obtained.
”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.”
If in practice illegal practices, are not rooted-out or prosecuted, and actually condoned, I think one would need to look askance at the entire concept…
However, I fully recognize how such a process might be abused and the need for a very firm legal hand to avoid accidentally becoming an authoritarian state.
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.
The Wi-Fi in a house thing may pass the bar for tech but doesn’t pass the bar w/r/t your expectation of privacy.
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.
You'll be happy to learn IEE 802.11bf standardized wifi sensing granular enough to do gesture detection. When that becomes ubiquitous in ISP provided routers, your friendly neighbourhood police will be one warrant away from tracking your movement around your house.
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.
Your home is private . You have an expectation of privacy there.
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.
Yeah, but if you put your illegal drugs and illegal guns right there in the window where everyone can see them - be that on the dashboard of your car or on your front room windowsill - you can't really say they were "private", can you?
I think police are allowed to look through windows from areas where the public can generally go. Like a public sidewalk or at your front door. Or something like that. I don't think they're generally allowed to walk around the house looking through windows, though.
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://interestingengineering.com/innovation/see-through-wa...
A prison tried to break a strike of workers who lived in prison dorms by replacing them with members of the National Guard, until a court ruled that this constituted illegally quartering soldiers in their homes.