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

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tFS1wmG8LtYdpvz_w-qnwYwa9Rac8DsZ/view

by coloneltcb • 3 years ago

69 129 3 years ago

drive.google.com

floxy3• 3 years ago

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• 3 years ago

"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.

bagels• 3 years ago

Does it define "sense enhancing"? X-Rays could enhance vision by converting x-rays in to visible light.

Ancapistani2• 3 years ago

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

tpxl• 3 years ago

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.

henryfjordan• 3 years ago

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. 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.

TomatoTomato• 3 years ago

What about the trunk of your car?

riffic2• 3 years ago

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.

Ancapistani2• 3 years ago

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.

mikeryan• 3 years ago

There’s two aspects to this ruling. The first is the “commonly used technology” but the second is the “expectation of privacy”.

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.

duxup4• 3 years ago

The courts in the US have been pretty specific about car vs home. They don’t seem to treat them as the same.

websap• 3 years ago

Too bad for the unhoused I guess?

seanw444• 3 years ago

Ironically, there have been SCOTUS rulings that state that your vehicle is an extension of your home.

saveferris• 3 years ago

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• 3 years ago

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.

rascul• 3 years ago

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 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.

nonameiguess• 3 years ago

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.

floxy3• 3 years ago

They didn't see through walls.

https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/see-through-wa...

adolph• 3 years ago

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

trashcanman2• 3 years ago

Wait you access a google drive document and the user sharing gets your email address. Sketch

dzdt• 3 years ago

Source? I've wondered about that but had the opposite impression.

trashcanman2• 3 years ago

I’ve seen it firsthand when I shared a doc

2OEH8eoCRo02• 3 years ago

Right click -> open incognito

Be careful in Vegas btw

sophiebits• 3 years ago

I believe that’s only the case when opening a non-public doc (such as one shared with your entire company).

x86a• 3 years ago

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

w-ll• 3 years ago

Is this because the camera sensors leak more in the IR spectrum, and the tint doesnt block IR.

midoridensha• 3 years ago

That sounds like crappy tint. IR is what carries most of the heat, so high-quality tint blocks that part of the spectrum well.

babyshake• 3 years ago

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.

duxup4• 3 years ago

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• 3 years ago

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?

gnfargbl• 3 years ago

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• 3 years ago

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.

DropInIn• 3 years ago

Or just using those window sun screens....

agrover• 3 years ago

time for the tinfoil!

1letterunixname3• 3 years ago

Or a Sony analog IR-peering camera that had an un/fortunate feature of looking through clothing. Is it "plain view" if using a camera that can see differently than humans can?

VWWHFSfQ3• 3 years ago

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.

nthitz• 3 years ago

activating the iPhone’s camera viewfinder function

what exactly does that mean?

geraldwhen• 3 years ago

Sounds like they opened the camera app and looked at the image produced on the screen.

tptacek11• 3 years ago

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.

VWWHFSfQ3• 3 years ago

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.

tptacek11• 3 years ago

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.

foobarian• 3 years ago

Honestly the real sideshow is that Apple managed to worm its brand into this business. If I were Samsung or Google or any other Android vendor I'd be asking my marketing leadership why the police are not using our phones for this

2OEH8eoCRo02• 3 years ago

cupping his hands around his eyes and looking through the windshield.

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

comex• 3 years ago

According to the document:

They saw Poller get out of the car and enter one of the apartments. A team of officers then went inside to arrest him on a pending arrest warrant. Soon a group of detectives went to examine the car.

So they knew he wasn’t in the car, though in theory someone else could have been.

darkclouds• 3 years ago

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.

Vecr• 3 years ago

Why are the police not allowed to behave like a militia? I guess if they are female or too old to be considered as part of the unorganized militia in the first place, but from what the Supreme Court has said about the draft and the second amendment, I don't think that works. I think it's reasonable that all police are part of the unorganized militia at the very least.

bandyaboot3• 3 years ago

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.

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.

bandyaboot3• 3 years ago

Fairly obvious ruling. If a civilian is allowed to do it, so is a police officer.

elishah2• 3 years ago

If a civilian is allowed to do it, so is a police officer.

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.

bandyaboot3• 3 years ago

That’s a bit beyond the scope of what I was referring to, but I also don’t think that really is a counter factual to what I said. A private person is not allowed to break into a house in search of evidence and neither is a police officer. The fact that evidence from the former case may be admissible in a trial doesn’t really change that.

Scoundreller• 3 years ago

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• 3 years ago

Sounds great until something shorts or fails and the tinting goes full opaque while driving!

kylehotchkiss3• 3 years ago

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.

_s• 3 years ago

They never go full black though? You can still adjust them (marginally / within some limited bounds of very dark to dark) from what I remember.

elishah2• 3 years ago

The problem with LCD windows like that is that they default to opaque, and require power to align the crystals to become clear.

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

coldtea2• 3 years ago

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...

tptacek11• 3 years ago

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.

coldtea2• 3 years ago

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

I'm asking for clear-cut hard cases, as opposed to ad-hoc divinations. Oh, and that those clear cut cases not be based on vague premises like "expectation".

It should be "these cases are private, enforcing what our society -as represented by lawmakers- believes ought to be kept private". Versus guessing what some founding fathers or amendment authors meant when they said "expectation" and whether this or that place should be "expected to be private" or not.

where "unreasonable" is a term of art that effectively means "it's up to the judiciary".

Sure, and this is the problem I'm pointing. "Unreasonable" is an open ended term, that doesn't settle anything, and keeps people guessing. In 2023 this person went to court without knowing whether their car is allowed privacy or not. That's not a 21st century law, that's like some ancient oracle prophesy that can be read 20 odd ways.

You know, like that other term of art, about a "millitia", that has lead to centuries of theological arguments about the number of well regulated angels that can stand on the top of a pin.

dbtc• 3 years ago

Also there's a difference between private and secret.

mayoff• 3 years ago

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.

kylehotchkiss3• 3 years ago

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?

projektfu• 3 years ago

One of my friends said he didn't want people to talk about who he was driving around with. Essentially meaning his jealous girlfriend. I don't blame him, she drew blood once in front of me.

People have crazy relationships sometimes.

kylehotchkiss3• 3 years ago

Seems like he needs a different solution than window blurring. Hope he's able to grow and heal past that one!

Gordonjcp2• 3 years ago

There used to be a black first-gen BMW X5 that parked up near my partner's house in the Glasgow's South Side.

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?

suyula• 3 years ago

The sun is too bright.

alexfromapex2• 3 years ago

Need tint that blocks infrared spectrum

1letterunixname3• 3 years ago

May get to the point where tint is replaced with literal tin foil and people use 360 degree stitched camera systems for all situational awareness outside their vehicle.

1letterunixname3• 3 years ago

This is a slippery slope eroding the 4th a.: at what point can police use X-ray, muon, FLIR, MMW, and SIGINT against private property and persons and say it's "not a warrantless search" and maintain a shred of credulity?

kazinator• 3 years ago

"Using the iPhone’s camera viewing function the detective could see through the tint into the interior of the car."

What's the difference between this and using a flashlight? All the verbiage surrounding the iPhone looks like a red herring.

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

Related Stories