{"id":110473,"date":"2025-03-14T10:02:46","date_gmt":"2025-03-14T18:02:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/03\/14\/appeals-court-plain-view-also-includes-using-iphone-camera-options-to-see-through-tinted-car-windows\/"},"modified":"2025-03-14T10:02:46","modified_gmt":"2025-03-14T18:02:46","slug":"appeals-court-plain-view-also-includes-using-iphone-camera-options-to-see-through-tinted-car-windows","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/03\/14\/appeals-court-plain-view-also-includes-using-iphone-camera-options-to-see-through-tinted-car-windows\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeals Court: \u2018Plain View\u2019 Also Includes Using iPhone Camera Options To See Through Tinted Car Windows"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

As tech advances, the law mutates. In some cases (Riley<\/a>,<\/em>\u00a0Carpenter<\/a><\/em>) we get more protections. In other cases, we get fewer protections.<\/p>\n

This case dates back to 2022. Christopher Poller was a suspect Waterbury, Connecticut police officers were seeking to arrest. While surveilling his residence, officers approached his parked car. Poller wasn\u2019t in it at the time, but it was parked on the public street. Other officers approached Poller\u2019s home to arrest him.<\/p>\n

No officer had a warrant to search Poller\u2019s car, but since it was parked on the street, they didn\u2019t need one to look through the windows to see if they could spot any contraband. The problem here, though, was that the car\u2019s windows were tinted, making it extremely difficult to see anything in \u201cplain view<\/a>\u201d that could be used to support a deeper search or additional criminal charges.<\/p>\n

Well, one officer knew a neat little trick to get around window tint \u2014 his iPhone\u2019s camera. The enhancements meant to create better, clearer photos also allowed the officer to, effectively, bypass the tint and see the car\u2019s contents. Here\u2019s what that looked like in action, as pictured\u00a0in the lower court\u2019s decision<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

With the camera engaged, the officer was able to see what looked like two guns inside the car. Poller challenged this \u201csearch,\u201d claiming it violated his rights. The trial court decided it wasn\u2019t. The first factor was the car being parked on a public street. The more interesting rejection was tied to a\u00a02001 Supreme Court case<\/a>, where the nation\u2019s top court ruled\u00a0against<\/em>\u00a0law enforcement officers using thermal imaging tech to effectively \u201csearch\u201d a home for a suspect without actually having to obtain a warrant to enter it.<\/p>\n

In that case, the Supreme Court reasoned that everyday people didn\u2019t have access to powerful thermal imaging tech, therefore this search violated the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n

The trial court went the other way here, reasoning that because any iPhone owner could do the same thing to see through tinted windows, there\u2019s nothing unreasonable happening when cops do it. So, even if it wasn\u2019t literally \u201cplain view,\u201d it was close enough to plain view to be acceptable under the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n

Poller appealed, but this challenge doesn\u2019t fare well at the next judicial level. The Second Circuit Appeals Court has sided with the lower court,\u00a0ruling<\/a>\u00a0[PDF] that\u00a0enhanced<\/em>\u00a0plain view is no different than pre-iPhone plain view.<\/p>\n

Previous jurisprudence cited by the court compares the use of a cell phone to the use of a flashlight to see into a vehicle when there\u2019s no daylight to assist in the plain viewing. Poller argued the window tint itself created an \u201cexpectation of privacy\u201d in his parked vehicle. But, as the court points out, if the window tint complied with state law, some observation of the interior of the car would have been possible even\u00a0without<\/em>\u00a0the use of a cell phone. More importantly, a\u00a0subjective<\/em>\u00a0expectation of privacy is not the same thing as an\u00a0objective<\/em>\u00a0expectation of privacy.<\/p>\n

The ubiquity of the tech and the subjective nature of Poller\u2019s privacy expectations doom this evidentiary challenge.<\/p>\n

\n

The record in this case alone demonstrates a number of ways in which an officer or private citizen could see through the car\u2019s tinted windows from the public vantage point of the street: by cupping his hands around his eyes to block out external light and leaning close to the window, using an iPhone camera application, or utilizing any number of widely available digital cameras. Given that the tinted windows continued to make the interior of Poller\u2019s vehicle susceptible to view by those standing outside of the car in a myriad of ways, Poller \u201cknowingly expose[d] [the interior of the car] to the public\u201d in a manner that \u201cis not [] subject [to] Fourth Amendment protection.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Citing 2001\u2019s\u00a0Kyllo<\/em>\u00a0doesn\u2019t help either. First,\u00a0Kyllo<\/em>\u00a0dealt with a technology-enhanced search of a\u00a0house<\/em>, which has been given far more privacy protections than cars parked on public streets. Second, the tech in\u00a0Kyllo<\/em>\u00a0effectively gave officers \u201csuperhuman powers:\u201d the ability to \u201csee\u201d the interior of a house (or at least the house\u2019s warmest residents\/objects) without actually entering it. Just because a cop used a phone rather than cupping his hands around his eyes to look inside Poller\u2019s car doesn\u2019t turn this into a constitutionally unreasonable search.<\/p>\n

\n

[T]he iPhone camera here only aided the officers in viewing what they undisputably could see with their naked eyes. We therefore cannot say that the use of an iPhone camera here compared to the use of cameras and illumination devices generally, which the Supreme Court has consistently sanctioned, differs by an order of constitutional magnitude.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This conclusion is unsurprising. While it\u2019s one thing to caution against cops warrantlessly accessing months of location data (Carpenter<\/em>), it\u2019s quite another to insist officers not be allowed to do what any pedestrian passing a car\u00a0could<\/em>\u00a0do, even if most of them never\u00a0would<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Appeals Court: \u2018Plain View\u201d Also Includes Using iPhone Camera Options To See Through Tinted Car Windows<\/a><\/p>\n

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Saudi Arabia Buys Everybody\u2019s Sensitive Pok\u00e9mon Go Location Data<\/a>
Trump Claims Boycotting Tesla Is Illegal, Which It Very Much Is Not<\/a>
$42.5 Billion Broadband Grant Program Being Rewritten To Benefit Elon Musk<\/a><\/p>\n

The post Appeals Court: \u2018Plain View\u2019 Also Includes Using iPhone Camera Options To See Through Tinted Car Windows<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

As tech advances, the law mutates. In some cases (Riley<\/a>,<\/em>\u00a0Carpenter<\/a><\/em>) we get more protections. In other cases, we get fewer protections.<\/p>\n

This case dates back to 2022. Christopher Poller was a suspect Waterbury, Connecticut police officers were seeking to arrest. While surveilling his residence, officers approached his parked car. Poller wasn\u2019t in it at the time, but it was parked on the public street. Other officers approached Poller\u2019s home to arrest him.<\/p>\n

No officer had a warrant to search Poller\u2019s car, but since it was parked on the street, they didn\u2019t need one to look through the windows to see if they could spot any contraband. The problem here, though, was that the car\u2019s windows were tinted, making it extremely difficult to see anything in \u201cplain view<\/a>\u201d that could be used to support a deeper search or additional criminal charges.<\/p>\n

Well, one officer knew a neat little trick to get around window tint \u2014 his iPhone\u2019s camera. The enhancements meant to create better, clearer photos also allowed the officer to, effectively, bypass the tint and see the car\u2019s contents. Here\u2019s what that looked like in action, as pictured\u00a0in the lower court\u2019s decision<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

With the camera engaged, the officer was able to see what looked like two guns inside the car. Poller challenged this \u201csearch,\u201d claiming it violated his rights. The trial court decided it wasn\u2019t. The first factor was the car being parked on a public street. The more interesting rejection was tied to a\u00a02001 Supreme Court case<\/a>, where the nation\u2019s top court ruled\u00a0against<\/em>\u00a0law enforcement officers using thermal imaging tech to effectively \u201csearch\u201d a home for a suspect without actually having to obtain a warrant to enter it.<\/p>\n

In that case, the Supreme Court reasoned that everyday people didn\u2019t have access to powerful thermal imaging tech, therefore this search violated the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n

The trial court went the other way here, reasoning that because any iPhone owner could do the same thing to see through tinted windows, there\u2019s nothing unreasonable happening when cops do it. So, even if it wasn\u2019t literally \u201cplain view,\u201d it was close enough to plain view to be acceptable under the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n

Poller appealed, but this challenge doesn\u2019t fare well at the next judicial level. The Second Circuit Appeals Court has sided with the lower court,\u00a0ruling<\/a>\u00a0[PDF] that\u00a0enhanced<\/em>\u00a0plain view is no different than pre-iPhone plain view.<\/p>\n

Previous jurisprudence cited by the court compares the use of a cell phone to the use of a flashlight to see into a vehicle when there\u2019s no daylight to assist in the plain viewing. Poller argued the window tint itself created an \u201cexpectation of privacy\u201d in his parked vehicle. But, as the court points out, if the window tint complied with state law, some observation of the interior of the car would have been possible even\u00a0without<\/em>\u00a0the use of a cell phone. More importantly, a\u00a0subjective<\/em>\u00a0expectation of privacy is not the same thing as an\u00a0objective<\/em>\u00a0expectation of privacy.<\/p>\n

The ubiquity of the tech and the subjective nature of Poller\u2019s privacy expectations doom this evidentiary challenge.<\/p>\n

\n

The record in this case alone demonstrates a number of ways in which an officer or private citizen could see through the car\u2019s tinted windows from the public vantage point of the street: by cupping his hands around his eyes to block out external light and leaning close to the window, using an iPhone camera application, or utilizing any number of widely available digital cameras. Given that the tinted windows continued to make the interior of Poller\u2019s vehicle susceptible to view by those standing outside of the car in a myriad of ways, Poller \u201cknowingly expose[d] [the interior of the car] to the public\u201d in a manner that \u201cis not [] subject [to] Fourth Amendment protection.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Citing 2001\u2019s\u00a0Kyllo<\/em>\u00a0doesn\u2019t help either. First,\u00a0Kyllo<\/em>\u00a0dealt with a technology-enhanced search of a\u00a0house<\/em>, which has been given far more privacy protections than cars parked on public streets. Second, the tech in\u00a0Kyllo<\/em>\u00a0effectively gave officers \u201csuperhuman powers:\u201d the ability to \u201csee\u201d the interior of a house (or at least the house\u2019s warmest residents\/objects) without actually entering it. Just because a cop used a phone rather than cupping his hands around his eyes to look inside Poller\u2019s car doesn\u2019t turn this into a constitutionally unreasonable search.<\/p>\n

\n

[T]he iPhone camera here only aided the officers in viewing what they undisputably could see with their naked eyes. We therefore cannot say that the use of an iPhone camera here compared to the use of cameras and illumination devices generally, which the Supreme Court has consistently sanctioned, differs by an order of constitutional magnitude.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This conclusion is unsurprising. While it\u2019s one thing to caution against cops warrantlessly accessing months of location data (Carpenter<\/em>), it\u2019s quite another to insist officers not be allowed to do what any pedestrian passing a car\u00a0could<\/em>\u00a0do, even if most of them never\u00a0would<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Appeals Court: \u2018Plain View\u201d Also Includes Using iPhone Camera Options To See Through Tinted Car Windows<\/a><\/p>\n

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Saudi Arabia Buys Everybody\u2019s Sensitive Pok\u00e9mon Go Location Data<\/a>
Trump Claims Boycotting Tesla Is Illegal, Which It Very Much Is Not<\/a>
$42.5 Billion Broadband Grant Program Being Rewritten To Benefit Elon Musk<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As tech advances, the law mutates. In some cases (Riley,\u00a0Carpenter) we get more protections. In other cases, we get fewer protections. This case dates back to 2022. Christopher Poller was a suspect Waterbury, Connecticut police officers were seeking to arrest. While surveilling his residence, officers approached his parked car. Poller wasn\u2019t in it at the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":110445,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-110473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/iPhone-5s-smartphone-cellphone-e1478797951181-5YbOUk.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110473","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110473"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110473\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/110445"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}