Can an Iphone Be Used to Peer Inside a Tinted Car Window?
The Second Circuit (federal court) in the case of United States v. Poller decided (May 3, 2022) that the use of an Iphone's technology to better view the inside of a car with tinted windows was not unreasonable and the search of the car was constitutionally valid.
What are the Basic Rules About Searches & the 4th Amendment
To understand the Poller case holding you need to understand the basic protections of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. This means that, in general, law enforcement needs a warrant based on probable cause to search private places such as homes, private property, or personal belongings. However, there are several important exceptions and nuances to this rule:
Consent Searches: If an individual voluntarily consents to a search, police do not need a warrant.
Plain View Doctrine: If an officer is lawfully in a location and sees evidence of a crime in plain sight, they can seize it without a warrant.
Search Incident to Arrest: Police can search an individual and their immediate surroundings without a warrant if it is related to an arrest.
Exigent Circumstances: In emergency situations where evidence might be destroyed, or there's immediate danger, police can conduct a search without a warrant.
Automobile Exception: Due to the mobile nature of vehicles, police can search a car without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.
The Iphone Case Details:
On May 3, 2022, Waterbury Police Department officers had a search and seizure warrant for Christopher Poller’s residence based on a drug and weapons investigation and began a surveillance of him in anticipation of his arrest
Officers began surveillance of Poller in anticipation of his arrest. This does not mean they can go into his car without a warrant (Depends upon the warrant)
The warrant does not address whether an electronic device can be used to see places where the human eye cannot easily see.
However... the existence of an arrest warrant does make it likely that the court will find in favor of using the Iphone. After all, if they can seize his body looking using an Iphone seems like a lesser intrusion.
Observation and Actions:
Officers observed Poller park a gray Acura sedan on a public street near his residence.
Several unknown individuals approached the vehicle and exchanged items with Poller, which officers believed to be narcotics transactions.
Poller exited the car and entered his residence. (Now he is no longer in the car so the arrest warrant does not give permission to enter it. The police could have waited until he got back in but they didnt'. Instead here is what happened.
Search Warrant Execution:
A group of officers went to Poller's residence to execute the arrest warrant.
Another group of officers approached Poller’s car, which had dark tinted windows.
Inspection of the Car:
An officer used his iPhone’s camera application to look through the passenger-side car window without touching it.
He saw what he believed were two firearms between the front seats and the center console.
He repeated the process on the other side of the car and showed the image to another officer.
A second officer observed the same items and a bag containing an unknown substance.
A third officer peered into the car without touching the glass and saw:
A bag of heroin on the front seat
Two guns, including one with an extended magazine
A bag of drugs on the passenger seat
The third officer's body camera captured the interior of the car.
The car was towed, a search warrant was obtained, and officers seized all observed items from the car.
The Legal Challenge under the Fourth Amendment
At the trial court level:
Poller's Motion to Suppress Evidence
Argument:
Poller argued that officers violated his reasonable expectation of privacy by:
Using an iPhone camera to view items inside his car.
Physically touching his car, which he claimed constituted a trespassory search.
District Court Ruling:
The court denied the motion, stating that:
The use of iPhone cameras did not violate Poller's expectation of privacy because the technology is in general public use.
Physical touching of the car was not necessary for law enforcement to see the contraband inside.
2nd Circuit Appellate Decision:
Poller appealed the decision.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling:
Compared the iPhone camera application to using a flashlight to illuminate the inside of a vehicle, which does not violate the Fourth Amendment (e.g., Mollica v. Volker).
Found that tinted windows did not create a legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy.
Daniel Horowitz: The Best Criminal Defense
Daniel Horowitz, a certified criminal defense specialist, is renowned for his unparalleled expertise. With hundreds of criminal jury trials, insightful legal commentary, and extensive experience as a law professor, Daniel Horowitz is the ultimate choice for exceptional criminal defense.