Do police have the right to look in a parked car at night w/flashlight in Michigan?

[Eliyahu Rooff]

Just asking this for someone I know that encountered this situation. A
police officer walked by her parked car while she was inside a
laundromat doing laundry. He looked into her car through the window
using a flashlight, due to it being night time. Does a police officer
have the right to do this without first getting the permission of the
owner of the vehicle?

While courts have held that the word "automobile" is not a talisman before
which the protections of the Constitution vanish, the law under the above
circumstances may vary from one state to another. Here in Washington, our
courts have held that there is no expectation of privacy for articles left
in plain sight, and that the use of a flashlight at night does not
invalidate that rule. OTOH, they have recently barred the use of GPS devices
and infrared sensing equipment without a warrant, as both devices extend the
search beyond what a normal person could see from a legitimate place of
vantage.

Eliyahu

[P.J. Hartman]

Just asking this for someone I know that encountered this situation. A
police officer walked by her parked car while she was inside a
laundromat doing laundry. He looked into her car through the window
using a flashlight, due to it being night time. Does a police officer
have the right to do this without first getting the permission of the
owner of the vehicle? I figured it would not be and would be
considered an illegal search, but I'm not entirely sure since I know
there are a lot of exceptions due to it being a car.

It's not illegal for the officer to look into a vehicle which is
parked, or moving, or one which has been stopped for a violation.
Only if the officer wishes to search the vehicle for items that are
not within plain sight, would probable cause, owner consent, or a
search warrant be necessary.

The "search" you describe could easily be attibuted to the officer's
diligence in pursing public safety. If someone had entered the car
and hidden in the back seat, wouldn't you rather the officer discover
that person, rather than have your wife attacked?

But hey, I'm no lawyer.

[Jerry Stratton]

Post by P.J. Hartman
The "search" you describe could easily be attibuted to the officer's
diligence in pursing public safety. If someone had entered the car
and hidden in the back seat, wouldn't you rather the officer discover
that person, rather than have your wife attacked?

No. "If someone had entered the house and hidden in the back room,
wouldn't you rather the officer discover that person, rather than have
your wife attacked?"

Jerry

[P.J. Hartman]

Post by Jerry Stratton

Post by P.J. Hartman
The "search" you describe could easily be attibuted to the officer's
diligence in pursing public safety. If someone had entered the car
and hidden in the back seat, wouldn't you rather the officer discover
that person, rather than have your wife attacked?

No. "If someone had entered the house and hidden in the back room,
wouldn't you rather the officer discover that person, rather than have
your wife attacked?"

I don't recall any point in my response where I made any comparison
between a car and a residence.

Attackers hiding in cars is not an unknown risk; many times shopping
mall security services are specifically tasked to look for such
occurences.

[Jerry Stratton]

Post by P.J. Hartman

Post by Jerry Stratton

Post by P.J. Hartman
The "search" you describe could easily be attibuted to the officer's
diligence in pursing public safety. If someone had entered the car
and hidden in the back seat, wouldn't you rather the officer discover
that person, rather than have your wife attacked?

No. "If someone had entered the house and hidden in the back room,
wouldn't you rather the officer discover that person, rather than have
your wife attacked?"

I don't recall any point in my response where I made any comparison
between a car and a residence.

You asked whether a person's concern about a search without probable
cause would be overridden if there had at random been a "good" outcome.
*All* searches can easily be attributed to an officer's diligence in
pursuing public safety; most that I've seen reported are so attributed.
That some number of times an officer's search will result in criminals
being found at random does not itself justify a search. Such an argument
will justify *any* search, and does not stop at cars.

You may wish to stick to the question of whether or not there is a
reasonable expectation of privacy in the back seat of a car. That is
probably an easier answer, though some teenagers may disagree with you.

Post by P.J. Hartman
Attackers hiding in cars is not an unknown risk; many times shopping
mall security services are specifically tasked to look for such
occurences.

Attackers hiding in apartments and houses is also not an unknown risk.
Many times apartments will be gated specifically to stop such
occurrences.

Jerry

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Post by Jerry Stratton

Post by P.J. Hartman
The "search" you describe could easily be attibuted to the officer's
diligence in pursing public safety. If someone had entered the car
and hidden in the back seat, wouldn't you rather the officer discover
that person, rather than have your wife attacked?

No. "If someone had entered the house and hidden in the back room,
wouldn't you rather the officer discover that person, rather than have
your wife attacked?"

My answer to both questions is emphatically yes. I'd much rather she be
the victim of an illegal search than be the victim of a physical attack.

That does not mean that I find illegal searches to be acceptable.

[David W.]

Just asking this for someone I know that encountered this situation. A
police officer walked by her parked car while she was inside a
laundromat doing laundry. He looked into her car through the window
using a flashlight, due to it being night time. Does a police officer
have the right to do this without first getting the permission of the
owner of the vehicle? I figured it would not be and would be
considered an illegal search, but I'm not entirely sure since I know
there are a lot of exceptions due to it being a car.

Although MI could be different, in most states, anything and officer can
see from public property, or anyplace he can legally be, is fair game.
Anything he can see in a car without entering the car does not constitute
an illegal search. If there's contraband in a trunk and the car owner lifts
the trunk lid, whatever is in plain view inside is fair game. If an office
knocks on your front door and you open the door, if he sees something
inside from the open door that is evidence of a crime, etc. he can legally
investigate.

[Barry Gold]

Just asking this for someone I know that encountered this situation. A
police officer walked by her parked car while she was inside a
laundromat doing laundry. He looked into her car through the window
using a flashlight, due to it being night time. Does a police officer
have the right to do this without first getting the permission of the
owner of the vehicle? I figured it would not be and would be
considered an illegal search, but I'm not entirely sure since I know
there are a lot of exceptions due to it being a car.

It's almost certainly OK for the police officer to do that. Cars do
not have the same "expectation of privacy" that houses do. And if
something incriminating or even suspicious(*) is left in plain sight
in the car, the cop can use that as "probable cause" to do a more
thorough search.

(*) For example, a package of white powder. It might be baking soda,
but a cop is entitled to assume it *might* be illegal drugs.

Yeah, it strikes me as weird too. If the car was parked at night in a
dark area, then I wouldn't think things are in "plain sight" if you
have to use a flashlight to see them, but the courts ruled otherwise.

[Stan Brown]

In article <***@4ax.com> in
misc.legal.moderated, Barry Gold <***@nyx.net> wrote:
[OP asked about officer shining a flashlight into car windows at
night]

Post by Barry Gold
It's almost certainly OK for the police officer to do that. Cars do
not have the same "expectation of privacy" that houses do.

How is a house different? If an officer on the sidewalk looks
through my front window and sees something illegal, that's not an
illegal search, is it?

Post by Barry Gold
And if
something incriminating or even suspicious(*) is left in plain sight
in the car, the cop can use that as "probable cause" to do a more
thorough search.

Isn't it the same with a house?

[Gerald Clough]

Post by Stan Brown
[OP asked about officer shining a flashlight into car windows at
night]

Post by Barry Gold
It's almost certainly OK for the police officer to do that. Cars do
not have the same "expectation of privacy" that houses do.

How is a house different? If an officer on the sidewalk looks
through my front window and sees something illegal, that's not an
illegal search, is it?

Yes. A house is different. But the real issue is whether or not the
officer is lawfully where he is when he sees. The difference in a house
is that there is a high degree of consern about unwarranted intrusions
into the privacy of a home. In your example, the officer is on the
sidewalk. If you left your windows open with contraband in full view of
anyone on the sidewalk, you gave over any reasonable expectation that ti
wouldn't be seen. The looking and seeing isn't a search, even if he
improperly slips up and peers in the bedroom window, but standing in a
place that visitors aren't expected to go to see in the window is an
unreasonable intrusion, and any warrant based on that observation is
invalid. The warrant based on the view from the sidewalk is valid. It
could be invalidated by the use of telescopic or image enhancing devices.

While it may seem like the flashlight in the car example might be a
problem, it has been specifically ruled otherwise.

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Barry Gold
And if
something incriminating or even suspicious(*) is left in plain sight
in the car, the cop can use that as "probable cause" to do a more
thorough search.

Isn't it the same with a house?

Only to the degree that it can be seen from a publicly traveled place,
which includes the normal position of a visitor at the front door. And,
aside from the practical physical differences of cars and houses, the
home rates a higher degree of protection.

And beware of mixing "plain view" into the discussion. That term refers
to seizures. Probable cause for a search can bring in many very
different factors, including special knowledge and many points of
observation and circumstance.

[Eliyahu Rooff]

Post by Stan Brown
[OP asked about officer shining a flashlight into car windows at
night]

Post by Barry Gold
It's almost certainly OK for the police officer to do that. Cars do
not have the same "expectation of privacy" that houses do.

How is a house different? If an officer on the sidewalk looks
through my front window and sees something illegal, that's not an
illegal search, is it?

The biggest difference is that unless your house is located immediately
adjacent to the sidewalk and has no drapes or blinds, you don't expect that
passersby will be able to pause and examine the contents of the house and
any activities taking place inside with any detail. OTOH, anyone who parks a
car on the street and assumes that items set in plain sight will be ignored
or invisible to others is living in a fantasy world.

In legal terms, the fact is that our courts have held that there's a greater
expectation of privacy within a home than within a vehicle. You (usually)
don't live in a car, and it's not a dwelling place, although there are
certainly greater expectations of privacy in the living areas of a motor
home or travel trailer that will usually equal those of a conventional home.
Let's face it... anyone who leaves incriminating evidence in plain sight in
a car or truck deserves to get busted.

Eliyahu

[Paul Robinson]

Post by Barry Gold

Just asking this for someone I know that encountered this situation. A
police officer walked by her parked car while she was inside a
laundromat doing laundry. He looked into her car through the window
using a flashlight, due to it being night time. Does a police officer
have the right to do this without first getting the permission of the
owner of the vehicle? I figured it would not be and would be
considered an illegal search, but I'm not entirely sure since I know
there are a lot of exceptions due to it being a car.

It's almost certainly OK for the police officer to do that. Cars do
not have the same "expectation of privacy" that houses do. And if
something incriminating or even suspicious(*) is left in plain sight
in the car, the cop can use that as "probable cause" to do a more
thorough search.
(*) For example, a package of white powder. It might be baking soda,
but a cop is entitled to assume it *might* be illegal drugs.

I would disagree here. There is no probable cause to presume anything based
merely on the presence of some "white powder" as it could be anything, even a
bag
of soap powder someone took to do a small load of laundry.

--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."

[Eliyahu Rooff]

Post by Paul Robinson

Post by Barry Gold
And if
something incriminating or even suspicious(*) is left in plain sight
in the car, the cop can use that as "probable cause" to do a more
thorough search.
(*) For example, a package of white powder. It might be baking soda,
but a cop is entitled to assume it *might* be illegal drugs.

I would disagree here. There is no probable cause to presume anything based
merely on the presence of some "white powder" as it could be anything, even a
bag
of soap powder someone took to do a small load of laundry.

It depends upon the circumstances, the location and the method of packaging.
Think "duck test." If disputed, it'll usually result in the court making a
finding of fact one way or the other, deciding if the officer had a
reasonable basis for any assumptions he might have made at the scene. It'll
take some fancy arguments to convince a court that someone carries his
laundry soap in teaspoon-sized quantities, packaged in separate baggies,
even if he doesn't have any laundry with him and is miles from the nearest
laundromat.

Eliyahu

[Dan Evans]

Just asking this for someone I know that encountered this situation. A
police officer walked by her parked car while she was inside a
laundromat doing laundry. He looked into her car through the window
using a flashlight, due to it being night time. Does a police officer
have the right to do this without first getting the permission of the
owner of the vehicle?

I'm curious. If your spouse or child had been bound and gagged in the
back seat, and bleeding from multiple knife wounds, and the police
officer had NOT looked into the car as he walked by, would you have
complained about it?


**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.

[firstinitiallastname AT texas DOT net]

Just asking this for someone I know that encountered this situation. A
police officer walked by her parked car while she was inside a
laundromat doing laundry. He looked into her car through the window
using a flashlight, due to it being night time. Does a police officer
have the right to do this without first getting the permission of the
owner of the vehicle? I figured it would not be and would be
considered an illegal search, but I'm not entirely sure since I know
there are a lot of exceptions due to it being a car.
Thanks

The most coherent opinions I've seen follow the argument that peering
into a car through the windows is not a search - therefore, "plain
view", as used to justify seizure, is not an issue. That's really the
key to thinking about this. The peculiarities of search law don't come
into play when the officer was lawfully standing beside the car and when
a common visible light device was used because of the dark of night. The
owner wouldn't have any reasonable expectation that no one would look
into the car.

The State's problem in these cases has usually not been the looking, but
the warrantless seizure where no exigence could be shown.

[Eliyahu Rooff]

"firstinitiallastname AT texas DOT net" <"firstinitiallastname AT texas DOT

Post by firstinitiallastname AT texas DOT net
The peculiarities of search law don't come
into play when the officer was lawfully standing beside the car and when
a common visible light device was used because of the dark of night. The
owner wouldn't have any reasonable expectation that no one would look
into the car.
The State's problem in these cases has usually not been the looking, but
the warrantless seizure where no exigence could be shown.
--

There are exceptions. The "plain view" doctrine allows warrantless seizures
when it is immediately apparent that what the officer sees is contraband,
the instrumentalities of a crime, or evidence of a crime.

Eliyahu

[Gerald Clough]

Post by Eliyahu Rooff
There are exceptions. The "plain view" doctrine allows warrantless seizures
when it is immediately apparent that what the officer sees is contraband,
the instrumentalities of a crime, or evidence of a crime.

But the point is that plain view is not applicable in terms of seizure
until you have lawful access to the place. A object may be in plain view
of the officer standing outside, but that is not the same "plain view"
with regard to seizure.

In the original example, the officer may see something through the car's
window and may recognize, to a probable cause level, that it is
contraband. This doesn't not automatically mean he can open the door and
get it. Inside the car and outside the car are two very different
places. His presence outside the car is lawful. His intrusion into the
car must be under warrant or must be based on exigent circumstance that
makes it unreasonable for him to obtain a warrant. With an unoccupied
car, there is no exigency. (Barring other peculiar circumstance.) The
car may be secured by any number of means, while a warrant is procured.

An occupied vehicle will likely be a different matter. The probaly cause
for the search is the viewing from outside. The search is conducted
without a warrant, since the operator will obviously drive away or
escape. Plain view doesn't come into it. A search is a search, and the
seizures of what could be plainly seen from outside and what is also
found under the seat are products of the same search.

Where exigency exists the search and subsequent seizure may prodeed,
but the seizure won't depend on the doctrine of "plain view". "Plain
view" in seizure law is best understood by thinking about situations
that do not involve a search. For example, an officer invited into a
home seeing marijuana or stolen property lying in his view. There is no
warrant and no search. (Although a search may follow, depending on the
fasts.)

[James Alexander]

Just asking this for someone I know that encountered this
situation. A police officer walked by her parked car while she
was inside a laundromat doing laundry. He looked into her car
through the window using a flashlight, due to it being night
time. Does a police officer have the right to do this without
first getting the permission of the owner of the vehicle?

Yes, he can.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Post by Eliyahu Rooff

Just asking this for someone I know that encountered this situation. A
police officer walked by her parked car while she was inside a
laundromat doing laundry. He looked into her car through the window
using a flashlight, due to it being night time. Does a police officer
have the right to do this without first getting the permission of the
owner of the vehicle?

While courts have held that the word "automobile" is not a talisman before
which the protections of the Constitution vanish, the law under the above
circumstances may vary from one state to another. Here in Washington, our
courts have held that there is no expectation of privacy for articles left
in plain sight, and that the use of a flashlight at night does not
invalidate that rule. OTOH, they have recently barred the use of GPS devices
and infrared sensing equipment without a warrant, as both devices extend the
search beyond what a normal person could see from a legitimate place of
vantage.

I understand the part about infrared detectors, but how did GPS devices
get mixed into the issues in controversy? All a GPS does is tell you
where you are.

[Eliyahu Rooff]

Post by Fred the Red Shirt

Post by Eliyahu Rooff

Just asking this for someone I know that encountered this situation. A
police officer walked by her parked car while she was inside a
laundromat doing laundry. He looked into her car through the window
using a flashlight, due to it being night time. Does a police officer
have the right to do this without first getting the permission of the
owner of the vehicle?

While courts have held that the word "automobile" is not a talisman before
which the protections of the Constitution vanish, the law under the above
circumstances may vary from one state to another. Here in Washington, our
courts have held that there is no expectation of privacy for articles left
in plain sight, and that the use of a flashlight at night does not
invalidate that rule. OTOH, they have recently barred the use of GPS devices
and infrared sensing equipment without a warrant, as both devices extend the
search beyond what a normal person could see from a legitimate place of
vantage.

I understand the part about infrared detectors, but how did GPS devices
get mixed into the issues in controversy? All a GPS does is tell you
where you are.

You haven't been keeping up with the technology...:-) Most of them now can
tell you not just where you are, but where you've been and when you were
there, as well as how long you paused at a location. When the police attach
one to your vehicle without your knowledge, it's like having a cop in the
back seat of the car, 24/7.

Eliyahu