One even tried to open the door of one

They were not. The cops are allowed to look at things visible to anyone in public, including at parked cars. Had they opened the doors or moved anything that would be another thing, but cops are allowed to be in public places and see things, just as anyone is.

Exactly what I was saying…

That’s same as I was saying! Kids , out of trouble,playing an innocent pick up game . Didn’t see any papers, didn’t hear rights or charge There’s need to determine way people can refuse. Some pushback. ICE on private property, vandalizes vehicles. All I’m seeing is racial profiling !!

It's fine, plain view doctrine applies.

By definition: [...] plain view during a lawful observation. Not what was happening in the video. Trump's gestapo was looking for reasons and bounty bonuses. If you have to look into a vehicle home, purse, shopping bag, or anything like that, it's not observation, it's profiling.

Plain view requires that the officers be somewhere they are lawfully present. I don't see anything in this video suggesting that they weren't. Looking into a container like a purse or shopping bag requires probable cause, with or without a warrant exception, even if the officer is lawfully present.

It isn’t fine.

Not with flashlights though right.

Florida v Riley allowed police to use a fucking helicopter to look in your backyard. I think a flashlight is fine.

They’re peering into 2nd story windows with fucking drones now

No, illumination does not negate the plain view doctrine or convert a permissible "search" to an unconstitutional one.

Good to know. I thought about plain view but thought the flashlight violated that. Thank you!

Yeah, courts have already ruled on flashlights. It really comes down to expectations of privacy and the common usage of what police use to enhance perception. Flashlights are common, and people don't generally leave stuff out in their cars after dark with the expectation that no one can see them.

Good to know. Put that in my mind. Again thank you!

The flashlight made it illegal

The flashlight doesn't change anything. I elaborated on that closer to the top of the thread.

I get that it's lawful but it shouldn't be . It should be a violation of Constitutional rights. If you need a flashlight you're looking for more than what's in plain sight

We can certainly disagree about whether the courts' reasoning has been sound. But for the sake of argument, if a blinding sun is an officer's eyes and he shield's his eyes to observe the activity on the sidewalk across the street, is the activity across the street in plain sight?

It will be if you walk across the street

Yeah, but that's not my question. Is the activity across the street "in plain sight" if an officer has to shield his eyes from the glaring sun to observe it?

The plain view doctrine requires that evidence be immediately apparent and observable without enhancement. If an officer must shield their eyes to overcome blinding sunlight, then the item is not truly “plainly visible.” ...

Visibility depends on altering natural perception conditions. Shielding the eyes functions like a visual aid, similar in principle to using a flashlight at night or polarized glasses,it changes the officer’s perception beyond what is normally available to the naked eye under the existing conditions.

The test, by the way, for plain view isn't "what is normally available to the naked eye under existing conditions" but more accurately what is normally available to ordinary citizens. That's because it's the latter that sets a person's reasonable expectations of privacy.

Ok, so you just disagree with where the courts have come down. I can tell you that the defense "the officer had to shield his eye from the sun in order to observe the gun in my client's hands" would not only be a losing argument for exclusion legally, but absurd to the sensibilities a jury as well.

If you need a flashlight it's not in plain sight. Its an unlawful search a violation of Constitutional rights.

That's categorically false. This was discussed in a bit more detail further up this thread. I suggest you weigh in there to dispute anything discussed.

Does not make it right or a good standard. I can peak in your windows from the sidewalk. Is that okay?

Yes it is okay under the law. In fact if my property is not posted no trespassing you can come in my yard and look in my windows under the law. If it is in plain view they are not breaking the law.

Sure. Whether looking into cars constitutes an unlawful search is one discussion(the one I was trying to have). Whether the police should as a matter of policy or practice is another. Honestly, the practice doesn't personally bother me and I think is distinguishable from looking into people's homes.

sounds about white

Unless your car is your home.

So basically you advocate for obey in advance

I don't know where you got that from, but I do know it's not from anything I said.

Small man, smaller penis. You'd fit right in with those losers playing grown-up in their costumes, Steven.

Did you mean to dispute something I said?

I meant to point out how ridiculous you sound to be defending law enforcement at this point in time and in this particular case. And you did so while being an old bald man trying to compensate with facial hair to desperately demonstrate some degree of virility. Combined, you were so asking for it.

Your armchair psychoanalyses ring like middle school antics revolving around genitalia and physical appearances. You have yet to outgrow these apparently, but they are certainly a bit more clever, I give you that. The thing is they still do not dispute a word I said.

Until they come for you.

You… are okay with people looking through the windows of your home…? That’s really fucking weird, bro.