Catching Mobile Phone Users

[foggypeake]

I doubt that this would ever fly here in the States due to Constitutional concerns. Will we ever be able to enforce our own laws?

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/245434/20190922/these-secret-cameras-use-ai-to-catch-drivers-using-mobile-phones.htm

[berserk87]

There are some issues with privacy of course, but the problem is rampant and I'm not sure what the answer is. In the small town where I live, typical texting use by drivers on the main drag is about 30 to 40%. It's nature's way of culling the herd, I reckon.

[d_douglas]

Wow, if that’s enforceable, that’s a game changer. Tough to enforce in most countries I suspect

[Big Dan]

Not that difficult to spot drivers texting and looking at their phones.
I see 3 or 4 a day. Don't think the police wants to spend time on that.

[AngryScientist]

its a serious, rampant, wide spread problem.

the easiest, most cost effective way to catch these folks, would be to hire a few cops who are cyclists, put them out on the road and put helmet cams on them.

when i ride, i easily see tons of drivers on cell phones, clear as day. if i had a helmet cam and recorded them for a second along with their license plate, one could easily write tickets by the dozens!

[pasadena]

NSW has had moto cops busting mobile phone abuse, and seem to take the issue more seriously than most

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHcInn9TmXs

and even undercover motos- this is hilarious and wish they did this in the US!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N1iw5Vdim8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_h_ZCseHCc

[joosttx]

a couple of years ago a cop pulled me over for using my cellphone when I was driving. The fact was I was not using it. It was dead actually. I told him that I wasnt, he said, "I was", I said, "I wasnt," and he said "are you calling me a liar?" Then I very politely showed him my dead phone which he inspected carefully and said, "well you were doing something" and let me go.

[Llewellyn]

Here in Western Australia we have had cops in stealth gear on motorbikes riding around to catch people using their mobile while they're driving. I'm not sure what their catch rate is but it must be enough to justify keeping them on the road. I say that whatever works is fine by me. Using a mobile while driving is a problem of epidemic proportions, with potentially fatal consequences. No sympathy from me for anyone who gets caught.

[Llewellyn]

NSW has had moto cops busting mobile phone abuse, and seem to take the issue more seriously than most

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHcInn9TmXs

and even undercover motos- this is hilarious and wish they did this in the US!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N1iw5Vdim8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_h_ZCseHCc

That second one is in my city!

[XXtwindad]

Here in Western Australia we have had cops in stealth gear on motorbikes riding around to catch people using their mobile while they're driving. I'm not sure what their catch rate is but it must be enough to justify keeping them on the road. I say that whatever works is fine by me. Using a mobile while driving is a problem of epidemic proportions, with potentially fatal consequences. No sympathy from me for anyone who gets caught.

Couldn't agree more. Just finished reading "A Deadly Wandering" (thx Peter P for the recommendation!) about a distracted teen driver who killed two people on a lonely stretch of highway in Utah. Very compelling reading.

The bottom line is that cell phones are altering our neural capabilities. It's a looming crisis.

[Peter P.]

Couldn't agree more. Just finished reading "A Deadly Wandering" (thx Peter P for the recommendation!)

Thanks for taking me up on my recommendation! It WAS a very interesting read.

Interesting that the NSW police use a more maneuverable bike than the ubiquitous Harley's we use in the States. If U.S. PD's used similar bikes then they could more readily perform cellphone surveillance like seen in the videos above. It must be political; heaven forbid U.S. cops use a foreign motorcycle.

In the city I work in, they get federal funding to hold twice a year cellphone "traps". They pick a certain location which lends itself to surveillance, as well as a place to park the PD cars and the perps' cars. An undercover cop feigns like he's waiting for a bus and observes traffic going by, standing near a stoplight. When he sees someone, he uses his discreet mic to radio the 100yds. ahead to the cops waiting on the side of the road. They pull them into the parking lot. It's like fishing in a barrel.

And of course, what XXtwindad learned from the book is, it's not having a handheld phone alone that is a driver distraction: Even hands-free use of a phone is hazardous as it engages parts of the brain which are required use for driving. ANY phone use while driving needs to be banned.

I like the NSW method from the videos above, even more.

[kohagen]

Distracted driving is a significant problem, and I have, unfortunately, personal experience with being on the wrong end of it.

I was riding my bike across a local main street at a green light. A driver was stopped on the other side of the intersection, waiting to make a left turn. The driver abruptly started to turn, and slammed into me. The police later confirmed that the driver was using a cell phone at the time.

Needless to say, I was not pleased. The incident report that I had to sign said that I was agitated. I told the ambulance crew that they'd be agitated if some fckr just hit you with their car.

Aside from some bruises and road rash, I was okay. However, my helmet was cracked and my Weigle was critically injured and needed surgery to replace several tubes. After an extended period of treatment and recuperation, Peter Weigle's expert work returned my bike to good health.

[Black Dog]

I find it interesting that people/courts would have the expectation of privacy while driving a car. Would people have the same expectation while walking on a public street? You are in a licensed vehicle on a public road and not in your house. I think that this is part of the engrained car culture that leads to the acceptance of so much needless death and maiming along side a near complete abdication of personal responsibility while driving on shared public roads.

[stien]

I'm definitely in support of this. I was crossing a road at a marked crosswalk on my commute an hour ago. The first van stopped, but the next two cars behind nearly hit him because they weren't paying attention.

Funny, the third car behind was police and didn't even bat an eyelash at people locking their brakes and swerving into the other lane and breakdown lane.

[commandcomm]

There is no expectation of privacy in the areas of your car that can be viewed through the windows.

In my state driving while using phone is illegal, but I doubt enforced much.

[Mikej]

Maybe we should figure out why people think they are soo important that it’s ok to endanger the general public.

[oldpotatoe]

I doubt that this would ever fly here in the States due to Constitutional concerns. Will we ever be able to enforce our own laws?

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/245434/20190922/these-secret-cameras-use-ai-to-catch-drivers-using-mobile-phones.htm

Nope...anything like this and the telecommunications lobby/industry will howl, threaten to withhold bribes to the people that make the laws..they'll site personal liberties being trampled on when all they are really concerned about is the almighty $$. Why oh WHY is it so important to communicate while DRIVING a car?? Just gotta get that last stock trade in or share that ohh so wonderful pound cake recipe??? Don't get it..

Related.could cellies be disabled when the car is moving? Certainly, quite easy..but see above..too much $ being thrown at the spineless law makers..

But nope, never happen in the good ole USofA.

[berserk87]

There is no expectation of privacy in the areas of your car that can be viewed through the windows.

In my state driving while using phone is illegal, but I doubt enforced much.

I would like to agree, but I am not sure. What are you basing this on? Is there case law that you are referencing?

[skiezo]

I am all for enforcing the no hand held devices while driving. I see it all the time. On the highway when someone is going slower than the flow of traffic you can bet they are on a device.
I think hands free through the auto's bluetooth is fine tho.

[bigbill]

The town where I live has a $285 fine for using a handheld device while driving. I know one local cop who also cycles, he pulls over about a dozen a week. It's not as bad here as I've seen in other places. I've got SYNC in my car, I can answer calls by pushing a button in my steering wheel so my phone stays in the console on the wireless charger.

[chiasticon]

I don't see the issue. they use cameras to ticket you for speeding, what's wrong with this? either one is a public law you've broken, and both endanger others' lives.

[Lewis Moon]

I find it interesting that people/courts would have the expectation of privacy while driving a car. Would people have the same expectation while walking on a public street? You are in a licensed vehicle on a public road and not in your house. I think that this is part of the engrained car culture that leads to the acceptance of so much needless death and maiming along side a near complete abdication of personal responsibility while driving on shared public roads.

That is my question too.
Is there a hierarchy of rights? Does the right to life trump the rights to privacy, free speech, the right to own, carry and use firearms?
This is a fundamental issue the US is struggling with now.

[merlinmurph]

Related.could cellies be disabled when the car is moving? Certainly, quite easy..but see above..too much $ being thrown at the spineless law makers..



Because again, there are other circumstances where the phone is moving and the user is not driving - car passengers, mass transit users, pedestrians, etc.

Yes, cell phone use by drivers is a huge problem. We all see it every day. But disabling a phone simply because it's moving is overkill. Heck, I keep my GPS off most of the time, anyway, so my phone wouldn't detect that I'm moving.

[XXtwindad]

That is my question too.
Is there a hierarchy of rights? Does the right to life trump the rights to privacy, free speech, the right to own, carry and use firearms?
This is a fundamental issue the US is struggling with now.

You bet. And let's call it for what it is: addiction. Don't think so? Imagine every person you (I) see waiting for the commuter bus to go home was smoking a cigarette instead of having their faces planted in their phones. Which is about 90 percent of the people. Would it be a health crisis then?

"A Deadly Wandering" contained numerous interviews from some of the foremost "attention" specialists and neurologists and they were quite clear: texting while driving is WORSE than drunk driving. Why is it still not criminal? With heavy penalties?

[oldpotatoe]

Because again, there are other circumstances where the phone is moving and the user is not driving - car passengers, mass transit users, pedestrians, etc.

Yes, cell phone use by drivers is a huge problem. We all see it every day. But disabling a phone simply because it's moving is overkill. Heck, I keep my GPS off most of the time, anyway, so my phone wouldn't detect that I'm moving.

NOT suggesting that.

Pretty easy to put an interock in car where driver's seat occupied and no cell use...NOT just cell 'movement'.

[Mikej]

The hypocrisy is we all do it too.

[AngryScientist]

NOT suggesting that.

Pretty easy to put an interock in car where driver's seat occupied and no cell use...NOT just cell 'movement'.

this brings up another related problem.

ever ride in an UBER or LYFT?

the driver is almost forced to fumble with their phone the whole ride. i guess they get away with this because the phone is usually in some type of cradle attached to the vent or windshield, but they are definitely needing to look at their phone while driving a lot.

[unterhausen]

the law that makes texting illegal in Pennsylvania also makes handheld cellphone conversation legal. And prohibits cities from making laws about it. Obviously, lawmakers wanted to be able to use their phones. There have been lawmaker crashes in Harrisburg because of phones. Philly had banned cellphones before that.

[commandcomm]

I would like to agree, but I am not sure. What are you basing this on? Is there case law that you are referencing?

I don’t have time right to find the case law right now. The premise is expectation of privacy. If your car is parked with your home’s curtilage, then it cannot be searched as in looking through the windows. You have an expectation of privacy with your homes curtilage. The Supreme Court has defined what is a home’s curtilage.

However, if your car is in a public place, parking lot or in the road, you have no expectation of privacy within the interior of your vehicle that can be seen through the windows. For example, you go to the grocery store and leave your weed stash on your front seat and a police officer walks by and sees it. He or she can detain your car, get a search warrant and seize the weed.

The point is if you are driving on a public road, you have no expectation of privacy with the view of your vehicle. This is why with cell phone texting laws if the cop see it you can get pulled over. Just like if the cop see you drinking alcohol in your vehicle you may get pulled over.

I used to work in law enforcement and had to know the bounds of the fourth amendment.

[XXtwindad]

I don’t have time right to find the case law right now. The premise is expectation of privacy. If your car is parked with your home’s curtilage, then it cannot be searched as in looking through the windows. You have an expectation of privacy with your homes curtilage. The Supreme Court has defined what is a home’s curtilage.

However, if your car is in a public place, parking lot or in the road, you have no expectation of privacy within the interior of your vehicle that can be seen through the windows. For example, you go to the grocery store and leave your weed stash on your front seat and a police officer walks by and sees it. He or she can detain your car, get a search warrant and seize the weed.

The point is if you are driving on a public road, you have no expectation of privacy with the view of your vehicle. This is why with cell phone texting laws if the cop see it you can get pulled over. Just like if the cop see you drinking alcohol in your vehicle you may get pulled over.

I used to work in law enforcement and had to know the bounds of the fourth amendment.

Well-written.

[ftf]

I don’t have time right to find the case law right now. The premise is expectation of privacy. If your car is parked with your home’s curtilage, then it cannot be searched as in looking through the windows. You have an expectation of privacy with your homes curtilage. The Supreme Court has defined what is a home’s curtilage.

However, if your car is in a public place, parking lot or in the road, you have no expectation of privacy within the interior of your vehicle that can be seen through the windows. For example, you go to the grocery store and leave your weed stash on your front seat and a police officer walks by and sees it. He or she can detain your car, get a search warrant and seize the weed.

The point is if you are driving on a public road, you have no expectation of privacy with the view of your vehicle. This is why with cell phone texting laws if the cop see it you can get pulled over. Just like if the cop see you drinking alcohol in your vehicle you may get pulled over.

I used to work in law enforcement and had to know the bounds of the fourth amendment.

While this is all true, a camera with AI is not a law enforcement officer, and as such this might not apply, with the same voracity. This is why those red light cameras don't carry the same penalty as when a police officer sees you run one, and why those don't really exist as much as much they used to in certain states, some states they are permitted, others they are not etc.

For example in Colorado, it's only a max 75 dollar fine, and no points off your license, it's not even reported to the DMV, where as a police officer is going to give points off and I would guess a much larger fine.

[Black Dog]

You bet. And let's call it for what it is: addiction. Don't think so? Imagine every person you (I) see waiting for the commuter bus to go home was smoking a cigarette instead of having their faces planted in their phones. Which is about 90 percent of the people. Would it be a health crisis then?

"A Deadly Wandering" contained numerous interviews from some of the foremost "attention" specialists and neurologists and they were quite clear: texting while driving is WORSE than drunk driving. Why is it still not criminal? With heavy penalties?

Exactly! It is not criminal because of car culture. We have been nudged for a long time to believe that cars are a human right and that we are not to be held responsible for anything we do with them. There is a lot of vested parties that do not want to change anything. Including everyone who is addicted to their devices and does not want to be told that they can't have access while driving. Kills more people than DUI every year yet still treated like a minor infraction.

[Black Dog]

The hypocrisy is we all do it too.

not everyone.

[merlinmurph]

the law that makes texting illegal in Pennsylvania also makes handheld cellphone conversation legal. And prohibits cities from making laws about it. Obviously, lawmakers wanted to be able to use their phones. There have been lawmaker crashes in Harrisburg because of phones. Philly had banned cellphones before that.

You cannot believe the clusterfark we have had in MA trying to get such a law passed. Still don't have a law, whereas all the states around us have a handheld device law.

[doomridesout]

While this is all true, a camera with AI is not a law enforcement officer, and as such this might not apply, with the same voracity. This is why those red light cameras don't carry the same penalty as when a police officer sees you run one, and why those don't really exist as much as much they used to in certain states, some states they are permitted, others they are not etc.

Nope. The plain view doctrine is the plain view doctrine. Doesn't matter whether it's a physical officer viewing the interior of your car from a place he can lawfully be, or an AI camera.

Case law has regularly said that there is a reduced expectation of privacy in the passenger compartment of an automobile, justifying lower Fourth Amendment protections. The rationale is that driving is a privilege, not a right, and citizens voluntarily submit themselves to a system of regulation and oversight in order to obtain that privilege. I'd find a cite for you but I'm not around LexisNexis right now.

Whether or not this makes much difference in on-the-ground enforcement is another question (and the answer is likely not), but there are not significant Constitutional bars to enacting laws with teeth on this issue.

[Lewis Moon]

not everyone.

Yep. You have to commit.

[unterhausen]

I think speed cameras violations and red light camera violations are generally civil violations because of the idea that you can't positively identify the driver. I imagine they would treat cellphone cameras the same way, just because.

I have recently realized that all the small towns surrounding the 5 boroughs in the State College have gotten rid of their police departments. This leaves all speed enforcement up to the state police, and they don't do it. The result is that people go as fast as they want without consequences. I am starting to come around on my opposition to speed cameras. Main street in my town is considered a "shortcut" by many people, only because they can speed on it. I would support a speed camera on that road. It's ridiculous that you can't walk the dog on that street without fearing for your life. We do pay State College for police, but they are not there often enough to change anyone's behavior. And the rural folks have gotten used to not worrying about speed enforcement.

[William]

I don’t have time right to find the case law right now. The premise is expectation of privacy. If your car is parked with your home’s curtilage, then it cannot be searched as in looking through the windows. You have an expectation of privacy with your homes curtilage. The Supreme Court has defined what is a home’s curtilage.

However, if your car is in a public place, parking lot or in the road, you have no expectation of privacy within the interior of your vehicle that can be seen through the windows. For example, you go to the grocery store and leave your weed stash on your front seat and a police officer walks by and sees it. He or she can detain your car, get a search warrant and seize the weed.

The point is if you are driving on a public road, you have no expectation of privacy with the view of your vehicle. This is why with cell phone texting laws if the cop see it you can get pulled over. Just like if the cop see you drinking alcohol in your vehicle you may get pulled over.

I used to work in law enforcement and had to know the bounds of the fourth amendment.


In Annapolis they were stinging drivers who could be plainly seen from the road side. I've seen a few other instances like this as well....one where an under cover officer was standing in the median in plain clothes, like the folks who stand and ask for donations at intersections, and dinging people who were on their phones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1x5BmuokI4








William

[chiasticon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1x5BmuokI4this is awesome. lots of resources involved with staffing that though, I would imagine. likely part of why you don't see it too often.

[tuscanyswe]

NSW has had moto cops busting mobile phone abuse, and seem to take the issue more seriously than most

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHcInn9TmXs

and even undercover motos- this is hilarious and wish they did this in the US!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N1iw5Vdim8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_h_ZCseHCc

in one of those, think the last video, he says " you cant even talk on your phone while driving even if using handsfree" ? where is this. That is a very harsh rule.

Im fully supportive of the idea to send out whatever works against smartphone using drivers tho. They are a risk and they are everywhere.

[unterhausen]

In Annapolis they were stinging drivers who could be plainly seen from the road side. I've seen a few other instances like this as well....one where an under cover officer was standing in the median in plain clothes, like the folks who stand and ask for donations at intersections, and dinging people who were on their phones.
This is a great idea. Cellphone use is a primary offense in most states now. People are usually so involved with their phones that they wouldn't notice if there was a uniformed police officer standing by the road. I always thought it would be pretty easy to catch people using their phones inappropriately. And with a lot of them, you could charge with some other offense even absent any cellphone related laws because they drive so poorly. Failing to stay in the lane, things like that.

We were driving somewhere to do some engineering for someone and were passed multiple times by a driver that was clearly texting. She was really scary, driving really fast, slowing down, zipping by while still staring at her phone. She finally sped off, and we didn't see her again until her car was backwards in the median after apparently having spun and hit the outside guardrail. She was okay and didn't involve any other drivers in her problems, so that was good. Not that it was guaranteed.

[ftf]

Nope. The plain view doctrine is the plain view doctrine. Doesn't matter whether it's a physical officer viewing the interior of your car from a place he can lawfully be, or an AI camera.

Case law has regularly said that there is a reduced expectation of privacy in the passenger compartment of an automobile, justifying lower Fourth Amendment protections. The rationale is that driving is a privilege, not a right, and citizens voluntarily submit themselves to a system of regulation and oversight in order to obtain that privilege. I'd find a cite for you but I'm not around LexisNexis right now.

Whether or not this makes much difference in on-the-ground enforcement is another question (and the answer is likely not), but there are not significant Constitutional bars to enacting laws with teeth on this issue.

Where did I say any of that? I said they can't be enforced the same, and they aren't. Show me where, in my stated case of Colorado, a red light camera is as good as a police officer. You can't, they aren't.

Here's a paper I quickly found about how they violate Ohio's constitution, for example.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/clevslr55&div=30&id=&page=

Another citing numerous legal issues with them:

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/rutjulp10&div=20&id=&page=

Yet another one:

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wajlp32&div=15&id=&page=

[XXtwindad]

This is a great idea. Cellphone use is a primary offense in most states now. People are usually so involved with their phones that they wouldn't notice if there was a uniformed police officer standing by the road. I always thought it would be pretty easy to catch people using their phones inappropriately. And with a lot of them, you could charge with some other offense even absent any cellphone related laws because they drive so poorly. Failing to stay in the lane, things like that.

We were driving somewhere to do some engineering for someone and were passed multiple times by a driver that was clearly texting. She was really scary, driving really fast, slowing down, zipping by while still staring at her phone. She finally sped off, and we didn't see her again until her car was backwards in the median after apparently having spun and hit the outside guardrail. She was okay and didn't involve any other drivers in her problems, so that was good. Not that it was guaranteed.

Wow. Scary. And if she had hit somebody? How is that not criminal? We are very harsh in our condemnation of drunk driving. Texting is no different.

[9tubes]

Nope...anything like this and the telecommunications lobby/industry will howl, threaten to withhold bribes to the people that make the laws..they'll site personal liberties being trampled on when all they are really concerned about is the almighty $$. Why oh WHY is it so important to communicate while DRIVING a car?? Just gotta get that last stock trade in or share that ohh so wonderful pound cake recipe??? Don't get it..

Related.could cellies be disabled when the car is moving? Certainly, quite easy..but see above..too much $ being thrown at the spineless law makers..

But nope, never happen in the good ole USofA.

I would support that. For driver's phone and especially the in-car systems. Having no internet connectivity at all and people going back to paper maps would be better than the number of deaths we have each year.

It's amazing that a few people die because of vaping and it's a national crisis, but 1000 people die each day in the U.S. because of cars and it's not important enough for the news to mention.

[Llewellyn]

The annoying thing is that even though we have the undercover cops on motorbikes, using a mobile while driving is still an epidemic - the message does not seem to be getting through.

[Jaybee]

The annoying thing is that even though we have the undercover cops on motorbikes, using a mobile while driving is still an epidemic - the message does not seem to be getting through.

That's because the message is similar to "drugs are bad for you." It's an addictive behavior - even though people know they shouldn't do it, they can't resist the dopamine hit.

[Peter P.]

Maybe we should figure out why people think they are soo important that it’s ok to endanger the general public.

The book alluded to on the first page explains it. Read "A Deadly Wandering" by Matt Richtel.

[Peter P.]

I think hands free through the auto's bluetooth is fine tho.

It's not. The issue is not just the eyes glancing at the phone display. It's how the brain reacts to the phone and at the same time is trying to manage driving a vehicle. There's no such thing as multitasking, which you'll discover if you read Matt Richtel's book, A Deadly Wandering.

[Blue Jays]

"...The issue is not just the eyes glancing at the phone display. It's how the brain reacts to the phone and at the same time is trying to manage driving a vehicle. There's no such thing as multitasking, which you'll discover if you read Matt Richtel's book, A Deadly Wandering..."

Precisely. Even engaging in a hands-free cellular conversation is entirely different than speaking with a passenger in the car or singing along with the radio, for example.

A passenger can somewhat be a "co-driver" of sorts since he or she is participating in realtime. It truly is a remarkably interesting topic of how the human brain functions.

[kppolich]

Take a picture of them, grab the license plate and look it up, put it on social media and let the shaming begin. Only way to stop it is to make it public with photos. Sad, sad sad sad, but true. I could have someone sitting shotgun in my car every morning on the 4 mile drive to work here and capture 50% of the other drivers texting and driving at 45mph at 9am and 4pm.

[Peter P.]

this is awesome. lots of resources involved with staffing that though, I would imagine. likely part of why you don't see it too often.

The costs are usually subsidized if not paid in full by federal grants. These monies may be available multiple times per year. So it may cover overtime costs if they have to ask personnel to work extra shifts to fulfill this duty.

For instance, the cop directing traffic around road work or tree trimming is paid for by the contractor, and cops are usually asked, based on seniority, if they want the OT.

[Peter P.]

Duplicate post. Deleted.

[Black Dog]

That's because the message is similar to "drugs are bad for you." It's an addictive behavior - even though people know they shouldn't do it, they can't resist the dopamine hit.

This. The problem is not texting while driving. It's driving while addicted. So many are fully addicted to devices. You can't expect most people to just stop without being forced to, somehow.

[doomridesout]

Where did I say any of that? I said they can't be enforced the same, and they aren't. Show me where, in my stated case of Colorado, a red light camera is as good as a police officer. You can't, they aren't.

Here's a paper I quickly found about how they violate Ohio's constitution, for example.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/clevslr55&div=30&id=&page=

Another citing numerous legal issues with them:

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/rutjulp10&div=20&id=&page=

Yet another one:

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wajlp32&div=15&id=&page=

I'm unable to see those Heinonline papers from behind the paywall, but it's true it's much more complicated than I stated. The use of devices that enhance the vision or perception of officers and are not in common use by the public would be more likely to qualify as a "search" triggering the protections of the Fourth Amendment. If cops are using some kind of cell-phone sniffer or want to do forensics on your phone to figure this out, that's certainly a search. It's just that when a cop is standing at an intersection looking into your car as you pass by without being hailed or stopped, that's fairly settled as constitutionally permissible.