PA: No REP against use of a light transmittance meter for window tint

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy that an officer’s can’t use a light transmittance meter on window tint that is plainly visible. “Nonetheless, application of the window tint meter here was not unreasonable in light of the authority granted to officers pursuant to § 6308(b). It is true that performing this test may occasionally involve manipulation of the glass to be tested; however, that is not materially different than opening a car door in order to verify a VIN or raising a hatch to confirm an engine number. See, e.g., New York v. Class …” Commonwealth v. Castaneira, 2024 PA Super 178, 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 342 (Aug. 12, 2024). (What about opening the car door to measure?)

The DUI advice of penalties and rights for refusing a BAC test doesn’t violate due process. Nash v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 2024 Minn. App. LEXIS 365 (Aug. 2, 2024).*

Defendant’s stop was supported by both reasonable suspicion of a traffic offense and probable cause based on collective knowledge because of defendant’s prior activities reported to the officer making the stop. United States v. Hall, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141831 (E.D. Ky. June 24, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141045 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 8, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.