Police Moderator
Global Moderator
On The Job and Tangled Up In Blue
Posts: 9,821
|
Post by Police Moderator on Sept 29, 2012 6:09:37 GMT -5
License plate readers alarm Last November, Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Hammond unveiled his Hamilton County Sheriff’s Foundation. The foundation is a nonprofit outfit managed by the Community Foundation of Greater Chattanooga that gives the sheriff an opportunity to raise funds to purchase equipment, provide training and initiate programs not covered by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department’s taxpayer-funded budget. So far Hammond, who says creating “a sustainable foundation” by the time he retires is a primary goal, has raised about $150,000. If a fundraising luncheon in November is successful, the sheriff plans to employ a dedicated fundraiser for the foundation to bring in even bigger bucks. Hammond hopes to buy a number of Automatic License Plate Readers through the foundation. The license plate readers are automatic cameras that can be mounted on telephone poles, under bridges and on the hoods of police patrol cars. The majority of license plate readers, however, are mobile, snapping photos at a rate of 3,000 plates per hour from inside a police cruiser. The readers then send all information to a database managed by the state or local police department. There are plenty of success stories. For example, the Tennessee Highway Patrol uses their 24 readers to regularly reacquire stolen vehicles and arrest wanted criminals. So what’s the problem? The readers are a threat to privacy. Read more: times free press
What happened to 'photography is not a crime', a mantra so often correctly expressed by those who say there is no expectation of privacy on a public street, or public access venue (Which is very true and almost always held up by the SCOTUS?) just when it suits their purposes? Is the Times Free Press editorial staff now advocating not allowing their photographers to capture images, and then store them forever, even though the photographs were taken legally?
How can there be a threat to privacy when there is no legal expectation of privacy? What's the difference in these scanners and the video recorders in almost all police cruisers now? The videos/photographs captured and stored by private entities where there is no expectation of privacy are to be outlawed also?
These scanners capture nothing that is not in plain view and/or on a public street and even the TFP admits they are very effective.
"Since the readers make a record of where and when a car is spotted, they can be used to monitor the activities and the whereabouts of individual drivers."
Really? So do field notes recorded, by hand, by LEOs. Are those an invasion of privacy?
Much ado about nothing here, folks.
And I agree that public/private partnerships are a good thing and the TFP will be able to stringently monitor this foundation under the FOIA. And even take photographs of the meetings!Almost Half Of All Americans Support Domestic Surveillance Drones
Steve Watson
Sept 28, 2012 Close to half of Americans say they are in favour of police departments deploying surveillance drones domestically. According to a survey conducted by The Associated Press and The National Constitution Center, 44 percent support the idea of police using unmanned aerial vehicles to track suspects and carry out investigations. Only 36 percent said that they “strongly oppose” or “somewhat oppose” police use of drones, according to the survey. The poll also found that only one third of Americans say they are significantly concerned about their privacy being eroded by the adoption of drones by police forces throughout the country. Read more: info wars * * Source |
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Sept 29, 2012 15:55:48 GMT -5
Nice.
Ft. Oglethorpe tears ASS up with theirs!
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Oct 1, 2012 7:50:50 GMT -5
As far as the license plate readers go, I have no problem with their use as long as license plates that don't match up with any reported stolen cars or with as belonging to someone with a warrant out for them are not stored any longer than it takes to check them against the database. I would be troubled if all tags along with the location and time they were recorded were kept for any length of time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 10:36:44 GMT -5
Curious. Why don't I hear all the screams about not going to Fort Oglethorpe like we have heard about not going to Red Bankistan because of the (soon to be withdrawn) traffic cameras?
|
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Oct 1, 2012 17:14:30 GMT -5
Nobody wants to visit Fort Oglethorpe.
|
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 15, 2012 22:19:53 GMT -5
As far as the license plate readers go, I have no problem with their use as long as license plates that don't match up with any reported stolen cars or with as belonging to someone with a warrant out for them are not stored any longer than it takes to check them against the database. I would be troubled if all tags along with the location and time they were recorded were kept for any length of time. What would be the the point of spending money to gather information only to destroy the gathered information? IE A crime is comitted. A witness says "I saw a grey toyota leave at a high rate of speed from that area". The cops check the databases from that day and only one grey toyota shows up. They call the DMV, who provides them photos. The cops show the photos to the witness and he says "That's the guy!!!" Why shouldn't more science and technolgy be interjected into law enforcement? If we want a higher degree of certainity of who is convicted, then why not? |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Oct 16, 2012 10:09:10 GMT -5
As far as the license plate readers go, I have no problem with their use as long as license plates that don't match up with any reported stolen cars or with as belonging to someone with a warrant out for them are not stored any longer than it takes to check them against the database. I would be troubled if all tags along with the location and time they were recorded were kept for any length of time. What would be the the point of spending money to gather information only to destroy the gathered information? IE A crime is comitted. A witness says "I saw a grey toyota leave at a high rate of speed from that area". The cops check the databases from that day and only one grey toyota shows up. They call the DMV, who provides them photos. The cops show the photos to the witness and he says "That's the guy!!!" Why shouldn't more science and technolgy be interjected into law enforcement? If we want a higher degree of certainity of who is convicted, then why not? Here's a hypothetical for you, police want to find something against someone so they run their license plate through the database to see where the person's car has been at what times. Then they go through their list of open crimes to try to correlate this person's movement to the occurrence of a crime. It might not be enough to use in court but it does give them a reason to question him on the matter and bring a little grief his way. The database won't contain car descriptions, as you suggested, only license plate information so the information will do little good for the scenario you posted. |
|
Police Moderator
Global Moderator
On The Job and Tangled Up In Blue
Posts: 9,821
|
Post by Police Moderator on Oct 16, 2012 15:46:07 GMT -5
In most cases, the database will contain car descriptions as the registration provide year, make, model and color (As long as the tag is still on the car it was registered to.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Oct 21, 2012 9:01:57 GMT -5
In most cases, the database will contain car descriptions as the registration provide year, make, model and color (As long as the tag is still on the car it was registered to.) Still, I'm seeing way too many scenarios that this could present the wrong person as a suspect. There were actually two grey toyotas both being driven by average looking men. The real culprit turned off before the reader while the innocent guy drives through the reader. The witness then misidentifies the guy. Actually you are more likely to have dozens of grey toyotas resulting in the witness looking at dozens of photos with a greater probability of misidentification. To get back to the point you throw away the data after scanning it for wants and warrants because to keep it after that is an invasion of privacy. There is no expectation of privacy in public but there is a reasonable expectation that the government is not going to keep a record of your comings and goings unless there is probable cause to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by senior on Oct 25, 2012 19:15:22 GMT -5
jit, PM just provided the basic reason that government must not b e allowed keep the scan info.
The government can and does combine the public information with what is or should be private information. Additionally the government has the resources and the incentive to use that information combination to harass the general public.
"Why did you park outside a known drug/gambling/prostitution house for 15 min Jul. 6, 2012?
All the questioning just because the driver had a long ago forgotten flat that had to be changed. But since the accused cannot remember and prove the reason of innocense, they are arrested and face charges.
No liability accrues to the crime fighters for not closing down the house of vice. The only liability accrues to the hapless driver who failed to video and preserve the evidence of innocence.
PM wants to compare the independent citizen taking pictures or video to that of the corrupt enforcers, ever seeking more liberties for the gang in blue, black or sometimes khaki. Perhaps that might work IF the private citizen is granted the same prosecution powers and immunities when exercising those powers against the government enforcers.
Citizens would have to be granted presumed authority and the police would have to yield to the declaration of arrest or face enhanced penalties. Real, not just paper tiger, toothless tigers.
Citizens would have to have access to jails that would incarcerate without question and presume that the citizen acted in good faith.
|
|
Police Moderator
Global Moderator
On The Job and Tangled Up In Blue
Posts: 9,821
|
Post by Police Moderator on Oct 25, 2012 20:05:49 GMT -5
All the information being discussed here is public (According to the SCOTUS) recorded, and saved, were there is no expectation of privacy?
Cops are not ever "independent citizens?"
You've demanded that the shoe fit, so you're having trouble wearing it? I am clear on your double standard.
|
|
JC
Full Forumite
No Messiah
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by JC on Oct 25, 2012 21:14:50 GMT -5
Not when on the job. When on the job, cops are government officials and are bound by the 4th Amendment by way of 14th Amendment. There is a fine line between "no exception of privacy" and unreasonable search and seizure. It is reasonable to record and store "personal" vehicle information with cameras of those running red lights or speeding. It is not reasonable to record and store information of every single vehicle that goes through a red light. It is reasonable to record and store vehicle information of those at/in front of known drug houses. It is not reasonable to record and store vehicle information of cars at every house. Far as tag scanners go, the more and more I think about them, the less nd less I like them. Sure, no one wants any vehicles on the road that are not registered and/or insured. And I like the thought of cops being able to find criminals with warrants with no more effort than driving down a busy road, assuming that info ties to tag records. But, this is not 1940's Germany. Cops Government officials scanning every vehicle on the roadways is horrifyingly similar to Nazis asking us for 'zee papers just to make sure we're all legal. With a little Presumption of Innocence thrown in for good measure, which has been law standard since 1890 in the US (pre-dates our use by unknown centuries). What next? Government issued RFID chips in every vehicle, tag, license or implanted on every person and scanned at every red light? No thanks. And this post is brought to you by one whom supports DUI and similar checkpoints. I am not one to throw around the word "Nazi" for every police interaction.  |
|
Police Moderator
Global Moderator
On The Job and Tangled Up In Blue
Posts: 9,821
|
Post by Police Moderator on Oct 25, 2012 22:28:14 GMT -5
Why? Constitutionally?
Why? Constitutionally?
How, by any stretch of one's imagination, is this likened to Nazi Germany? No cameras determine race, sex, religious affiliation or age?
When one brings out the Nazi argument when trying to make a point, I have learned those folks usually have no point.
So, your point?
|
|
|
|
Post by senior on Oct 25, 2012 23:03:38 GMT -5
PM
|
|
Police Moderator
Global Moderator
On The Job and Tangled Up In Blue
Posts: 9,821
|
Post by Police Moderator on Oct 26, 2012 0:00:40 GMT -5
Care to point out where such statements were made?
Yes, and rightfully so. And guess who investigated, charged, prosecuted and convicted these wrong cops? You? Cops? I'll let the readers fill in the blanks.
"Ordinary? I think not. That is what differentiates me from you.
The only one demanding a 'privilege' is you, senior.
|
|
JC
Full Forumite
No Messiah
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by JC on Oct 26, 2012 0:14:02 GMT -5
Senior, cops are not bound by the Constitution 24/7. They have the same right protections as everyone else. Correct. You know those rules for making sure road blocks are constitutional? Fine line and all? Same thing here. Though, I am not aware of a case of tag readers going to the SCOTUS. Still kind of a new thing in law enforcement far as I know. Private parking enforcement has used them for a lot longer... but they're not bound by the 4th Amendment. The reasons why is different? No shit? Seriously? Really!?! Yer yanking my chain!  Seriously now, you see no similarity with a German officer saying "let me see zee papers" to everyone he sees and an officer saying "I am going to take everyones' papers electronically" to everyone he sees? The differences in end result is irrelevant. Looking at everyones' papers is the part that matters and the part that has been addressed by SCOUTS and ACLU a number of times. SCOUTS has ruled that cops can not ask anyone for ID unless there is a suspicion of a crime, etc. This is the equivalent of actually taking everyone's ID that on the road. See the problem? my point? I am not a prisoner. I am not living in a police state. I do not want to have to pass a test or a checkpoint just to be allowed in public. I do not want to be treated as a criminal just because there are criminals amongst us. I do not want to be monitored by the Government in any way what-so-ever when I have committed no crime. This is not too much to ask. These freedoms were awarded to me over 200 years ago. The only things that have changed are the techniques and tools that are used. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Oct 26, 2012 9:14:44 GMT -5
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The constitution seems to leave it up to us to decide what is reasonable. I think it is reasonable for the citizens of this country to have some expectation that we aren't all being tracked for no reason. |
|
Police Moderator
Global Moderator
On The Job and Tangled Up In Blue
Posts: 9,821
|
Post by Police Moderator on Oct 27, 2012 5:56:59 GMT -5
Seriously? To compare the Nazi regime, which was undeniably a racist and truly evil entity, with the true power of life or death, sans due process (Or any process for that matter) or even probable cause that a crime has been committed and commit unadjudicated mass murder (Or a single murder)... for no reason other than a race, a sexual preference, genetics or just 'cause they're pissed enough at the victim to a governmental camera that is lawfully (Under the US Constitution) taking pictures of a tag and a car, in a public place and then storing that data?
No, I see absolutely no similarity and I am offended at the over-exaggerated apples and oranges attempt at a comparison of Nazis to American LE.
No one is imprisoning you and you don't live in a 'police state." No one in government is not allowing you to be in public, nor is anyone asking you to pass a test. No one is treating you like a criminal. You may perceive this as true and intrusive, but it is simply not the case. If this is true, then you need to refuse to obtain a driver's license, tag, passport or give your SSN to the IRS as these things are way more intrusive (And stored forever) than a digital photo of your car and it's tag. You need to refuse to show a government issued ID to anyone in government for any reason. These cameras do not take a picture of you, they take a picture of a car and a tag. Try and cash in that million dollar governmental lottery ticket without having to show governmental ID to the governmental tax man person?
So you'd have trouble with me, on duty, eyeballing you as you walk towards me at the Kangaroo when I am leaving with my free coffee and donuts and you're coming in to get a cup?
LE 'monitors' the hell out of you every time we come across you and has before the invention of the camera. You want to abolish that too? If we abolish it for you, we have to abolish it for the child rapist walking in behind you. See the above paragraph. If that is the case, then, I would run for office and change the laws, and the SCOTUS members, to those who think like you. Or vote for those that do.
The Constitution does not leave it up to "us", on the street, to decide what is reasonable. Are you alleging that the individual Cop/Citizen on the street is to decide what is reasonable?
The Constitution does demand us people to elect people, who appoint people who'll subsequently decide what is reasonable for us people. The Constitution allows itself to be interpreted by the Judicial Branch (The Federal Court System, and ultimately, the SCOTUS) and the reasonableness of these cameras have been before the Federal Courts and they have ruled them "reasonable."
Got a problem with it? Too "Big Brotherish?" Change the people, who appoint the people, who decide what is reasonable, for the people.
Pretty simple.
That wins the "Big Bang Jump From Amoebas to Modern Mankind In 2.3 Seconds" Award. No one is suggesting that, or anything infinitesimally close to that, scenario.
I take extreme offense at being called a Nazi, by the way. But since it is Constitutional, I've decided to let it go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Oct 27, 2012 10:16:18 GMT -5
On each case? Yes! If there is a disagreement about what is reasonable then it's for the courts to decide. The courts should consider what the general consensus of the citizenry seems to find reasonable rather than what the government finds reasonable, though.
But, hey, reasonable people are usually reasonable.
|
|
JC
Full Forumite
No Messiah
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by JC on Oct 27, 2012 17:48:14 GMT -5
PM, I am not calling any cops Nazis and this is not about cops or about cops watching me. It's about the equipment that those in charge have decided to employ to take our papers en masse without following proper procedure, written and case law and the Constitution.
Tags are nothing more than "papers" that are coded and in the form of metal.
If a cop wants to run my tag, go for it. As I'm sure something I did brought myself and my vehicle to the attention of that officer.
See: "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,"
Scanning the papers en masse of everyone on the street is the problem here.
How so?
The government uses them now for Interstate commerce and in private vehicles for toll road passes.
I apologize. It was not my intent to say cops are Nazis.
I was simply comparing the process of taking papers en masse with Nazi control.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Oct 27, 2012 19:03:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Oct 27, 2012 20:06:03 GMT -5
I have no problem with that use of the tag readers. I have no reasonable expectation that my tag won't be read by a police officer or a tag scanner while I'm out in public. I do have a reasonable expectation that my comings and goings will not be kept a record of unless there is a reason to suspect me of being involved in criminal activity. Read the tags, run a query and act on the information from that query but don't maintain a record of my movement in the community unless you have a probable cause to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Oct 27, 2012 20:18:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by senior on Oct 31, 2012 7:09:52 GMT -5
Tsavodiner: The case law you cite was lost by the defendant on a procedural technicality, he didn't properly object in the lower court. And TV cop actors? really. PM: You don't being called a Nazi, don't act like one. Now to address your cliam that everything, data, being discussed in the tag readers is public information read the following and get back to us: laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-1464.html RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. CONDON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 98-1464. Argued November 10, 1999--Decided January 12, 2000 State departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) require drivers and automobile owners to provide personal information, which may include a person's name, address, telephone number, vehicle description, Social Security number, medical information, and photograph, as a condition of obtaining a driver's license or registering an automobile. Finding that many States sell this information to individuals and businesses for significant revenues, Congress enacted the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), which establishes a regulatory scheme that restricts the States' ability to disclose a driver's personal information without the driver's consent. South Carolina law conflicts with the DPPA's provisions. Following the DPPA's enactment, South Carolina and its Attorney General filed this suit, alleging that the DPPA violates the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the United States Constitution. Concluding that the DPPA is incompatible with the principles of federalism inherent in the Constitution's division of power between the States and the Federal Government, the District Court granted summary judgment for the State and permanently enjoined the DPPA's enforcement against the State and its officers. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Act violates constitutional principles of federalism. ============================== ====================================/* www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/dppainfo.html Florida Explaining the DPPA “Under state law, motor vehicle, driver license, and vehicular crash records are subject to public disclosure. The Driver Privacy Protection Act, 18 United States Code, Sections 2721-2725 (DPPA) keeps your personal information private by limiting who has access to the information. The department automatically blocks personal information on your motor vehicle and driver license records.”Deicher v. City of Evansville, Wis. 545 F. 3d 537 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 2008 - Google Scholar ... Mezera and her husband, David Deicher, sued the City of Evansville, Wisconsin, Officer Jones, and the City's insurer, Community Insurance Corporation, alleging that Officer Jones violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA") when he disclosed Mezera's address. scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4193708229379659138&q=DPPA+tennessee&hl=en&as_sdt=2,43 |
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Oct 31, 2012 15:50:17 GMT -5
They had the same name, or did that escape your Stephen Hawking-like observation?
|
|
|
|
Post by senior on Nov 16, 2012 10:01:54 GMT -5
"Power is a heady thing; and history shows that the police acting on their own cannot be trusted. " MCDONALD V. U. S. , 335 U.S. 451 (1948) laws.findlaw.com/us/335/451.html |
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Nov 19, 2012 16:43:43 GMT -5
WOW!
THAT only took TWO WEEKS to come up with!
|
|
tq8oBMsj(qiGRg~~_3.JPG)
