# Automatic Plate Readers



## Archangel M (Apr 23, 2009)

My dept has had an automatic plate reader for a while now. For those who dont know what that is, its a set of IR cameras mounted on a patrol car and wired to a processor and laptop. The system reads license plates as we drive along the road and alert the officer when it reads a stolen or suspended license plate. It can also be programed to alert on customized databases (local warrants, scofflaws, etc). Reads are stored with a time stamp and geolocation if GPS equiped.

We have been seeing some "yapping" in the press about "big brother" watching and the ilk lately.

There are 2 distinct issues here IMO. 

In the read mode, the cameras dont really do anything different from what an officer can do himself. It just does it much quicker. Case law ( U.S. v. Walraven,  New York:  People v. Ceballos, Rhode Island: State v. Bjerke..and more) has clearly stated that an officer needs no PC to simply run a license plate, there is no expectation of privacy for a license plate on a vehicle that is in plain view or on the public road. The information the officer is legaly allowed to obtain from the plate is limited and there are limits on what he can do with the data he IS allowed, but I can type in all the plates I want as I patrol. All the plate reader does is "run plates" for me at a much faster rate and higher volume...only alerting me when necessary.

The second issue, where there may be a valid concern, is the storing and handling of plates that are captured. The keeping of a plate number with its time and location is not a problem IMO, what has to be watched is what is done with that data....if a plate associated with a crime pops up, then searching that database is a great tool. Where people have concers is what the police are doing with the info. There are currently stringent rules regarding police intelligence files. 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23 have clearly defined rules regarding this. Retaining information in intelligence files about an individual is improper if there is no sustainable evidence of his or her criminal involvement unless that information is used only as noncriminal identifying information and is labeled as such. 

Does anybody else have these cameras in their areas? What are your thoughts on them?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 23, 2009)

I'm not an LEO, nor have I heard of this technology. Here there was some concern about remote cameras shooting pictures of plates and issuing tickets based on that. In this instance, the officer is in the car. The reader is enabling him/her to focus on driving and paying attention to other things going on besides reading plates. It seems an effictient and safe measure.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 23, 2009)

when you use it and you get info back does it include whether or not the driver is insured or not? Ours does plus whether it's taxed, I know you don't have road tax but here if it's not taxed the insurance is invalid. Ours also gives the info on who the registered owner of the vehicle is.
People whinge about tax and insurance here but it's no fun if you hit by an uninsured driver.
We also have speed cameras both static and hand held that will automatically record speed and if over the speed limit will generate a ticket to be sent to the registered owner automatically.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 23, 2009)

I don't see a problem with it.  Driving a car is not a right, it's a privilege.  License plates must be displayed on the vehicle, and you are right, it makes no difference whether a person or a machine is reading the plate.  This is not an example of 'big brotherism', IMHO.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 23, 2009)

One catch regarding 28 CFR 23; it only applies to federally funded interjurisdictional databases.  My department, at it's own cost, can maintain a database for internal use only that contains information that wouldn't fit with 28 CFR 23.  (In fact, most agencies do this with their Records Management Systems.)

But I think plate readers are a great tool.  I know that the auto theft guys have had a lot of luck recovering stolen vehicles, and they've been used in some intel ops as well.

Tez -- insurance information depends on what the state puts into the registration file.  Some states do, some states don't.  Remember that in some ways, each state in the US is more like a different country, with their own ways of doing things...


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 23, 2009)

I see absolutely no problem in having the cameras read information real time and alerting the officer to issues. What I do have a problem with is if that information is recorded and stored and kept for any reason. There is absolutely no reason that law enforcement, or government needs to have a database with GPS locations for vehicles and any given time of the day.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 23, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I see absolutely no problem in having the cameras read information real time and alerting the officer to issues. What I do have a problem with is if that information is recorded and stored and kept for any reason. There is absolutely no reason that law enforcement, or government needs to have a database with GPS locations for vehicles and any given time of the day.


Here's one scenario:

While you're at work today, your car is stolen.  You walk out, ready to go home... and your car is gone!  You call the cops, they take the report, do all the appropriate investigative steps... and enter the car into the databases as stolen.  An automatic query into the tags run today (including those run by the tag reader) returns a delayed hit.  It'd suck to know the car was somewhere -- but not have a clue where that may be, huh?

If the records are held for a relatively short period, with controls on who can access them and why, then it serves a pretty good purpose while balancing privacy concerns.  Which is what 28 CFR 23 is all about; balancing the legitimate intelligence collection needs with the equally legitimate privacy concerns.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 23, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> What I do have a problem with is if that information is recorded and stored and kept for any reason. There is absolutely no reason that law enforcement, or government needs to have a database with GPS locations for vehicles and any given time of the day.



Strange as it may seem, I have no objection to a database of that sort.  You are in public, so you have no legal expectation of privacy.  It's not really unlike those toll readers that you can buy an EZ-Pass for now - you pass through, they note it, law enforcement can access it.  It may seem onerous, but you are in public and can be seen - it's no different than if a bunch of concerned citizens kept watch on the comings and goings of a person and kept track of that info in a database.

On the other hand, recent experiments with GPS units in cars that keep track of everywhere you go and report back to government databases so you can be taxed (or tracked) do offend me.

The difference?  One is casual and nearly accidental - if you're seen by police, you might get a tag thrown into a database saying your car was here on this date at this time - or not.  The other tracks everywhere you go, all the time.

I think the difference is one of degree.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 23, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Here's one scenario:
> 
> While you're at work today, your car is stolen. You walk out, ready to go home... and your car is gone! You call the cops, they take the report, do all the appropriate investigative steps... and enter the car into the databases as stolen. An automatic query into the tags run today (including those run by the tag reader) returns a delayed hit. It'd suck to know the car was somewhere -- but not have a clue where that may be, huh?
> 
> If the records are held for a relatively short period, with controls on who can access them and why, then it serves a pretty good purpose while balancing privacy concerns. Which is what 28 CFR 23 is all about; balancing the legitimate intelligence collection needs with the equally legitimate privacy concerns.


 
I am not worried about my car getting stolen. If it does then so be it. I have insurance to cover it, do not keep anything irreplacable in the car, and can replace it. The hassle I would have will be there regardless. I just see there being a big opportunity for misuse here, although I think there are probably many more easy ways now to track someone without their knowledge, or maintain a database of their comings and goings on computer then having this, so  /shrug


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Strange as it may seem, I have no objection to a database of that sort. You are in public, so you have no legal expectation of privacy. It's not really unlike those toll readers that you can buy an EZ-Pass for now - you pass through, they note it, law enforcement can access it. It may seem onerous, but you are in public and can be seen - it's no different than if a bunch of concerned citizens kept watch on the comings and goings of a person and kept track of that info in a database.
> 
> On the other hand, recent experiments with GPS units in cars that keep track of everywhere you go and report back to government databases so you can be taxed (or tracked) do offend me.
> 
> ...


 
I view the ez pass as voluntary, I just have a problem with any type of monitoring for the average person. Too many ways it can be misused, accessed for personal use, etc.
 But like I said there are already too many devices that can be used to accomplish the same thing and alot easier. It just seems like another small step for government to take in a long line of small steps towards removing every single last bit of freedom and individuality from this country.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 23, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I view the ez pass as voluntary, I just have a problem with any type of monitoring for the average person. Too many ways it can be misused, accessed for personal use, etc.
> But like I said there are already too many devices that can be used to accomplish the same thing and alot easier. It just seems like another small step for government to take in a long line of small steps towards removing every single last bit of freedom and individuality from this country.



I see your point, I don't disagree by much.  I think the random plate-reading is about the same as random DUI checkpoint - a hassle, but probably legal.  Could it be misused?  Yes, I imagine it could.

I'm more worried about monitoring that begins FROM my car instead of OF my car.  But I think we're on the same track, basically.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I see your point, I don't disagree by much.  I think the random plate-reading is about the same as random DUI checkpoint - a hassle, but probably legal.  Could it be misused?  Yes, I imagine it could.
> 
> I'm more worried about monitoring that begins FROM my car instead of OF my car.  But I think we're on the same track, basically.



Agreed. When that reader scans my plate, it could be that the car has been reported stolen. This is another tool law enforcement has to protect my interests.

Clarification: Is this device scanning everything in front of it, or does the officer aim or activate the reader?


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 23, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Agreed. When that reader scans my plate, it could be that the car has been reported stolen. This is another tool law enforcement has to protect my interests.
> 
> Clarification: Is this device scanning everything in front of it, or does the officer aim or activate the reader?



It's totally automatic. Which is a plus..it eliminates any accusations of "the officer only ran my plate because I'm..."

In regards to the database. I dont see there being any legal issue with it "as is"...because its just a table of plate numbers, dates/times and locations. Any legal issues would most likely arise when the police begin accessing personal information from the plates (an additional step they would have to take themselves)...as long as they are accessing that data for a legit purpose it should be OK. 

Much like if we had satellite photos...it would all be publicly displayed data. Storing it probably wouldnt be an issue..but if we were able to see plates and just started collecting data on you for no legit reason..that would be illegal.

As an aside...while there are many people who express legitimate concerns about gvt. cameras watching us (and I applaud them). I also think that there is a sizable number of people who could care less about our privacy, they are only pissed off because they think that any system that can catch them breaking the law is "unfair". I have heard opinions that imply that if the cop isnt able to catch the wrongdoer, that cameras doing it is some sort of "rules violation". lol!


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 23, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> It's totally automatic. Which is a plus..it eliminates any accusations of "the officer only ran my plate because I'm..."



Seems like a handy device.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 23, 2009)

I'm against it.

I know, shocker right?

Driving a car _is_ a right, even if governments would like to reclassify it as a priviledge. I have the right to freely travel and locomote as long as I don't interfere with the rights of others. Scanning the plates of everyone who drives past you casts an assumption of guilt upon those people. Arguing that because _some_ people may be lawbreakers means _all _people must be closely watched is unjust, but it is precisely the kind of thinking that much of our govermental policy is based around.

Sure, some people are uninsured. They are irresponsible. That doesn't justify the state making insurance mandatory, which has been proven to raise rates and lower product quality. Some motorists may drive stolen cars, that doesn't justify checking every motorist to make sure his car is being driven legally. This is no different than stopping every motorist and demanding that he prove he owns the vehicle he is in, is operating it legally, and he has a right to be there. The justification is just that this is less intrusive.

But in reality, it is just as intrusive, it is just a less cumbersome system. The practice assumes that some people are doing something illegal, and so is inflicted upon all people in an effort to catch the statistical minority who _may _be breaking the law.

Laws which are unjust and immoral anyway.


-Rob


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 23, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Driving a car _is_ a right, even if governments would like to reclassify it as a priviledge. I have the right to freely travel and locomote as long as I don't interfere with the rights of others.



You do have the right to travel.  The courts have not seen fit to agree that this means your right to drive cannot be restricted.  If you feel differently, good luck challenging that assertion in court.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You do have the right to travel. The courts have not seen fit to agree that this means your right to drive cannot be restricted. If you feel differently, good luck challenging that assertion in court.


 
Of course. After all, if it fails to stand in _our_ justice system, it's clearly incorrect.



> Now law and order, on the other hand
> The state provides us for the public good;
> That's why there's instant justice on demand
> And safety in every neighborhood.
> ...


 

-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 23, 2009)

Whatever happened to my *right *to an assumption of innocence? This technology puts the burden of proving innocence on the person being scanned, instead of on the state.

I have the right to be innocent until _proven_ guilty. That means I don't have to prove my car isn't stolen, the state has to prove it is. I don't have to prove I have insurance, the state has to prove I don't. I don't have to prove I have the right to be here, the state has to prove I don't.

But of course, anyone who has been in traffic court knows that's not how it works at all. You are accused of a crime, and _you_ have to prove your innocence, not the other way around. 

And that's called justice.


-Rob


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 23, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I'm against it.
> 
> I know, shocker right?
> 
> ...


Sorry, you're wrong.

Traveling and moving freely within the United States is a right.

The privilege to legally operate a motor vehicle on the highways is not a right; it's a license granted by the state after you have demonstrated appropriate skill/knowledge and (often) financial responsibility.  You do acquire certain ownership rights in that privilege, once granted, which is why there are various processes for taking someone's license away.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 23, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Whatever happened to my *right *to an assumption of innocence? This technology puts the burden of proving innocence on the person being scanned, instead of on the state.
> 
> I have the right to be innocent until _proven_ guilty. That means I don't have to prove my car isn't stolen, the state has to prove it is. I don't have to prove I have insurance, the state has to prove I don't. I don't have to prove I have the right to be here, the state has to prove I don't.
> 
> ...


I disagree.  Considering the many hours I've spent in traffic, as well as criminal, courts in multiple jurisdictions -- I think I speak from experience.  

Yes, the police officer has some inherent advantages.  He often has a reputation with the judge (this is not always good; there are a few officers I know who the judges are highly critical of their case prep...).  He actually knows the laws (or should; again, there are exceptions); many people do not, and therefore don't know what they are arguing.  And he's got a lot more experience being in court.  But I've been in front of judges who were clearly biased towards defendants, as well as judges who were clearly pro-police, so long as the officer wasn't slow with his answers.  And a few who were just plain nuts... and you never knew what way they were going to jump.  But, by a large majority, most of the judges I've been in front of have been pretty fair.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 23, 2009)

JKS beat me to the punch on all counts.

You have the freedom to travel wherever you want. As in you dont need passports to travel across country or be out on the street in the middle of the night.

You dont have the "right" to do so driving a car on the public road minus any sort of regulation. You can drive whatever you want on your own property, but not on the roads my loved ones share without proper insurance, licensing etc.

Police running your plate have nothing to do with a presumption of guilt;

http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/license-plate.shtml



> The United States Court of Appeal noted that every court                      that                        has considered                        the issue of privacy in license plates has concluded that                        no such privacy exists. xi  In conclusion the court assert: &#8220;Thus,                        so long as the officer had a right to be in a position to                        observe the defendant's license plate, any such observation                        and corresponding use of the information on the plate does                        not violate the Fourth Amendment. In this case, Officer                        Keeley had a right to be in the parking lot observing the                        van -- he was in a public place conducting a routine patrol.                        The district court's finding that the van was not parked                        illegally is thus irrelevant -- such a finding goes only                        to probable cause, which is not necessary absent a Fourth                        Amendment privacy interest. Once Officer Keeley conducted                        the check and discovered the outstanding warrant, he then                        had probable cause to pull over the vehicle and arrest the                        man identified as Ellison. The arrest and resulting search                        during which the handguns were found in no way violated                        the Fourth Amendment, and the district court's order granting                        the motion to suppress was in error.&#8221;


----------



## gixxershane (Apr 23, 2009)

its good for forcing people to pay outstanding parking tickets, well.. in the city's that put the "boot" on the cars..


----------



## Carol (Apr 23, 2009)

gixxershane said:


> its good for forcing people to pay outstanding parking tickets, well.. in the city's that put the "boot" on the cars..




Boot is a four letter word!   :soapbox:


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 23, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Police running your plate have nothing to do with a presumption of guilt;
> 
> http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/license-plate.shtml


 
Bull.

Your citation doesn't address a presumption of guilt. It addresses probable cause, and a presumption of _privacy._ If there wasn't a presumption that you would find _some _guilty people, you wouldn't waste time and resources scanning everyone who drives by. You are casting a general presumption of guilt on everyone, in the hopes that you can find some people who are specifically guilty of something.

You aren't going to convince me that people don't have the _inherent_ right to travel unmolested by the common means, which in today's society is motor vehicles, by pointing out that the courts have denied them the _legal_ right to do so. That just means that they recognize it as a priviledge, and one they can take away or regulate as they see fit. Just like you won't convince me we don't have a right to self defense, or to keep and bear arms, by pointing to case law that denies the existence of that right. Any more than you would convince me we don't have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if a judge were to rule against it.

Ultimately, the problem here is that you and I see the role of government and it's actions completely differently. It's pointless to argue the point.

You are right. The courts deny that people have the right to drive a car. They call it a privilidge. Fine. Our courts are a corrupt arm of a corrupt system. I quit being suprised when they ruled against individual rights a long time ago.

As to the other question, of the realities of court, specifically traffic court, it is very simple. When I'm ticketed for not having insurance, I have to go to court and prove I do. The police officer doesn't have to go to court and prove I didn't. When I'm ticketed for speeding, I have to go to court and prove I didn't. When officers can write speeding tickets based on their own testimony, either by eye witnessing the "violation," or by claiming he was "pacing" the vehicle, the burden of proof is on the accused.

I don't expect to convince you. You are part of the system. It is what it is. If you didn't believe in it, you wouldn't be a part of it. I knew from my first post in this thread I was representing an unpopular position, but like I said, it is what it is.


-Rob


----------



## Carol (Apr 23, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> As to the other question, of the realities of court, specifically traffic court, it is very simple. When I'm ticketed for not having insurance, I have to go to court and prove I do. The police officer doesn't have to go to court and prove I didn't. When I'm ticketed for speeding, I have to go to court and prove I didn't. When officers can write speeding tickets based on their own testimony, either by eye witnessing the "violation," or by claiming he was "pacing" the vehicle, the burden of proof is on the accused.



Careful what you wish for.   

Innocent until proven guilty applies to charges of criminal offenses only.  Most traffic tickets are civil infractions, not criminal offenses.

In some states, such as Massachusetts, not insuring one's vehicle is a criminal offense.  However, except under egregious circumstances, this issue is still handled in traffic court before a magistrate, rather than in criminal court.

The reasons why...Massachusetts largely doesn't want the expense of a criminal trial or throwing its motorists in jail because they had an oops with their insurance.   They just want their money and to have the car insured.   Managing the complaint in traffic court and showing that the vehicle is properly insured and registered is generally sufficient reason for the magistrate to dismiss the charges against a good driver.  Against a not so good driver...that could be a different story.    Most states generally reserve criminal court proceedings for the more dangerous issues such as driving under the influence.  

So...traffic infractions could be criminalized.   We'd have the right to be innocent until proven guilty and the right to an attorney if the courts declared us indegent, but that also means we'd be arrested and hauled off to a holding cell if we get caught doing 75 in a 55 along with risking bigger fines, jail time, attorney bills, and all that nasty stuff.  Doesn't sound like a fair trade off to me. :asian:

(BTW....you'd like NH.  No mandatory insurance, no seat belt laws for passengers 13 and over, and no helmet laws for motorcyclists.)


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 23, 2009)

*Thesemindz* ...Are you one of these Sovereign Citizen guys? Or more likely one of the Posse Comitatus believers? You seen to share many of their beliefs.

Posse Comitatus 



> Members of the Posse Comitatus frequently refuse to pay taxes, to obtain driver's licenses, or otherwise to comply with regulatory authorities. They deny the validity of United States fiat money as not backed by gold, which they claim the Constitution requires.
> They have unusual legal documents drawn up and attempt to record them, declaring independence from the United States, or claiming to file "common law" liens against perceived enemies like Internal Revenue Service employees or judges. They are often involved in various tax protests, and have invoked arguments popularized by tax protesters.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 23, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *Thesemindz*
> 
> 
> _As to the other question, of the realities of court, specifically traffic court, it is very simple. When I'm ticketed for not having insurance, I have to go to court and prove I do. The police officer doesn't have to go to court and prove I didn't. When I'm ticketed for speeding, I have to go to court and prove I didn't. When officers can write speeding tickets based on their own testimony, either by eye witnessing the "violation," or by claiming he was "pacing" the vehicle, the burden of proof is on the accused._


 
Bull.

While Carol has a point. When an officer observes and radars you for speed thats his evidence. You are still "accused of speeding" until the court makes its decision. The officer presents his evidence to support his charge..thats not presumption of guilt. Thats how court works, the officer accuses you and presents his proof. If you have a defense, present it.

The law (in my state) states that you have to present a valid insurance card at a car stop...if you dont you violated that law and get a ticket. The officer doesnt have to "prove you didnt have insurance"..he just gave you a ticket for failure to present proof of insurance...which you either do present or dont.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 23, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> *Thesemindz* ...Are you one of these Sovereign Citizen guys? Or more likely one of the Posse Comitatus believers? You seen to share many of their beliefs.
> 
> Posse Comitatus


 
No.

But I understand their positions and I support _some_ of them. 

I am an anarcho-capitalist. I want a society free from coercive force and theft.

As to the rest of it, we obviously won't agree. Oh well. I'm used to it.


-Rob


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 23, 2009)

Thats cool...its what makes America..America..even if you obviously dont like it very much.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 24, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Thats cool...its what makes America..America..even if you obviously dont like it very much.


 
I love America.

I don't love it's government, or any government, or the idea of government.

But I love the country, and its people. It's my home. I wouldn't live anywhere else. I love the culture, and the ideals, and the honor, and the art.

But the government doesn't give a damn for any of those things. The individuals who control the government mean to be masters. They view everyone as a tool to be used and cast away. They aren't looking out for any of us.

It's because of my love for this country that I hope someday we can cast away the idea of government. So that the people of the land I love can be truly free to live, love, succeed, and fail based on their own merit and their own effort.

Because that's what *I* believe makes America America.


-Rob


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 24, 2009)

Has there EVER been an example of a major nation or civilization that has existed without governance or rule of law? And while our (or any) government is far from perfect, and bitching about it is an American pastime, right and perhaps even duty. However, I believe that all those things you say you love about America only exist because of the environment they have been nurtured in....


----------



## MJS (Apr 24, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> My dept has had an automatic plate reader for a while now. For those who dont know what that is, its a set of IR cameras mounted on a patrol car and wired to a processor and laptop. The system reads license plates as we drive along the road and alert the officer when it reads a stolen or suspended license plate. It can also be programed to alert on customized databases (local warrants, scofflaws, etc). Reads are stored with a time stamp and geolocation if GPS equiped.
> 
> We have been seeing some "yapping" in the press about "big brother" watching and the ilk lately.
> 
> ...


 
There are some larger cities here in CT that are using them.  IMO, there is nothing wrong with them, and its the ones that have something to hide that start screaming and crying about 'rights' that are against them.  As its been said, a LEO has a right to run a plate any time, however, what they do with that info. is limited.  IE:  spotting a 'hot' girl at the light next to them, running her plate and then stalking her, etc.

As far as storing the info....if there is concern over that, then perhaps making a time limit, such as a month, and then erasing the material, would work.


----------



## MJS (Apr 24, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I'm against it.
> 
> I know, shocker right?
> 
> ...


 
Well, suck as it may, insurance and paying taxes is mandatory, as well as paying past tickets.  I love watching that show "Parking Wars."  I think thats the name of it.  It takes place in Philly.  They run plates and boot cars all day long.  I love to see when the offenders try to reclaim their cars and the excuses are flying. LOL.  If people just played by the rules.....yeah I know, I'm asking for too much....then half the issues wouldnt happen.

Besides, why should I have to pay more for my ins. because some cheap *** dirtbag who doesnt have ins. crashes into me and now my ins. has to cover the damages.  

And as for checking to see whos driving a car and why they're driving it....yes, thats legal too.  Cops where I work have stopped cars for various violations, and have requested me to call the registered owner to see who is driving the car, if the owner knows where the car is, etc.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 24, 2009)

This one will probably send some folks around the bend, but there is case law that states that an officer can run a plate...have it come back valid...run the license of the *R*egistered *O*wner...and if the RO comes back suspended or wanted (and the person operating the vehicle is the same sex and approximate age as the RO) the officer has PC to make the car stop.

From my notes;

_STATE V DONNIS: The essential facts in these appeals are undisputed. Police officers randomly entered the license plate numbers of Donis's and Gordon's vehicles, and discovered that their driving privileges had been suspended. Donis and Gordon challenged the officer's suspicionless access of the DMV information as unconstitutional under Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. One trial court found that there was no expectation of privacy with respect to the information. The other found that the intrusion satisfied the reasonableness standard for searches and seizures._

_The Appellate Division consolidated the appeals and affirmed in a per curiam opinion. It held that there was no unconstitutional intrusion because the license plates are openly displayed and the records accessed by the MDT are public. The Supreme Court granted certification._

_Law enforcement officers have the right to randomly use MDTs to determine from a motorist's license plate the status of the vehicle and of the registered owner's driver's license. If that inquiry discloses a basis for further police action, then the officer may access personal information about the registered owner._


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 24, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Bull.
> 
> Your citation doesn't address a presumption of guilt. It addresses probable cause, and a presumption of _privacy._ If there wasn't a presumption that you would find _some _guilty people, you wouldn't waste time and resources scanning everyone who drives by. You are casting a general presumption of guilt on everyone, in the hopes that you can find some people who are specifically guilty of something.
> 
> ...


I've got to ask... what presumption of ANY sort of guilt is tied to a tag reader?  Generally, they alert the officer to the presence of a stolen car (based on tag checks), or a car with outstanding tickets/seizure orders (again, based on tag checks).  These are factual issue; a car is either stolen & present or not, it's either on the list for a seizure (boot), or it's not.  

And -- I'm sorry, but even if you don't like the system or the law, it is what it is.  Driving is not a right; it's a privilege.  And if you decide to drive without license or registration, as required by the law, you'll be cited and possibly arrested.  Then, at court, you may try to convince the judge of your reasoning...  And when your argument fails, you'll have more ammunition for your belief in the bias of the system, I suppose.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 24, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Careful what you wish for.
> 
> Innocent until proven guilty applies to charges of criminal offenses only.  Most traffic tickets are civil infractions, not criminal offenses.
> 
> ...


I'm not certain about other states -- but in Virginia, traffic infractions are in a weird category below crime, but not tort (civil).  They're tried in General District Court (not a court of record), and the case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  If convicted, you have the right to appeal, and receive a completely new trial at the Circuit Court of the jurisdiction, the lowest Virginia court of record.

Appeals do happen...  Maybe 1/2 to 2/3 of the time, the defendant gets convicted, and the fine or sanctions are actually higher.  Most of the remainder, the defendant is convicted, and the punishment is the same.  It does happen that the Circuit Court finds the defendant not guilty -- but, in my experience, it's pretty rare.  Sometimes, the cop or a witness (in an accident case) fails to appear, and the case is dismissed.

The system isn't perfect.  The government does have a lot going for them at trial, as I mentioned earlier.  But, by and large, the courts are fair.  And they're better than any other system I've heard or read of, unless we can change human nature.


----------



## MJS (Apr 24, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> This one will probably send some folks around the bend, but there is case law that states that an officer can run a plate...have it come back valid...run the license of the *R*egistered *O*wner...and if the RO comes back suspended or wanted (and the person operating the vehicle is the same sex and approximate age as the RO) the officer has PC to make the car stop.
> 
> From my notes;
> 
> ...


 

That is 100% correct and it hapens all the time where I work.  Officers on patrol will reognize a person, usually someone they've dealt with many times in the past, and have us run his op.  Doesnt matter if the car is legit or not, the fact that the driver is wanted, etc as you stated, that is cause to stop the car.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 24, 2009)

MJS said:


> That is 100% correct and it hapens all the time where I work.  Officers on patrol will reognize a person, usually someone they've dealt with many times in the past, and have us run his op.  Doesnt matter if the car is legit or not, the fact that the driver is wanted, etc as you stated, that is cause to stop the car.


The standard to stop a car and/or detain a person is "reasonable suspicion."  If the driver of the car is reasonably close in age/gender/description to the suspended owner, or a passenger looks like someone the officer knows is wanted -- they've got the grounds to stop the car or detain the person long enough to identify them and either confirm or dispel the suspicion.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 27, 2009)

For everyone who doesn't view driving as a right.



> "*Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established* a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see *the most sacred of their liberties* taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." - Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.


 


> "*Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights*, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, *as sacred as the Right to private property*...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.


 


> "*Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion* -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. *The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness*. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.


 


> "Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of *removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint* unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.


 


> "...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. *He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation*, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.


 


> "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, *there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them*." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.


 


> "The claim and exercise of *a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime*." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.


 


> "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation *is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived*." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163


 


> "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which *a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law* under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta." Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).


 


> "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes *the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile* thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.


 


> "The right to travel is a well-established common right *that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right*." _Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941_


 
I could literally go on all day.


-Rob


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 27, 2009)

I need not cite any legal document that driving on the public highway is NOT a "right" (perhaps it could be called a "statutory right" as you do have a right to the license)   other than 50...count em...50 Vehicle Code books (one for each state of the union) that are empowered by Supreme Court decisions which challenged driving as a privilege. When did it change from a right to a privilege.....NEVER. Driving laws, when first enacted in the teens and 20's, were NOT considered rights. California Vehicle Code is a direct outgowth of farming/commerce laws.

This has been challenged to the highest level a citizen can challenge this in our society, and lost....therefore, I commend you to any Vehicle Code book of your choosing to find the language and authority for driving as a privilege.

Driving is not a right... the process of becoming a licensed driver under realistic laws is a "right". And you do have a "property right" to your license so to speak. Meaning that the state cannot remove it without due process. (USSC Bell v Burson)


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 27, 2009)

More importantly, you can't cherry pick sentences out of a legal decision.  _Miranda v Arizona_, for example is something like 30 or 40 pages long, as I recall.  Without looking at the text of the ruling you cannot know what is being said.  Additionally, many of the quotes above are unsourced; that makes hard to evaluate what they may actually be saying.  (Consider, you could cherry pick the last line of my post above about ownership rights in your license to support that you have a right to a license -- which is not the message of the post.)

The bottom line is that NO court of the United States has held that you have a right to drive upon the highways without complying with the rules, regulations, and laws that are appropriately established by that state to obtain the privilege to do so.  That's it.  You don't believe it, tell you what.  We can make arrangements for you to drive, without being issued a driver's license, and meet up with an officer who will happily cite you for the offense.  As long it's within his authority to do so -- you'll be released then and there, but will have to come to court.  Where you can try your quotes on a judge.  Once you're convicted, you can appeal -- and try them on a new judge.  You may then attempt to appeal your conviction all the way to the US Supreme Court, assuming that each appellate court grants certiorari all the way up the chain.  (I rather doubt that your appeals will go beyond the first court of record...  It's a rather well settled issue.)


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 27, 2009)

Not to derail the argument here...

But in case everyone still thinks driving is a privilege... the supreme court did rule in Bell vs BurSon that a Drivers License cannot be revoked without due process... here is a quote from the Law Offices of Lawrence Taylor Website



> The U.S. Supreme Court changed that, recognizing that a license's "continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood". Because of their value, then, they "are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment".



Dunno if that makes them a right... but I'd argue that suspending them while awaiting trial (as has happened recently to my roommate) is apparently in Violation of the 14th amendment as put forth by that decision. 

*shrug*


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 27, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Not to derail the argument here...
> 
> But in case everyone still thinks driving is a privilege... the supreme court did rule in Bell vs BurSon that a Drivers License cannot be revoked without due process... here is a quote from the Law Offices of Lawrence Taylor Website
> 
> ...


It doesn't make it a right; the ruling says you have certain ownership rights in the license, once granted.

I know, it sounds like I'm splitting hairs -- but they're important hairs in a legal discussion.

Once the government grants you any sort of license, it can't arbitrarily take it away, without some form of due process as required by the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.  The license can be seen as a form of property... but it's not the same as saying that getting the license in the first place is a right.  This is why many states can, legally and constitutionally, suspend your driver's license administratively when you're arrested for DUI; it's an administrative suspension, not a punishment.  The license is suspended as a function of law, and you can see those criteria if you read the laws.  For example, HERE is Virginia's.


----------



## MJS (Apr 28, 2009)

To expand a bit, from my point of view, on what Archangel said above regarding statutory rights to drive...I look at it like this....sure, we have a right to drive, however, there are rules that we must follow, despite what anyone thinks of the govt, and fact of the matter is, if they're not followed, you lose those rights, plain and simple.  If you drive drunk, you will be arrested and will lose your DL for a period of time, if you don't follow the driving laws, you will be pulled over, despite what you think of the govt., if you don't pay your parking tickets, such as in that show that I mentioned in another post, you're car may get a boot put on it, or even towed, and you will have to pay a fine to get it back, as well as the tickets that're outstanding.

Bottom line.....there are rules, like it or not.  If you don't follow them, you'll most likely pay a price down the road.  If you dont like it, move to some island in the middle of nowhere, where you can be your own boss, your own govt, and run things as you choose.  But until then, suck it up and deal!


----------

