Automatic Plate Readers

[Archangel M]

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: “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.”

 

[gixxershane]

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

 

[Carol]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Thesemindz]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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

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]

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 Registered Owner...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]

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

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]

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.)

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]

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 Registered Owner...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.

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]

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]

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]

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)