Coming soon to a Cop near you. License Plate Scanner

[VonMessa]

I can't believe that I am going to say this, but.............

Although I would be the first to cry foul at 4th amendment rights being violated, I honestly can't say that using this technology FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE, AND NO OTHER really does not break any of the rules.

As others have stated, this just makes the LEO's more efficient at running tags.  It's not enabling them to do something "new", just letting them do it faster , and with greater accuracy.

Cops run tags all the time.  That fact is not new.

If they can divulge at the touch of a button that there is no reason to top me, then all for the better.  It will let them spend more of their time stopping the people  that need stopping.  It is still not a substitute fr the "gut feeling" that cop spend so many years developing.

The flip side of this  .........

Where will the use of technology end, and how intrusive will it become?

I fear that the days of private anonymity will be but a fading memory by the time they put me in the ground.

[John Curnutte]

 I agree with Von Messa on this totally , if they used it to catch felons or stolen cars , abducted kids in cars or a host of other things cool , but to bust the backs of the average Joe's and Jane's is disturbing at best . Life is tough enough without more ( misdemeanor taxes ) which is what I call traffic offenses that amount to pure B.S. Everyone knows that most of the traffic laws are for revenue to city's , county's , states . it has always been that way and always will .
                Nutte

[Obie303]

One that I didn't like or one that I felt was wrong?  There's a difference.

Sorry, I don't see a difference.  Some laws state an "an officer must or shall".  It's the law.  If the officer fails to perform his/her duties, then it's grounds for dismissal.  For example, violations with restraining orders.  Are there cases of abusing the system or a false statement to obtain a restraining order....of course there are.  But Massachusetts law states that any violation of a restraining order, the defendant must be arrested. 

As far as the scanning system in general, I don't care either way.  If my vehicle has an active registration and it's insured, scan away.  I've got nothing to hide.

[fergie]

Trooper Won't Face Charges For Background Checks

Posted: Feb 5, 2009 07:38 AM EST

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A TBI investigation showed Lt. Ronnie Shirley used the criminal justice portal to look up the personal information of nearly 200 Tennesseans in August 2008. Now, a local newspaper has reported that the Davidson County District Attorney Torry Johnson said there isn't anything criminal they can prosecute Shirley for.

Shirley was fired in September for gross misconduct, but Johnson said there's no evidence that Shirley benefited from his search in any way. 

As for the list of people Shirley looked up, the public may never know their identities.

The man who blew the whistle on Shirley said he has now been wrongfully targeted by the Tennessee Highway Patrol.

Lt. Robert Eckerman first discovered Shirley's abuse of criminal background checks after he learned that someone had accessed his file in August 2008. Now, Eckerman has said that he is the target of a bogus internal investigation.

As far as the 182 Tennesseans Shirley illegally ran background checks on, Johnson said most of the checks were driver's license information, which is confidential information. The confidentiality of that information is why the list most likely will not be released to the public. 

Johnson also said it's not clear why Shirley was running all these names through the database.

It's also unclear if Shirley will get his job back with the Highway Patrol. His termination is currently under appeal in civil service appeals court.

[Obie303]

Fergie, That is definitely an example of how some cops abuse their powers.  Although the Trooper is not facing criminal charges, it was certainly a violation of ethics and proper actions were taken. 

In Massachusetts, any time a police officer checks a person's background, it's recorded along with the reason for the query.  Three reasons are 1. for a criminal investigation, 2. for employment, and 3. for a firearms license.  By those records, I mean criminal charges that have been filed against a person, not registration queries.  But registration queries are logged also by the system. 

[CAP1]

, but to bust the backs of the average Joe's and Jane's is disturbing at best . Life is tough enough without more ( misdemeanor taxes ) which is what I call traffic offenses that amount to pure B.S. Everyone knows that most of the traffic laws are for revenue to city's , county's , states . it has always been that way and always will .
                Nutte

this is what will happen with these systems.

Fergie, That is definitely an example of how some cops abuse their powers.  Although the Trooper is not facing criminal charges, it was certainly a violation of ethics and proper actions were taken. 

In Massachusetts, any time a police officer checks a person's background, it's recorded along with the reason for the query.  Three reasons are 1. for a criminal investigation, 2. for employment, and 3. for a firearms license.  By those records, I mean criminal charges that have been filed against a person, not registration queries.  But registration queries are logged also by the system. 

and this is why.^^^^^^^

police officers are only human beings(although a few believe they're so much more). it's human nature to push limits, no matter who you are. there will be officers that will abuse this system. then it'll get worse, to the point of them checking things like...oooooo......i don't know.....your bank info? to make sure you can cover that ticket they're about to hand ya. heck....they'll even make it easier, and link a system to this one that;ll deduct the fine right from your account.

 it would be a beautiful system, if we all knew there would be no abuse of it.....i'd be all for it in that instance, but alas, it's just another little step, and so many are brainwashed, they believe anything they're told.

Probable cause is anything any LEO wants it to be.  The only thing that matters is if that LEO can articulate that probabl\e cause in court and I have yet to hear of any case that didnt move on due to lack of "probable cause".sooo...what you're telling us, is that an alert driver is constantly giving you probable cause? my head is always on the swivel. although i'm watching the crossing traffic, when i'm sitting at a traffic light, i also do a quick "back n forth" headswing just before i accelerate on a green. but according to you, that's probable cause to stop me? i'm always aware of what's going on all around my car, and what;s going on where i'm about to be, and those surroundngs, but it sounds like you expect to see a zombie siting behind the wheel. it's how i've avoided all but that one accident 7 years ago.

If I am on patrol in rural IA or SD and come across a car (and obviously not Gpa and Gma inside) with CA, FL, TX, AZ, or NY plates... regardless of their lack of doing anything wrong I will be running their plates.  It isnt typical that is all I have to articulate in my paperwork.  LEO's call in plates far more than one realizes.  All it takes if for something to catch our eye and 20 seconds later comm center is giving us the info on the car. again........i live in nj......but by your judgements, it's probable cause if i'm in maryland, or deleware? or pennsylvania, or new york? or how about when i drive to florida to visit my family? ya see where i'm going here? your whole post smacks of excuses to abuse a system like this  what is gpa, or gma? 

BTW... when I was working in IA I busted a stolen car from TX that had a single driver.  He met me at an intersection in the middle of nowhere on a gravel road.  I just happen to get a glimps of the plate, guessed the state, and called it in.  Five minutes later I had this guy in custody and comm center was notifying the owner in TX.  The driver admitted that the car was stolen and that he was in IA to pick up some meth to transport it back to TX (NW IA is a hotbed for meth producers).

Probable cause?  You turning you head too quick or adjusting your mirror can be probable cause.  see my first paragraph for this one.  

for the most part, i respect police officers. i know quite a few. i know quite a few state troopers, from working with them in cap. the ones in the aviation dept, are the nicest bunch of guys you could want to meet.  knowing them(the locals), and reading some of the stuff from some here shows scary times coming though. it's why i have a voice recorder in my car now, and will have video very soon.

[zuii]

government in this country is out of control (including the police)


blaa!

[sluggish]

Sorry, I don't see a difference.  Some laws state an "an officer must or shall".  It's the law.  If the officer fails to perform his/her duties, then it's grounds for dismissal.  For example, violations with restraining orders.  Are there cases of abusing the system or a false statement to obtain a restraining order....of course there are.  But Massachusetts law states that any violation of a restraining order, the defendant must be arrested. 

As far as the scanning system in general, I don't care either way.  If my vehicle has an active registration and it's insured, scan away.  I've got nothing to hide.

Ahh, the old "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about" argument.

While I have done many jobs that I dislike, I am morally prohibited from doing a job which I believe to be unethical.  This is just another reason why I could NEVER be a cop.

[CAP1]

Ahh, the old "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about" argument.

While I have done many jobs that I dislike, I am morally prohibited from doing a job which I believe to be unethical.  This is just another reason why I could NEVER be a cop.

yea don'tcha love that one?

[Rich46yo]

Ahh, the old "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about" argument.

While I have done many jobs that I dislike, I am morally prohibited from doing a job which I believe to be unethical.  This is just another reason why I could NEVER be a cop.

Plus theres the background check, polygraph, the psych test, the drug screen, plus they send investigators out to your schools and neighborhoods to check on your character. Not that any of that would slow Sluggish down.

I bet most of you agents for change dont even vote.

[sluggish]

Plus theres the background check, polygraph, the psych test, the drug screen, plus they send investigators out to your schools and neighborhoods to check on your character. Not that any of that would slow Sluggish down.

I bet most of you agents for change dont even vote.

You're right about me not passing the background check (I had fun when I was young), but I would have no problem passing a drug test or polygragh (Psyc test may be another story).  I always vote although I don't know what that has to do with the ability to rationalize that "bad and "wrong" mean the same thing...

[SmokinLoon]

this is what will happen with these systems.


and this is why.^^^^^^^

police officers are only human beings(although a few believe they're so much more). it's human nature to push limits, no matter who you are. there will be officers that will abuse this system. then it'll get worse, to the point of them checking things like...oooooo......i don't know.....your bank info? to make sure you can cover that ticket they're about to hand ya. heck....they'll even make it easier, and link a system to this one that;ll deduct the fine right from your account.

 it would be a beautiful system, if we all knew there would be no abuse of it.....i'd be all for it in that instance, but alas, it's just another little step, and so many are brainwashed, they believe anything they're told.

for the most part, i respect police officers. i know quite a few. i know quite a few state troopers, from working with them in cap. the ones in the aviation dept, are the nicest bunch of guys you could want to meet.  knowing them(the locals), and reading some of the stuff from some here shows scary times coming though. it's why i have a voice recorder in my car now, and will have video very soon.

You missed my point completely.  Completely.  If something catches an LEO's eye, whatever it may be, ESPECIALLY out of state plates on a back gravel road at 1am in the morning (I forgot the 1am thing in my previous post, my bad) in meth haven USA, this LEO is going to run your plates.  If I pull up behind you and I see you twitching, not paying attention (conatantly looking somewhere else than dead ahead), constantly adjusting your mirror, looking down at your seat or into your backseat, I am going to run your plates.  I run plates on "questionable" out of state plates as often as I can and like I said if Gpa and Gma are putzin' down the highway at 55mph and they have FL plates... the odds of them being snowbirds are quite high.  The ones as of late, or so I am told, are the 1980's model cars with "Jesus is Lord" and other such omnious religious stickers on them.  Those have been the shuttle of choice for meth runners in NW Iowa. 

This is not an abuse, it is called patrolling.  No one's "rights" are invaded if an LEO runs your plates.  How do you think a good chunk of those people with warrants out on them get apprehended???  Some of you need to remove the tinfoil hat and veg out a bit.  We're talking about checking your plates, not pulling you over, asking for "das papiers", and beating you for looking crossed eyed at the officer or not wearing your "Juden" armband.  Lighten up, Francis.       

Oh, and having a voice recorder and video in your own car not a bad idea.  It will help you vs others in civil liabilities.  Just keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of LEO's are mic'ed up and on video all the time when dealing with the public so if you are doing so because your tinfoil hat is too tight it isnt going to help you one bit vs an LEO.    

[SmokinLoon]

government in this country is out of control (including the police)


blaa!

How right you are.  However, the reactions of the government and more-so law enforcement is directly related to the society it governs or serves.  The LEO system would still be (in addition to smiling a lot more) carrying revolvers (18 rounds total), a hickory baton, one set of handcuffs, a radio, and a shotgun with birdshot in the trunk if it didnt have to worry about the gangs, the violence, the hard core repeat offenders, the drugs, the school/workplace shootings, the illegals, the thrill seekers, the suicidals, and all the other BS we've seen arise from out of [insert reason here] these past 20-30 years.  Instead, officers are carrying a hi-cap autoloader pistol w/ appx 45-50 rounds on person (hit ratios have plummeted, btw), an Asp (collaspable metal baton), OC spray, a tazer, a knife (for cutting people out of a seatbelt   ), 2 sets of handcuffs, a ballistic vest, a radio, enough trainging to take on 10 hoodlums in a fist fight, and the mentality of a drill instructor speaking to Gma (just be polite and say "Sir/Ma'am while being staunch and firm).  Oh, did I mention the AR15 in the squad car that is reached for far too often?  Our LEO force has become far too military in operation, imo.  However, I undestand why and it a sad thing.

       

[oakranger]

finally something that is effective. 
My wife's aunt had a dumeass 18 year old driving around the house 3 in the morning.  He was drunk and came inches from hitting the house and a natural gas line.  They caught him and he had his licence taking away.  Dose this stop him from driving? NO.  three days later after his court appearance, he is driving and drunk.  Hits a $60,000 SUV and takes off with only three wheels.  He will still drive till he kills him self or somebody elas.

[trigger2]

As the comforts of anonymity and privacy begin to erode in the name of security, so shall the foundations of the rest of our country's statutes..
This is but a step...

I have to disagree with you. From the looks of the screen, and talking to a Silverton Police officer (gotta love connections ), the officer can get just as much information on any car that isn't struck as "hot" by watching your local DOT's traffic camera's, or driving around. I tend to respect your comments, but this one just doesn't seem to be thought through.

Some say it can also say if a warrent of arrest is registered against the owner but I don't if this is true but the above most defiantly is. 

If the officials who got the warrant knew the vehicle they drove, including the licence plate, I don't see why it couldn't work...