Pulled over after running my plates.

[bowdog]

I see nothing wrong with this at all....Let me ask you this, if your bike was stolen and some ass hat was riding down the road normally as you were, would you be mad if the cop that was doing his job pulled over the suspect for the exact same reason and recovered your stolen motorcycle?

[redkow97]

This is the correct opinion. It was a Terry stop.

 

I would not have thought of it that way, but you're right.

 

lack of an M endorsement gives the officer "specific articulable facts" to believe that a crime is being committed.  The fact that he was mistaken is irrelevant.  The theory is that punishing their behavior achieves no purpose when they have a good-faith belief they're investigating an actual crime.

[Tpoppa]

I see nothing wrong with this at all....Let me ask you this, if your bike was stolen and some ass hat was riding down the road normally as you were, would you be mad if the cop that was doing his job pulled over the suspect for the exact same reason and recovered your stolen motorcycle?

What the cop is doing might not be illegal, and even if it was he's unlikely to get in any trouble.

 

...but it's a huge violation of one of the main concepts behind the bill of rights and to a lesser extent the constitution.  Those who created those principles were trying very hard to prevent the gov't and police from poking their nose into your business unless they had a damn good reason that they could prove in court.  

 

By your logic, why not eliminate the 4th Amendment entirely?  If they could search and seize at will, they could probably find a reason to arrest someone, right?  So why not?.. because those that were willing to fight for freedom found it intolerable.  

Edited May 5, 2014 by Tpoppa

[JackFlash]

By not knowing the law, we allow ourselves to be

treated as they wish to treat us.  We should have

never let it get this far. 

 

http://www.tyrannybusters.org/pages/sublev/highway.htm

 

http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/1227205-right-travel-unmolested.html

[chevysoldier]

So if I didn't have a helmet on, he could have (hopefully) determined that I was not 74. But then he would for possible stolen vehicle. So should they pull over anyone who doesn't match the ethnicity of the registered owner? Black nanny driving white bosses kids around in bosses car. Husband driving wife's car who has her Liscence suspended? All these are lacking PC if you ask me.

"I miss America"

I think you're missing it a tad. If I lend my car to a black guy, he's valid I'm not, and the officer runs the tag and sees my invalid status, he should be able to tell I'm not the driver. Therefore he now has no probable cause to stop the vehicle because obviously I'm not driving.

[Tonik]

I think you're missing it a tad. If I lend my car to a black guy, he's valid I'm not, and the officer runs the tag and sees my invalid status, he should be able to tell I'm not the driver. Therefore he now has no probable cause to stop the vehicle because obviously I'm not driving.

How would the LEO know you are a white guy, is there something special about your name that designates that you are white?

EDIT Oh, from your dl record. Not sure the original hit contains that much info. I know cops, I will find out.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Tonik

[TimTheAzn]

The last ticket I got the cop put white as the race on the ticket, nothing wrong with being white but have you seen me?

Sent from my iPhone.

[idodishez]

...but it's a huge violation of one of the main concepts behind the bill of rights and to a lesser extent the constitution. Those who created those principles were trying very hard to prevent the gov't and police from poking their nose into your business unless they had a damn good reason that they could prove in court.

By your logic, why not eliminate the 4th Amendment entirely? If they could search and seize at will, they could probably find a reason to arrest someone, right? So why not?.. because those that were willing to fight for freedom found it intolerable.

This pretty much sums up exactly where I stand on the issue.

"I miss America"

[chevysoldier]

How would the LEO know you are a white guy, is there something special about your name that designates that you are white?

EDIT Oh, from your dl record. Not sure the original hit contains that much info. I know cops, I will find out.

I was a cop. It'll pull up your latest license photo.

[ReconRat]

Just happened to remember... a few years ago, I saw one of these specialized camera units rolling through a parking lot checking all the plates. Not quite sure why it was doing that. Wasn't an ordinary black and white, it was something else.

[Gump]

Just happened to remember... a few years ago, I saw one of these specialized camera units rolling through a parking lot checking all the plates. Not quite sure why it was doing that. Wasn't an ordinary black and white, it was something else.

It was the Chinese.

[Anden]

I have seen this done during sporting events at the school. I had a problem with it till someone said pedobear could be here. I am completely ok with it now.

Just happened to remember... a few years ago, I saw one of these specialized camera units rolling through a parking lot checking all the plates. Not quite sure why it was doing that. Wasn't an ordinary black and white, it was something else.

[Tpoppa]

I have seen this done during sporting events at the school. I had a problem with it till someone said pedobear could be here. I am completely ok with it now.

 

The way I read this is someone used fear to get you to basically give up on rights we are entitled.

 

I am afraid I can't support that.

[ohiomike]

Running plates is not illegal or an intrusion on your rights.  Operating a mc without a proper endorsement is illegal.  I am one of the worst at dealing with someone stepping on my rights, but I see no issue with the way this LEO handled the situation.  Some states and jurisdictions are known for doing just this as well as doing inspection lanes where they often catch a lot of bikers without endorsemtents.

 

Be legal and its no biggie.

[magley64]

Dammit, I hate agreeing with Ohio mike, lol

Plates are out in public in plain view, search and seizure don't come into play...

[Cdubyah]

Nope. I still disagree. It's a violation of the Law Enforcement Automated Data System. (LEADS)

 

You can run a tag if you have an open investigation. Eg. warrant, stolen plate, vehicle, missing person, amber alert, sexual offender. That is what the cameras are supposed to look for, that is the information they are given from DPS to look for. If they are running more, then its a violation. You cannot run a tag, and then see who it belongs to. Regardless if automated by a camera, or by a person.

 

Let me give you another example.

 

Cop and wife get divorce

Cop drives by ex-wifes house.

Cop runs new boyfriends tags in driveway to see who it is.

Cop gets reported to LEADS by ex-wife

Cop gets slapped with a LEADS violation

 

Same violation, but different circumstances. Still a violation of the LEADS.

 

You cannot run a tag on anyone. There has to be a reason first. Doesn't matter if it's in plain view or not. They can't even run information on themselves, although I'm sure they do.

[magley64]

Nope. I still disagree. It's a violation of the Law Enforcement Automated Data System. (LEADS)

 

You can run a tag if you have an open investigation. Eg. warrant, stolen plate, vehicle, missing person, amber alert, sexual offender. That is what the cameras are supposed to look for, that is the information they are given from DPS to look for. If they are running more, then its a violation. You cannot run a tag, and then see who it belongs to. Regardless if automated by a camera, or by a person.

 

Let me give you another example.

 

Cop and wife get divorce

Cop drives by ex-wifes house.

Cop runs new boyfriends tags in driveway to see who it is.

Cop gets reported to LEADS by ex-wife

Cop gets slapped with a LEADS violation

 

Same violation, but different circumstances. Still a violation of the LEADS.

 

You cannot run a tag on anyone. There has to be a reason first. Doesn't matter if it's in plain view or not. They can't even run information on themselves, although I'm sure they do.

 

 

So you're saying they can't run every single plate they see? or every 5th plate? 

 

As I understand it, there are no such limitations on police officers during the course of normal traffic duty...

 

Now with your specific example, that's for personal benefit, not in the normal course of his police duties, so I could see that as a violation.

[blueskeyes]

There was a story about this last week on Gawker I think. A reporter got a copy of the times her plate had been "auto-scanned" via a FOIA request in Virginia. It was scary enough that it was kept in a database but also that her every movement had been tracked.

 

Unfortunately this isn't completely a government "overreach" thing but a corporation lobby issue and police departments having a lot more spending cash thanks to the DHS. I'm sorry, but Roscoe P. Coltrane does NOT need a radiation detector for his car.

 

Our police should be out there protecting and serving...not "fundraising" through tickets. I can go on forever on my opinions but our LEO community is becoming totally out of touch with the community they serve. We are no longer treated as citizens but potential criminals. I got pulled over this winter for running a stop sign on Barnhart in Troy. I actually slid through it because the road crews did such a splendid job at clearing the roads of ice. When I tried to explain that to the officer he told me that my ticket will go to help future plow purchases. 

[Cdubyah]

So you're saying they can't run every single plate they see? or every 5th plate? 

 

As I understand it, there are no such limitations on police officers during the course of normal traffic duty...

 

Now with your specific example, that's for personal benefit, not in the normal course of his police duties, so I could see that as a violation.

 

 

They can run the tag if they have a reason. Like speeding, following to close, lane violation. If that's every 5th car that gives them the reason to run it. 

They shouldn't run it in hopes of finding a criminal that has a warrant, or a non licensed rider. Because they had no reason to do so in the first place.

Improper use of the system is improper regardless if on duty or off. It's still information on a private citizen that is not public record.  The example I stated is a violation I hear of alot.

 

I have nothing against LEO's or the LE community, so please don't misconstrue these posts that way.

[Tpoppa]

Our police should be out there protecting and serving...not "fundraising" through tickets. 

When police say safety then mean revenue.  Specifically, they mean revenue to keep paying police officers.  This is a conflict of interest.

 

Revenue increases are supposed to be approved by voters.  If voters don't approve and there isn't enough $$ to pay all the police, then fire some.  If a community becomes under served maybe the voters will approve the next one.   

 

http://www.cleveland.com/tipoff/index.ssf/2013/08/linndale_the_tiny_village_know.html

 

"Still, the ticket money is the village's single biggest source of revenue."

Edited May 6, 2014 by Tpoppa

[magley64]

They can run the tag if they have a reason. Like speeding, following to close, lane violation. If that's every 5th car that gives them the reason to run it. 

They shouldn't run it in hopes of finding a criminal that has a warrant, or a non licensed rider. Because they had no reason to do so in the first place.

Improper use of the system is improper regardless if on duty or off. It's still information on a private citizen that is not public record.  The example I stated is a violation I hear of alot.

 

I have nothing against LEO's or the LE community, so please don't misconstrue these posts that way.

 

 

In a 2-1 decision in September 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in United States v. Curtis Ellison that random plate checks are not an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and that "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."

Ellison appealed the decision, but last October the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, letting the appeals' decision stand as the current law of the land.

In its decision, the court joined virtually every other federal jurisdiction in saying individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to license plate numbers. The courts in the Tenth Circuit - in two separate rulings - the Fifth Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit all made similar determinations, and in both 2000 and 2003 the Sixth Circuit itself OK'd random computer checks of license plates without probable cause or even heightened suspicion. 

[blueskeyes]

If anyone wants to see an example of obscene police spending check out small regional airports. Dayton "International" is a prime example. Also it has been explained directly to me by a member of the airport police that the plate scanners are used in hope of finding individuals with warrants.

[Tonik]

I am not a lawyer, nor am I a cop and I have not seen this system in action.  But I don't think this system constitutes the police officer running a plate. As I understand it the system scans in the background, and the only time the LEO sees anything is if there is a hit. Then it beeps and pops on his screen. Even if it does constitute him running a plate, it is running a plate in the normal allowed course of his duties as the court rulings above that my friend Mags quoted cleary show.

 

This system is legal. If we don't like it we need to elect legislature types to pass a state law and make it illegal.

 

Now, the retention of this data, building a pattern of someone's travels. That is total bullshit and needs to be made illegal by the legislature like right now.

[magley64]

 

Now, the retention of this data, building a pattern of someone's travels. That is total bullshit and needs to be made illegal by the legislature like right now.

 

I believe the DPPA already addresses this.

[Cdubyah]

Good information to reference. I'm sure the lawyers could continue to throw that shit back and forth all day long.

 

Here's Another. Nothing like confusing as laws we have here in Murica.

Federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act. The DPPA expressly prohibits individuals to seek or obtain license plate information except for law enforcement and other extremely limited purposes.

Congress enacted the law following the murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer by a stalker who secured her home address through California motor vehicle records. Those obtaining information under DPPA must not only be authorized to do so but to have a valid reason.

In other words, it's not enough to be a police officer; the officer has to have a valid law-enforcement reason to conduct the search, precisely because of the potential of officers to abuse discretion.

 

 

Lookup Delaware vs. Prouse as well.

 

I'm glad I didn't study law. My damn head would have spun off.

 

 

Tonik, those scanners look for pre-loaded information to hit on. They don't run the information of every plate they see. 

Edited May 6, 2014 by Cdubyah