I got caught by one of those license plate scanners awhile back. I never got the renewal notice on one of the cars from my county. I had just crossed into Shelby County and a cop coming at me wipped a U turn just as he passed me and pulled me over. He could not have seen that with the naked eye that quickly and surely he doesn’t go down the road looking in his rearview mirror at the license plate of every car he passes.
Anyway, it was only a couple days overdue, when I got back home, I took care of it the next day. Unfortunately its a mandatory appearance and that meant I had to go to Memphis to see a judge. I’d rather take a beating than go to Memphis, especially that part of town. It got dismissed because I took care of it right away, I guess they just want to make sure it was taken care of.
@Whitey, I don’t have a problem with the uses you mention. But if the records are retained for any length of time, a lawyer may be able to get access to them for less civic-minded causes.
While giving away your privacy, you should know that in Minnesota (which is loaded with very honest police and public), there have been thousands of unauthorized access to drivers license information. It was not only police around the state looking up personal information on celebrities and good looking women, but also several involved in downloading and selling the information for identity theft. If its in the computer and clerks and others have access to it, it is not secure, period.
Where I came from for private information, we used a separate index code so that the name of an individual was never in the same computer system or location. That made identification and tracking impossible without access to both systems, that very few had.
Our phone calls, emails, internet usage, purchases, and auto use are all tracked, and there is much more they’d like to track such as medical records, ammo purchases and so on. I think its time we take a hard look at it. Just because the technology is there doesn’t mean it should be legal.
Although I am not concerned about cameras in public places, I am not “giving away” my privacy. I never expected to have privacy driving a state-registered vehicle on public roads. I think driver’s license information should be protected from hackers, and I am against identity theft. I am against the monitoring of phone calls, internet usage, and cash purchases. (Seriously, if you think your credit card purchases are private, you should wake up and read your terms of service.)
I think it’s time to take a hard look at why it is people think they have a right to privacy in public places like highways and the internet. I think it’s also time to insist that, if you’re going to expect privacy online, you read the terms of service you acknowledge every time you sign up for an account or log into a website. How many people have read the terms of service of this forum before they acknowledged them?
Perhaps it’s time everyone who fiercely defends the second amendment take a few minutes to defend the fourth amendment. These people refuse to discuss common sense gun regulations, but they don’t bat an eye when the NSA spies on their activities. It blows my mind.
Your car is an extension of your home and there is a right to privacy in both. That’s the point. All license information and plate camera information is protected from hackers. Its not the hackers, but employees and law enforcement that have unathorized access to it. Its a problem from within the system not without.
Your car is not an extension of your home on public roads. Unless your car is parked or solely operated on private property (and, really, even if it is), it’s subject to a whole different set of rules. Within the walls of your home, you can get away with pretty much anything that doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. Check your driver’s license. In most states it has printed on it something like “Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law.” Notice there is nothing in that statement that says the motor vehicle has to be on a public road. You can be drunk as a skunk in your own home as long as you don’t hurt anybody, and as long as you don’t step off your property and get arrested for public intoxication.
Police officers can search your car without a warrant. All they need is a positive indication from a drug-sniffing dog. You can exercise your 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights to keep a police officer out of your home if he doesn’t have a warrant, but if you’re in a car, the officer can still detain you while he waits for a drug or bomb sniffing dog to arrive. The burden for “probable cause” is significantly lower for a car than it is for a home.
I don’t know where people get the idea that driving is a right. It never has been. It’s always been a privilege.
When is the last time you had to renew the registration on your home?
Oh boy. I don’t ever have a drink if I’m going to drive, and I don’t ever use drugs, so that’s not a concern of mine personally. There is nothing on a Minnesota drivers license except identification information and what vehicles can be driven. You cannot be stopped in your car on a public street without probable cause, period. They cannot search a vehicle without permission or probable cause.
I didn’t say driving was a right, I said privacy was a right. Paying a license fee, or gas tax, to use public roads does not change the right to privacy at all. I pay property taxes on my house twice a year too but that doesn’t diminish the right to privacy. We should not be so quick to cave into political authority. Remember the frog in the frying pan. There will always be legitimate arguements given for giving up our privacy rights for our own protection.
Yes the police can NOT search your vehicle without probably cause…HOWEVER…if they think there MIGHT be drugs they can detain you until they get the drug sniffing dogs. If the dogs then indicate there is something…then they have that probable cause.
As for pulling you over without probably cause…Well ANY traffic infraction they police have the right to pull you over…Something as little as a tail light out. If the police want to pull you over…they’ll find a LEGAL way. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to drive perfectly ALL THE TIME. And even then…all they have to say is they THOUGHT you were driving erratically.
Basically anyone in authority can get away with whatever you will tolerate or lack the energy, knowledge, or ambition to fight, whether it’s right or wrong.
If a cop wants to pull you over, they will make up a “probable cause”. If they want to search your car and you decline, it really depends on how much of a hassle the cop thinks it will be worth to him or her to get the proper permission.
In general, the system is biased to favor law enforcement. It’s certainly possible to fight against it, but it’s difficult in every step for a citizen to do so. Endless red tape, time lost from work, big financial penalties if you fail. Naturally the poor and people with little resources suffer the most and have the least power to do anything about it. They will grind you down if you resist.
The corrupt will always try to prey on the poor and the weak, whether they’re criminals, bad cops, or elected officials. Unfortunately that’s just life, and there’s not often a whole lot the average person can do about it without a lot of sacrifice.
Some time ago, @Whitey, IIRC, posted a link to a video that showed how to respond to a traffic stop and request by a policeman to search your car. I found it instructive. If you search for it, the thread should pop up.
One of the NEW driving lessons I’ve discoverd that needs taught to my new driver ( 14 yr daughter ) is about which intersections are on sensors and how to work them.
Back when my older daughter ( now 37 ) was learning there weren’t so many sensor lights and all of those were obvious cutouts in the pavement.
Nowadays you can see the cameras up there so she has to learn where to stop so as to be seen quickly and get the light.
So far she’s gotten several wrong, Either too far forward or too far back, and we sat and waited till she wondered why the light didn’t change yet.
and the flipside…
Once she learned where to stop to be seen…
she feels entitled to a quick light change at timered, non sensor intersections .
– this is funny –
watching her squirm, looking up and down the cross street talking out loud to the light to let her go now.
The one that bugs me the most is on the way to school where we must wait in a left turn lane.
This light is notorious for going to sleep ( for the left turn arrow que ) halfway through the morning rush.
Three school busses and twelve cars all waiting impatiently to get to school.
In that event, states have laws regarding “conduct of drivers at a malfunctioning signalling device” or similar language. Motorcyclists and bicyclists (who often lack enough metal to trigger a sensor) utilize this portion of the law frequently.
As a motorcyclist, I can confirm this is true. If you don’t trigger a light, you can run it, but you better be darn sure the intersection is clear when you do. Usually, I prefer to pull off to the side or in front of the sensor and signal for the car behind me to move up so it triggers the censor.
