Posted on 10/25/2020 3:22:22 AM PDT by ptsal
In 2018, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of Neal but sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether the case involved an “information system” covered by the Data Act. On a second appeal, the court upheld the use of ALPR data collection because the data is not stored within the ALPR system and so was not part of a “record keeping” system covered by the Data Act.
This seems like a narrow interpretation of a “record keeping” system.
Nope. Nice place. They are a very cheap insurance policy.
The false argument is that you have no expectation of privacy when out in public. It's not the viewing that's an issue, it's the storage and retrieval of it and who retrieves it. It's an unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment. No warrant has been sworn out to surveil these individuals who are all innocent until proven guilty.
Joe Citizen can do this in some jurisdictions but not others. The government cannot do it anywhere without a warrant.
License plate are NOT personal information they are for public ID.
How do you report a hit and bun car oh it was a blue 4 door.
>> I am a good guy.<<
Because you say so.
Assuming your self-assessment is correct and you have never run afoul of the law nor others, few people possess your Christ-like qualities.
No warrant is necessary to surveil a person in public. The 4th Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from watching you walking back and forth on a sidewalk carrying a sign. If the sign says “I’m going to knock over the liquor store next Thursday on the corner of dog face and pony street at 4 pm,” the police can show up at that time in that place and arrest him when he makes his play. The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, not all searches and seizures. Likewise, if a squad car sees the license plate of a stolen vehicle, which is attached to the vehicle of the same year and make as the one stolen, they can stop the driver and arrest him, because the data was compiled that gives them probable cause to believe that the car is stolen, and the driver can be presumed to be the thief. He’s presumed innocent until proven guilty, so he can show proof that he bought the vehicle, and describe the person he bought it from, who then becomes the suspect.
In your scenario, the data is not just being used to determine if the car is stolen. If that were the case, the data would be dumped once the car got a negative hit. Instead, government agencies are using the data for mass surveillance and also selling the data to private companies.
“It’s a checkpoint, an automated one, and such checkpoints are in direct violation of the 4th Amendment. “
Do you have a case you care to cite? A papal bull? Nobody is stopped at this “checkpoint”. So they take a picture of your license plate as you pass. Big deal.
“In your scenario, the data is not just being used to determine if the car is stolen. If that were the case, the data would be dumped once the car got a negative hit. Instead, government agencies are using the data for mass surveillance and also selling the data to private companies.”
And those private companies do what? Marketing research? You do not need probable cause to record something that’s on public display. The data may not be dumped if there’s a negative hit, but it’s ignored for all intents and purposes, along with all the other useless bytes of data collected and warehoused in case they ever are needed.
Ahhhh, if only “good” uses would prevail.
I do not trust the admins and heavy hands at police headquarters.
I’m not a fan of plate scanners but they have removed the “racial profiling” issue for police; when the computer says a car isn’t registered, the race of the driver is irrelevant (and invisible to the cop at that point).
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), the Supreme Court found a checkpoint violated the Fourth Amendment because its primarily purpose of intercepting illegal drugs was indistinguishable from the state’s “general interest in crime control.” If that were enough to justify a checkpoint, the Court explained, there would be little to prevent law enforcement from making checkpoints a “routine part of American life.” (The emphasis is mine and also note that if drug trafficking doesn't merit a checkpoint, stolen vehicles certainly don't.)
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte :: 428 U.S. 543
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/
In the courts determination that a permanent checkpoint can be located near the Mexican Border at "reasonably located checkpoints", "for brief questioning".
Federal Court in Washington D.C. in relation to illegal checkpoints in the "Trinidad" neighborhood: http://www.justiceonline.org /court_dcs_trinidad_checkpoints_not_legal
Oh, and it's not just your license plate they're capturing, it's the cell phone information from all occupants of the vehicle, and yes, they're selling that to private companies as well. They know what doctor you saw and when. They can tell which church and political events you attend.
Cell phone information is one step too far. But nobody is being stopped at all. The camera just collects plates. That’s all it should collect. If it’s collecting cell phone info, that is invading privacy.
You may enjoy a surveillance state, but anyone familiar with how them would not.
Creating massive databases of information on citizens never ends well.
You think i need your approval?
Eat cow dung.
I don’t enjoy a surveillance state any more than you do. But I disagree that taking down license plates, standing alone, constitutes a surveillance state.
As for massive databases, license plates on cars is the very least of that. But I don’t see you ripping up your social security card, your driver’s license, your diplomas, refusing to register to vote, or doing all your browsing on Duck Duck Go instead of Google.
You are free to avoid the license plate thing by just not owning a car. They aren’t going to staple one to your arse, because they already have all your personal information as a result of being a part of modern life. If you’re really series about this, you can join the Amish, or declare your own country somewhere in Appalachia.
Your problem is that you think this will give you security.
I don’t even own a car. I don’t even live in the state where this is an issue.Your problem is you’re arguing with a strawman whom you mistake for me, making arguments I never made, taking positions I never took. I’m interested in the legal ramifications of this whole issue, and I don’t agree with you. There are many ways to not agree with you, not just the one your straw man has formulated. When you get around to responding to a point I actually made, I’ll take further interest in this exchange. ‘bye.
I do not trust the admins and heavy hands at police headquarters.
You may want to look at all the cameras on every street and on stores this is 1984.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.