as long as the lack of cooporation is done peacefully"
[url]http://www.sptimes.com/News/071801/TampaBay/Scan_precedents_Devel.shtml[/url]

[url]http://www.sptimes.com/News/071901/Floridian/Click_BEEP_Face_captu.shtml[/url]

[size=3]LINKS ARE UP. WND WAS DOWN [/size=3]

LAWS VERY FROM STATE TO STATE, THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE

Have you got a link that works?

Your link doesn't work

HANGFIRE,

I believe that should be ID, not evidence.


mtnpatriot & tcsd1236,

Keep retrying the link. I just got refused twice and then got in.

...just another case of trading liberty for security...

i think what the article says is: someone please be the first to refuse the police when asked, so it can go to court and set a precident for the rest of us.

yes, and in my state you can also do time for "lying to a law enforcement agent", "Obstructing the aprehension of a criminal", "conspiracy" for knowing about the crime and not reporting what you know and our old favorite "obstructing justice" Yeah! you can refuse and get a stay in the county bed and breakfast! But keep your stay peaceful!

There are only a few correct answers, taught to us by our favorite politicians.

"I do not recall"

"It all depends on what the word ID means"

"I have no knowledge of..."

Tried and true.

I was about to do a plea for a client in a Criminal District Court in Dallas, Texas, not long ago, and the Assistant D.A., and I were sitting through a hearing in another criminal matter.

In that case, a Dallas Police Officer was sitting at a stop light near downtown at about 5:00, AM, when a car made a left hand turn in front of the policeman.  The car was obeying all traffic laws, not being driven erratically, or anything else, according to the officer's testimony.

Nevertheless, the policeman typed the license plate number of the vehicle into his patrol car's computer, and, we couldn't figure out what, but something came up on the screen that gave rise to some suspicion on the policeman's part, and he hooked a louie, and stopped the car. Bust ensued.

I asked the Ass't DA if the officer wasn't conducting a 'search' without probable cause when he typed the license number into the computer, he said no, that was routine!

Routine or not, that was a 'search' IMHO. If I handled more criminal cases, I would probably know the answer, but I don't (Thank God).

Do any LEOs or criminal attorneys out there know if that sort of license plate search on a vehicle that is being driven safely and without any 'suspicious' factors, is proper or not?

Eric The(CivilLawOnly)Hun[>]:)]  

IMHO, this is bad advice.  Police can arrest you for failing to give ID if they have a "reasonable suspicion."  You can never know whether a cop has a reasonable suspicion, because that condition depends solely on the objective facts known to the officer and evaluated in light of his experience.

Give ID, then demand an attorney and remain silent.

I.D. is "evidence" of who you are.
It is the first step of interogation.
'Anything you say or DO can and will be used against you.' 'You have the RIGHT to remain SILENT'

The article is not referring to any of the "above."
Just as Felons have the RIGHT not to incriminate themselves by filling out a "yellow
sheet", WE THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO REFUSE TO GIVE INFORMATION TO ANYONE.

Dude, that is common for police now-a-days.  
You can always see them typing one-handed, looking into the middle of the dash.   That is standard operating proceude.
c-rock

Do you have the right to remain silent? Then you have the right to refuse to give ID.

Officer:"may I have a word with you?"
Gunmonkey:" No, you may not."
Bring a warrant. I have been shafted because I cooperated, never again. I am not a punk or a trouble maker, so if an LEO wants to use me to fill a quota, he's gonna have to work for it.

Orwellian eyes Series: EDITORIAL
St. Petersburg Times; St. Petersburg, Fla.; Jul 15, 2001;

Abstract:
The proliferation and availability of high-tech crime-fighting tools have encouraged law enforcement to experiment with machines that claim to do what a legion of police couldn't. Devices being tested by police agencies here and around the country claim to flush fugitives out of a crowd and automatically analyze drivers' license photographs for wanted criminals. But before we rush to embrace the newest crook-grabbing toy, it is incumbent on our leaders to have a serious conversation on the trade-offs. Privacy is not just some word that appears on a hotel doorknob warning off the maid. Privacy is a fundamental individual right. We fought a revolution to keep the state from arbitrarily searching our person and property, and every new technology should be measured against this interest.

In Colorado, the Department of Motor Vehicles is planning to take this Orwellian technology even further by creating a database of three-dimensional facial maps of every person applying for a driver's license. A joint statement by the American Civil Liberties Union and House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, warns: "Used in conjunction with facial-recognition software, the Colorado database could allow the public movements of every citizen in the state to be identified, tracked, recorded and stored."

Full Text:
Copyright Times Publishing Co. Jul 15, 2001

In almost every B-grade science fiction movie, there's a point in the plot where the mad scientist develops something that could be used to further the cause of good or evil. He invariably chooses evil. But as the debate over the use of face-recognition software in Ybor City reminds us, the tougher problem arises when an invasive new technology is intended to be used for good.

The proliferation and availability of high-tech crime-fighting tools have encouraged law enforcement to experiment with machines that claim to do what a legion of police couldn't. Devices being tested by police agencies here and around the country claim to flush fugitives out of a crowd and automatically analyze drivers' license photographs for wanted criminals. But before we rush to embrace the newest crook-grabbing toy, it is incumbent on our leaders to have a serious conversation on the trade-offs. Privacy is not just some word that appears on a hotel doorknob warning off the maid. Privacy is a fundamental individual right. We fought a revolution to keep the state from arbitrarily searching our person and property, and every new technology should be measured against this interest.

The software being tried out in Ybor City ostensibly maps the faces of passersby, analyzing 80 distinct points on each and comparing that to a database of mug shots of fugitives.

That means people enjoying an evening out are not only being observed through a series of 36 cameras, they are also part of a virtual lineup. Everyone's a suspect until the computer says you're clear. And if you think just staying out of Ybor will keep you from this kind of intrusion, think again. Thanks to a $3.5-million grant arranged by congressman C.W. Bill Young, the Largo Republican who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office will soon be using face-matching software on the entire database of state drivers' license photos. The photos will constitute one giant mug book.

Law enforcement officials say there is nothing unconstitutional about these technologies. When we're strolling on a street in Ybor City, no one has an expectation of privacy. And putting visages through this database is really no different from police standing on street corners with mug shots, making comparisons as people walk by.

But this argument is as disingenuous as saying that looking through a window from the sidewalk is the same as looking in with a high-powered telephoto lense or night goggles. Technology makes a substantial difference in the degree of intrusion.

While police taking random video of people on the street as a way of keeping the peace may not constitute a search for constitutional purposes, face mapping does. Taking exact measurements of one's facial features is not something a police officer could eyeball. The technology provides police with a great deal of personal information they couldn't otherwise obtain, and it's on people who are not suspected of criminal wrongdoing.

criminal wrongdoing.

In Colorado, the Department of Motor Vehicles is planning to take this Orwellian technology even further by creating a database of three-dimensional facial maps of every person applying for a driver's license. A joint statement by the American Civil Liberties Union and House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, warns: "Used in conjunction with facial-recognition software, the Colorado database could allow the public movements of every citizen in the state to be identified, tracked, recorded and stored."

Armey, one of the most conservative members of Congress, has decided to make these privacy incursions a personal crusade. He is planning to ask the General Accounting Office to look into the ways government is funding these face-recognition software programs and he has asked appropriate House committees to investigate the use of these programs by law enforcement.

As new technologies give police ever greater ability to track the movements of law-abiding citizens in the name of public safety, we will have to decide whether the marginal safety benefit is worth the cost. Face-recognition technology may be intended as a force for good, but its dark side is worthy of a mad scientist.

Thanks [b]MAP[/b] and [b]c-rock[/b]! for your responses.

I just don't see anything different from the situation in Tampa(?) with the cameras, and the computer check of automobiles.

In neither case is anyone doing anything wrong, but by appearing in public, without more, the authorities conduct a 'search' of either the facial characteristics of the pedestrian or the vehicle of the motorist.

I forget exactly what the officer testified the reason for his computer search was, but I think it was because the vehicle was registered to someone in Garland (a suburb of Dallas) and he wondered what the car was doing in the early morning hours near downtown Dallas.

I posted a thread awhile back about a traffic stop I had out in West Texas, where the LEOs (Texas Highway Patrol) were only interested in the AR-15 Shorty that was hanging in the gun rack of my pickup.

"What sort of weapon is that?
A Colt AR-15, officer.
Is it semi-auto or full auto?
Semi-, officer, of course.
Well, some people make them into full auto.
Not this person, officer!"

They took possession of the firearm, simply for the purpose of determining whether or not 'it was stolen.'

When they got it into their cruiser, the FIRST thing they did was pop the take down pin and break it open!  Looking for a 'hidden serial' number? Or simply checking to see if this ol' boy had switched out a few AR-15 parts for some M-16 parts?

Was that a 'search'?

Eric The(GiveMeABreak)Hun[>]:)]  

When drivers are out and about (in public),  they do not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" like that of a person sitting at his computer desk at home. Hence the running of a plate in the computer.

Running plates is considered to be an "unobtrusive search". If you are in a public place with your car,  you are fair game for such a "search."  How else do you catch a stolen car that isn't breaking any laws or draws attention to itself (using reasonable suspicion/ probable cause as a means to stop said car)?

Dont present you ID = obstuction of justice
Not telling the truth and they know= obstuction of justice, How do I know, Found out first hand. Cops are always willing to oblige.
GG.

A search would mean some intrusion or inconvinience. Neither is the case.

1) It is a public road, there is no expectation of privacy.
2) Registration plates are property of the issuing authourity, fees are paid to maintain them.
3) So if your car was stolen...........
4) There have been devices used for over a decade in Mass, in Boston by the toll boths at tunnels looking for stolen or othe felonious vehicle by an automate system. If it is allowed in the peoples republic of Mass........

FYI I have recovered about 15 occupied stolen vehicles this way, yes in low crime WI.

You do not have the right to not ID yourself if there is a reasonable articulable suspicion you are/were/about to commit a crime. If that is not present the officer can ask for your ID and you can decline to give it.

Most cops don't want a hassle just like you don't. If you act to them how you would want others to act to you, you would have far fewer problems. That doesn't mean that you have to volunteer info. But if you want to act like an idiot............

Eric in reading your later post

1) ran plate
2) found out car was from another community
3) then ther was a stop

This may be just me but the reg. check is fine, but the stop is based on the vehicle being out of "place"..... not sure that is a justifiable stop. There seems to be a lack of RAS/PC, just mere suspicion.

Still feel it is not a search, PLAIN VIEW.

The AR-15 that would seem to be a search, it required a stop, removal of the weapon, manipulation of the weapon, and an inspection of the weapon. The question I would have was whether it was a legal stop/search. I don't want to put my NOMEX on but, since it is visible difficult to determine the difference between an AR and an M-16 and the parts interchange...........

Sorry, don't want to P.O. people as far as RKBA, but I believe the incident has more to do with stop+search.

The "face scan" is more difficult. What it gives is "this person kinda looks like, well, umm, a wanted guy." If you decline to ID you may be let go, esp. if it for a minor warrant. But if it pops up you look 80% like a wanted murderer, and you decide not to ID yourself or provide any info, my suspicion is you will be arrested. You may get a ride downtown and an extended stay. unless when the officres search you the find verifiable ID on you, even so you still may go.

There was a Mass Transit cop that was supposed to have made more felony warrant arrests than any other Mass. officer. He did it by memorizing the names and faces of up to 10,000 wanted felons. Then he would stand in a subway station and scan the crowd. How is this different than an officer monitoring cameras looking in public areas with face recognition capability, except the Mass. officer was way more than 80% accurate?

I think the technology not accurate enough yet. But if the cops spend more time finding and arresting bad guys with warrants doesn't tha give them less time to pick on everyone else?

Post from GeneStoner -

I am in a public place with my briefcase, but I do not agree that my briefcase is subject to a [u]search[/u]. And if I'm not breaking any laws or drawing attention to myself, why should anyone be permitted to 'search' me?

If I am going into a public building in which a Court is sitting, or some state or federal agency is located, I would obviously agree that a 'search' of my briefcase is in order, and it would be expected.

Why? Because [b]everyone's[/b] briefcase is being searched, there is an expectation that your briefcase will be searched.

If everyone's plate is being searched, as they do in traffic stops and license checkpoints, then there [s]is[/s] may be no problem.

Why not just 'unobtrusively search' everyone? Think about all the criminals, fugitives, drugs, guns, and other contraband that you would find!  Why not a 'lockdown' of an urban block and a house-to-house search? If results are all you are after, then that makes a lot of sense.

Post from NO-AR-:(

What was the 'tipoff' that there was a need to use this 'way' to search the vehicle?  Or do you just willy-nilly stop and check cars?

I'm not certain but that I would prefer to put up with having a lot more stolen cars unrecovered, than to live in a country where you can be stopped without probable cause! If I were a minority, I would really feel this way!

How does everyone feel about a [b]National Identity Card[/b]?

Eric The(That'llCatchEvenMoreFolks!)Hun[>]:)]

3-4 based on info before I saw the car... you know "be on the look out".

3-4 based on a pre-stop data check of cars I was going to stop due to traffic violations.

The rest cause I was tooling down the road, listening to the stereo... In an alert manner looking for varios ne'er do-wells, and randomly ran registration checks. And when I did the MDC launched flares....."STOLEN VEHICLE". My next step was to always verifiy the info before making a stop, registration, plate type/state, and vehicle charactersitics.

But you keep saying search, it is not a search is is plain view. There is no expectation of privacy, stop without cause, or delay of the vehicle being checked  without cause.  

FACT !!!

If you are on the street and NOT DRIVING you are not required to ID yourself  because:

- driving license is issued for the priviledge of driving and not walking. (what about people that don't have one)

- passport is not mandatory to have.

- we don't have a national ID system YET.

- SS# is not for identification purposses.

- if the cop is a jack ass you can ask him if you are under arrest and if he sais YES then he has to read your rights at whicyou choose to remain silent (about  your identity)

- work ID is for work only.

Last time a cop asked me for ID I asked him back why and when he strated to be a jack ass (as usual) I looked into my pants and read him the underwear label:

Fruit of the Loom # 36  made in USA.

Post from NO-AR-:(

But that's just the point, there was no reason for anyone, especially not a law enforcement officer, in the performance of his duties, to determine whether the weapon was an AR-15 with M-16 parts or not. Since both are the same, you need more than just 'they look the same' to justify a detailed inspection of the weapon to make this determination.

REALERIC, a close friend of mine, was with me, and it sorta' amazed us up to see the two officers with the AR-15 cracked open in the cruiser and looking at a book or pamphlet that was probably explaining to them what to look for!  Yeah, plain view, fer sure.

Eric The(IsThatAGlock[u]17[/u] or[u]18[/u]?OrAreYouJustHappyToSeeMe?)Hun[>]:)]

Eric,

You keep saying search and stop.

It is not a search.

It does not require a stop, if I don't get thei nfo back before losing sight of the car I don't take any action. Reasonable Articulable Suspicion is the bare minimum for a stop PC is better. Running a plate does not change those requirements. ]

I often run plates in ares that have known BG activity. 1 stolen vehicle recovered.....Not to mention 3 guys wanted for 2 armed robberies and 1 att. murder, of course there was also some other corroborating info before they were contacted and arrested.

Eric, what did I do to you?? I AGREED with you that it was a search, I just added what might have been part of the thinking behind it I didn't say it was proper.

In your plate check scenario, I still don't see the data check as a search. I also don't see RAS/PC for the stop (Agreeing with you again, even if for a different reason) because what you say is the stop was based on the fact the vehicle's registered owner was not "local". Unless there is more to that, that seems real "thin". I thought as US citizens we had a freedom to travel. The time of day is a minor factor. There should have been more to justifiy a stop.

I don't volunteer anything.

If a cop asks if he can "look around" in my car, I will tell him I have nothing to hide but would rather he not.

Sorry, guys, I just kinda go ballistic on stops such as these.

I'm just fretting that one day, it will all be for real and that there will be a complete breakdown of our Constitutional rights and freedoms, and I have always counted on local police to be on the citizen's side, not the King's.

When you realize the complexities of modern gun laws, you know that the last thing you want on the side of a rural highway is a lengthy and most likely unprofitable discussion of pre- vs. post ban, made in USA parts, armor-piercing ammo, folding stocks, barrel lengths, stock configurations, magazine capacities, etc.

I think we may be able to agree on that as well.

Eric The(Reasonable,Really)Hun[>]:)]

"Most cops don't want a hassle just like you don't. If you act to them how you would want others to act to you, you would have far fewer problems. That doesn't mean that you have to volunteer info. But if you want to act like an idiot............"

If you don't volunteer info then you're an idiot and subject to arrest, search and seisure?

Ok,

But if the cops are using some of these tools in a responsible manner to spend less time "bugging" GG's and more time picking out BG's isn't that good??

Again not sure of the whole stop story, but if the stop was brief and they were looking for FA or a stolen weapon, (theorizing they might have known more....reason for stop than they shared), and returned the weapon quickly, it is unfortunate and not fun but not neccesarily them looking to crush the little guy.

No my response was directed at the manner that you use while saying "I decline to answer that question unless you have evidence to believe I committed a crime".

But if the officer has a REASON to contact you and you try to walk away from the officer, start yelling, spit at the officer, take up a "fighting stance", or something similar.......

Excuse me for posting that manners may actually be helpful. I know that is a far out concept in the "ME" society that has taken over this country.

AMEN to that. I may be wrong on the numbers but
we have about 36,000 outstanding warrants in the
Tampa Bay area. Most of our crime is committed
by these same people.

Post from SGB -

Right after the 'Not this person, officer!' quote from me:

[red]Well, I need to take possession of this weapon during this stop.[/red]
Look, officer, if you're worried about me making a play for the weapon, let's just step back to the rear of my truck.
[red]No, I need to take possession of the weapon and run the serial number to see if it's been reported as a stolen.[/red]
It's not stolen, officer, but do as you wish.
[red]You may return to your vehicle.[/red]


On the side of a rural highway, they could have asked me to curse General Lee and my Pappy and I would have been pleased to oblige!

It's just a great loss for me, personally, to think that we have been brought to a time in our civil history that someone such as I, a John Bircher-raised, Church of Christer-kind of fellow, humble respecter of law and order, can feel at such odds with the establishment.

Hell, I thought I wuz the establishment.

Eric The(WelcomeToTheBraveNewWorld,You'veBeenHereAllAlong)Hun[>]:)]

What he is saying is that the officer scared him so his consent was not voluntary.

Maybe a little more information on the stop is needed.

The vehicle I was driving was a 1979 Chevy 1/2 ton pickup, with 'Bush/Dole' sticker, Life Member NRA decal on rear window, and gun rack.
REALERIC and my tri-color Beagle 'Scooter' were with me. This was about 1994-95.

Me, cowboy hat, khaki shirt, and blue jeans, REALERIC, blue jeans with t-shirt. No tie-dyes, no facial pins, tacks, studs, needles, no visible tatoos, no spiked hair, no backwards baseball cap, no foul-lettered t-shirts, no 'No gas, no ass, no grass, no ride' bumper stickers on truck, no 'from my cold dead hands' stickers, no Calvin whizzing on a Ford emblem, no 'rainbow' decals, no nothing!

In other words, probably like 90% of the guys I see at gun shows in Texas.  In other words, like [b]us.[/b]

But I appear to be 'the enemy.'  What would the LEOs have done if the AR-15 had an M-16 bolt? I bought one just like that at a gun show. Didn't know it had an M-16 bolt (Colt actually shipped some AR-15s with full-auto bolts back in the 70s), but when I found it, I changed it out quickly.

Eric The(Disappointed)Hun[>]:)]

[More abrasive versions deleted cause it wasn't conducive to genteel dialogue]

I still think that the ordinary citizen would not feel at liberty to refuse the request of the officer in this instance, because it's a weapons handling issue.

Yes, there's always the "I know what my rights are, but my rights don't make a difference if I'm dead" aspect. However remote the possibility, you would do well to at least acknowledge this emotional response.

At the least, most people should be aware of 1) I could have a gun pointed at me. 2) I could lose my gun for who knows how long. I might could lose my car for a little while. 3) I could end up spending a night in jail.

Let me put it this way:
You have to knock on a door at 2AM for a mundane thing. My car rolled down the street into the neighbors living room. I hear a knock on my door at 2AM. I answer the door with a shotgun. Most people, police included I presume, are uncomfortable talking to someone in pajamas holding a shotgun. I would not be surprised at all if the officer asked me to ground the weapon. (I've never been in this situation.) Refusing to comply would likely make this an ugly situation.

Now, if you're still with me - translate this scenario into a vehicle. I have been stopped for reasons unknown to me. Or maybe some infraction. I have a weapon legally accessible to me. A long gun in the rack behind you is not exactly 'at the ready', but one could reasonably expect the officer just might seek to control the weapon anyway.  Refusal, again, could be a very tense situation for everyone involved. I realize the first situation is different, primarily because the weapon is already at the ready. But controlling the weapon without seizing it is also more difficult.

A scared man with a gun is something to be afraid of.  For this reason - I don't think most people could reasonably feel they could deny a weapons control request of a police officer during a stop. It's not the same thing as a search request.

It was not a search. It was a merely a check of a public record.



In my part of Florida I've heard it called "pinging" (as in submarine sonar). I do it regularly on cars that look like one's that've been reported stolen & the like. I do check some at random - You'ld be suprised at how many wanted prople are stupid enough to drive around in their own cars.

I caught a guy with warrants for beating his elderly parents from a "ping". Got a guy with seven DUI (three with injuries) suspensions, too.

- I suspect that even the tin foil hat crowd wouldn't have a problem with that... maybe. Probably not. They'll say I violated the asshole's rights (even they wouldn't be able to tell me which - and back it up).

I'm not a cop, lawyer, or anything like that, so [b]my[/b] definitions of certain words aren't going to be the same as the [b]legal[/b] definitions, but I think that's more because it's in the best interests of the law-enforcement community to assign a meaning to a word that defies common sense. For example: I'm walking down the street and see a guy smoking a crack pipe in his house, right in front of a picture window. Is that a search? No, because I didn't have to look for anything - it basically was presented to me. Now, if the same guy was sitting on the floor and all I could see was the very top of his head over the windowsill, [b]then[/b] it would be a search. But, like I said, I'm basing my definitions on common sense, and not "legalese" that gives us such terms as "assault weapons," "cop-killer bullets," and "junk gun."

I also believe that we should [b]not[/b] be making law enforcement's job easier by giving them more powers to inconvenience the law-abiding in the name of catching the bad guys. I personally would rather see 100 criminals go free because the police were powerless to stop and question them, than see a single law-abiding citizen inconvenienced in the [b]slightest[/b] way. I have to admit that at times I catch myself saying "if only the police could do _____, they'd catch a lot of criminals." Then I tell myself "[b]NO![/b] police work is [b]supposed[/b] to be a [b]MOTHER FUCKER[/b]" because only by making it extremely difficult to arrest, charge, and convict a criminal are the rights of the people protected from those who believe "well, you must have something to hide if you don't want to cooperate fully with my requests." Unfortunately, that seems to be the direction law enforcement is moving toward these days.

Now, to be fair I have to admit that the majority of th ecops I've dealt with were the epitome of professionalism and courtesy, but then there's the one who pulled me over for reckless passing* and while I just received a warning, he asked if I was military (ex-military, still had/have the high and tight) and if he could look inside the 20mm ammo cans in the bed of the truck (fluids, spare parts, tools, belts, etc in them.) What possible PC he might have had to look in the ammo cans in the bed of a truck driven by a short-haired resident of that state, I don't know - I'm pretty sure that he had no reason to fear for his safety with them in the bed and me in the cab.

I do understand that having to deal firsthand with the human casualties of crimes causes a cop to see things differently than a non-LEO normally would, but I don't think this justifies inconveniencing or hassling citizens [i]en masse[/i] on fishing expeditions.



*Around 0030 I was in a passing zone and passed a car going 15-20 under the limit, and as I passed he sped up to pace me. There was a car coming towards me so I couldn't slow down and get behind the guy because the car behind me had moved up, filling in the spot. I sped up even more, passed the jerk in front, and swerved into my lane maybe 50 yards before hitting the oncoming car....which happened to be a cop.