Williamson County :(

[Jumping Frog]

The system says it needs to be manually verified and that's what they're trying to do.

And they can do exactly that . . . . once they have valid probable cause for a stop.

[Originalist]

The system says it needs to be manually verified and that's what they're trying to do.

By that logic you would be ok if the police stopped you while you were driving a car to manually check to see if you have a DL since they have no other way of verifying since they don't know your name or date of birth... I mean after all it is the law and he is just checking......

[atouk]

The system says it needs to be manually verified and that's what they're trying to do.

And they can do exactly that . . . . once they have valid probable cause for a stop.

It's not probable cause for a search but it might be reasonable suspicion for a stop. Like someone said, suspecting they might no have insurance if the system can't confirm insurance is a lot more reasonable than suspecting everyone who buys an airline ticket is a terrorist.

[WildBill]

The system says it needs to be manually verified and that's what they're trying to do.

And they can do exactly that . . . . once they have valid probable cause for a stop.

It's not probable cause for a search but it might be reasonable suspicion for a stop. Like someone said, suspecting they might no have insurance if the system can't confirm insurance is a lot more reasonable than suspecting everyone who buys an airline ticket is a terrorist.

Why should the state having a messed up/incomplete database make a driver suspicious?

[atouk]

Maybe the same reason the FBI won't approve a NICS check if their database is messed up.

[C-dub]

Sorry to resurrect this moderately aged thread. It was referenced in a more recent one.

57Coastie referenced this briefly back on page 2 I think and I doubt I am the only one that thinks this, but isn't running plates on cars, who's drivers have not broken any laws, as you're driving down the road an unlawful search? I think it is, but I'm just a peon.

[sjfcontrol]

Sorry to resurrect this moderately aged thread. It was referenced in a more recent one.

57Coastie referenced this briefly back on page 2 I think and I doubt I am the only one that thinks this, but isn't running plates on cars, who's drivers have not broken any laws, as you're driving down the road an unlawful search? I think it is, but I'm just a peon.

They have systems now that scan and run the plates of cars parked along the side of the street, as the officer drives by.

[C-dub]

Sorry to resurrect this moderately aged thread. It was referenced in a more recent one.

57Coastie referenced this briefly back on page 2 I think and I doubt I am the only one that thinks this, but isn't running plates on cars, who's drivers have not broken any laws, as you're driving down the road an unlawful search? I think it is, but I'm just a peon.

They have systems now that scan and run the plates of cars parked along the side of the street, as the officer drives by.

I thought about those, but was to lazy to look them up and reference them. Same questions goes for those things. Isn't there also the technology that can scan people walking down the street like the airport scanners?

http://sleepless.blogs.com/george/2012/ ... waves.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Did a quick search and found this one. This isn't where I first remembered reading about this, but it'll do.

[sjfcontrol]

Sorry to resurrect this moderately aged thread. It was referenced in a more recent one.

57Coastie referenced this briefly back on page 2 I think and I doubt I am the only one that thinks this, but isn't running plates on cars, who's drivers have not broken any laws, as you're driving down the road an unlawful search? I think it is, but I'm just a peon.

They have systems now that scan and run the plates of cars parked along the side of the street, as the officer drives by.

I thought about those, but was to lazy to look them up and reference them. Same questions goes for those things. Isn't there also the technology that can scan people walking down the street like the airport scanners?

http://sleepless.blogs.com/george/2012/ ... waves.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Did a quick search and found this one. This isn't where I first remembered reading about this, but it'll do.

George Orwell would be proud.

[C-dub]

Really, what's next. Overdue library book arrests? I stopped you because my computer says you have two overdue library books. Let me see your proof of automobile insurance. I know you're just walking down the street on the sidewalk, but I'm just checking.

[sjfcontrol]

Really, what's next. Overdue library book arrests? I stopped you because my computer says you have two overdue library books. Let me see your proof of automobile insurance. I know you're just walking down the street on the sidewalk, but I'm just checking.

I always thought "spitting on the sidewalk" was the ultimate of arrest charges.

[jamullinstx]

And, Steve, you ran hundreds of others in which the information was inaccurate. Again, this evidence is not even close to probable cause. The state cannot create a system with near 100%, or even 50% inaccuracy rate, then use it to say that it creates probably cause. Otherwise, they could just flip a coin as they run down the highway and pull over every other car. I can create many tests for DUI (HGN being one) that have a huge error rate, yet the state accepts them. This is abysmal!

What makes you think that the plate check does not create probable cause? This is a question for the courts and how well the officer articulates his case. I don't see it ever coming up in a straight traffic case to be honest, but I can see a traffic stop that results in a different arrest going up to the higher level courts.

But here is the way I would write it if I had to. I ran the plates at random because I was running plates as I drove. Nothing in particular attracted my attention to the car until I got the plate return. When I received the return, it said that the insurance was no longer in effect. Texas law requires a car operator to have proof of financial responsibility and requires insurance companies to report the status of insurance policies to this database. I have run hundreds of plates through this database and the returns have always been accurate. I have found cars without insurance before and this has been accurate. This combination led me to believe that the person driving the car was operating without insurance in violation of Texas law.

That is probable cause for a traffic stop. The only problem the officer might have is if the local prosecutor or his department has given instructions specifically saying that a return from this database is not grounds for a traffic stop. This is probably true but I cannot say for sure that it is. Some departments will allow stops for returns and some won't. Of course, if the officer has found errors in the database before, or is aware of a significant number of them from other officers, then he cannot say he has faith in the system.

[57Coastie]

What makes you think that the plate check does not create probable cause? This is a question for the courts and how well the officer articulates his case. I don't see it ever coming up in a straight traffic case to be honest, but I can see a traffic stop that results in a different arrest going up to the higher level courts.

But here is the way I would write it if I had to. I ran the plates at random because I was running plates as I drove. Nothing in particular attracted my attention to the car until I got the plate return. When I received the return, it said that the insurance was no longer in effect. Texas law requires a car operator to have proof of financial responsibility and requires insurance companies to report the status of insurance policies to this database. I have run hundreds of plates through this database and the returns have always been accurate. I have found cars without insurance before and this has been accurate. This combination led me to believe that the person driving the car was operating without insurance in violation of Texas law.

That is probable cause for a traffic stop. The only problem the officer might have is if the local prosecutor or his department has given instructions specifically saying that a return from this database is not grounds for a traffic stop. This is probably true but I cannot say for sure that it is. Some departments will allow stops for returns and some won't. Of course, if the officer has found errors in the database before, or is aware of a significant number of them from other officers, then he cannot say he has faith in the system.

Right on, as usual, Steve.

IMHO there is no "expectation of privacy" where license plates are concerned, a fundamental legal principle when one considers the question of whether or not a search is "reasonable" when we are faced with a question which could never have been imagined by the drafters of the 4th Amendment.

After all, why do we have to display license plates? Because they are intended to publicly tell those who observe them, including LEOs, much more than that the owner paid the county Tax Assessor and Collector. We all know they are also intended, among other things, to show that we have the required insurance. If we display that public notice by wearing plates we are telling the world that we have complied with the rules, and have not committed a crime. Is it not "reasonable" for the authorities to make a check now and then to see if you are telling the truth when you display that license plate? That is the question.

Probable cause? We are well-advised to never forget that the Constitution, in the 4th Amendment, requires "probable cause" only, only, in connection with the issuance of a warrant. Searches and seizures otherwise must only be "reasonable." Who decides that? The driver with no insurance? The driver whose plates have expired? The driver who for some misplaced reason believes it is unreasonable for the state to check on whether or not he is telling the truth when he displays a licence plate? A driver who believes that he has a right to drive his vehicle when in fact he does not -- that he is above the law?

No. Of course not. In the initial instance this is usually decided by an LEO, based on his experience and knowledge of constraints which may have been imposed by either the legislative or judicial authorities. He is of course subject to the usual armchair quarterbacking of the judges, the citizen's protection from the abuse of authorities and unreasonable searches and seizures. Protection from those who have been suggested here to be "tyrants" because they are doing their job in a reasonable manner. The Rule of Law, not the Rule of Each Individual.

Is it not much more "reasonable" for the LEO to use his onboard computer to check on your compliance with the law, notwithstanding that errors are sometimes made, than it is for him to have to pull you over to the side of the road to check your papers? Let us not confuse ourselves with our ignorance about when probable cause is required.

Jim

[SewTexas]

After all, why do we have to display license plates? Because they are intended to publicly tell those who observe them, including LEOs, much more than that the owner paid the county Tax Assessor and Collector. We all know they are also intended, among other things, to show that we have the required insurance. If we display that public notice by wearing plates we are telling the world that we have complied with the rules, and have not committed a crime. Is it not "reasonable" for the authorities to make a check now and then to see if you are telling the truth when you display that license plate? That is the question.

Jim

and here, I thought I had a license plate so I knew which of the many blue Honda whatever's is mine.

[Wienerdogtroy]

The system says it needs to be manually verified and that's what they're trying to do.

Technically all vehicle operators May or May Not have a valid license. Pulling everyone over is just trying to verify that. Is that ok too?