LEO randomly running plates

[Kutnupe14]

I would think patrolling a neighborhood would be a better use of time than patrolling a parking lot running plates

Odds are that the neighborhoods are patrolled too. Be it an 8 or a 12 hour shift, there's plenty of time to do it all... at least for smaller jurisdictions. I could patrol every neighborhood in my district, once ever 2 hours, pull over cars, do a DP, AND check plates in a parking lot... if I was a parking lot hound. Remember businesses are entitled to police patrols too. I've actually been flagged down by people before because I patrolled their area too much. They though something was wrong, and asked if they had to worry.

 

[Kutnupe14]

And watching porn

I've heard rumors, but that's another story

 

[Shadow8088]

So a friend of mine is all happy cuz a LEO ran her plates in the parking lot of her job and told her there's an issue with her DL and let her go ahead and drive home anyways. Seems he was patrolling the lot and checking plates.

Is that normal, legal, proper procedure?

If this bothers you OP, stay away from courthouses... when my wife and I tied the knot 4yrs ago, we came out to sheriffs walking through the lot, running every single license plate. That wasn't creepy at all...

 

[BFP]

License plate scanners storing data on all drivers | Fox 59

A good friend of mine is in stolen vehicles with the state police. He drives unmarked pick up trucks. He tested several of these systems a few years back. They were uber cool to see them work. I recall one system had an issue when you drove by a field of corn, it would sometimes read a pattern in the corn plants that would trick it to believe there was a license plate. He and I regularly argue over civil rights over malted beverages. It's definitely a great tool in his line of work, but I still don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the practice.

 

[daddymikey1975]

Just back into a parking spot up against a building or another vehicle. Put a piece of paper over the VIN tag in your windshield. Or remove the license plate when you go inside and cover the VIN. Problem solved. Lol

 

[CathyInBlue]

I've caught ISP cars with the license plate reading assault cameras on the trunk lid running up and down my Terre Haute street on a number of occassions. What's the compelling state interest in my private car parked curbside in front of my own house?

 

[Denny347]

I've researched this issue several years ago. There are about a dozen USSC rulings dating from the 60's to the present that all state the same thing...if the police are in an area they allowed to be and can see a license plate or VIN from that place, they are allowed to run them. No reason needed. I randomly run plates all the time (especially paper tags) looking to see if the plates do not match the car (possibly covering up a stolen vehicle). Some officers like running plates at local hotels looking for warrants. Fugitives have to rest their head somewhere, you'd be surprised how many wanted felons the officers found this way.

 

[churchmouse]

You can even randomly run the VIN if you like. I used to run the plates of cars around me all the time at red lights. Sometimes you get a stolen hit, warrant hit, plates don't match the car, etc.

What exactly do you think the harm is? If you're in public view, your whereabouts and identity certainly aren't private.

Keep doing that. Buddy got his truck (stolen) back that way. What is the harm. If you have paid all the fee's and you are in order what is the harm.
Now to randomly stop and detain just to check sucks but random spot checks.......

 

[Birds Away]

I mean, heck, they can't be on INGO for their entire shift.....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So, what's the problem? You are out in public with no reasonable expectation of privacy and what, you feel violated that someone is looking at you?

Someone tell me what the problem is.

Thanks IMPD, why don't you forward copies to the NSA as well, wouldn't want to leave them out.

Don't worry, Sgt., we are tracking ourselves with our cell phones.

 

[Scuba591]

Well since there's no private data revealed, nothing that is revealed is anything you can legally hide anyway.

If there are more important things to be done, he'd probably be doing them absent some specific complaint his brass told him to address. Police work isn't like assembly line work. It's more like a fire department. You need minimum coverage for a certain geographic area for what MIGHT happen that requires a rapid response. People rarely complain firefighters should be doing something else when they're sitting on their backsides playing video games because there's no fire.

Hey, I resemble this remark!!. Those recliners are comfy. In all seriousness, we do have training and meals and work outs...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

...cover the VIN.

That is specifically mentioned in the IC code as grounds to impound a vehicle until the VIN can be verified. Like an altered s/n on a firearm, its illegal in and of itself.

 

[Henry]

There's that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear mindset.

It's the motto of statists the world over.

 

[wadcutter]

So, what's the problem? You are out in public with no reasonable expectation of privacy and what, you feel violated that someone is looking at you?

You should really familiarize yourself with Indiana's "Stalking" statute, IC 35-45-10.

Many private citizens have been prosecuted under this statute and made felons for observing people "out in public with no reasonable expectation of privacy."

IC 35-45-10-1
"Stalk" defined
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, "stalk" means a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened. The term does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

IC 35-45-10-2
"Harassment" defined
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "harassment" means conduct directed toward a victim that includes but is not limited to repeated or continuing impermissible contact that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity, such as lawful picketing pursuant to labor disputes or lawful employer-related activities pursuant to labor disputes.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

IC 35-45-10-3
"Impermissible contact" defined
Sec. 3. As used in this chapter, "impermissible contact" includes but is not limited to knowingly or intentionally following or pursuing the victim.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

Mr. Freeman, Sir, how do we justify the conflicting laws? How can we logically square making it a felony for a private citizen to make me feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened, but making it completely legal if the same acts are performed by an agent of the state? Why does the very low threshold of "stalking" apply to a private citizen, but the very high bar of "reasonable expectation of privacy" apply to a governmental official?

 

[printcraft]

You should really familiarize yourself with Indiana's "Stalking" statute, IC 35-45-10....................

I just wanted to add that you found something posted from Kirk from years back, from another board, under a different name as an argument enhancer in another thread.

See, everybody does it.

Just a reminder.

I'm here to help.

 

[Henry]

You should really familiarize yourself with Indiana's "Stalking" statute, IC 35-45-10.

Many private citizens have been prosecuted under this statute and made felons for observing people "out in public with no reasonable expectation of privacy."

IC 35-45-10-1
"Stalk" defined
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, "stalk" means a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened. The term does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

IC 35-45-10-2
"Harassment" defined
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "harassment" means conduct directed toward a victim that includes but is not limited to repeated or continuing impermissible contact that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity, such as lawful picketing pursuant to labor disputes or lawful employer-related activities pursuant to labor disputes.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

IC 35-45-10-3
"Impermissible contact" defined
Sec. 3. As used in this chapter, "impermissible contact" includes but is not limited to knowingly or intentionally following or pursuing the victim.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

Mr. Freeman, Sir, how do we justify the conflicting laws? How can we logically square making it a felony for a private citizen to make me feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened, but making it completely legal if the same acts are performed by an agent of the state? Why does the very low threshold of "stalking" apply to a private citizen, but the very high bar of "reasonable expectation of privacy" apply to a governmental official?

"You hear that folks? There's two sets of laws. One for the police, and one for the ordinary citizen."
-G. Pyle



Who who is watching the watchman?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Anyone who thinks there is a low bar for a stalking charge hasn't had much exposure to how things really work. A homeless guy following you down the street making you scared and uncomfortable doesn't hit the bar. Things like repeated viovations of protective orders with threats and prior violent acts is more like what an actual stalking charge stems from. Simply seeing someone in public and an unpleasant interaction doesn't even come close.

This ignores that stalking and reasonable expectation are totally different concepts.

 

[JMoses]

You should really familiarize yourself with Indiana's "Stalking" statute, IC 35-45-10.

Many private citizens have been prosecuted under this statute and made felons for observing people "out in public with no reasonable expectation of privacy."

IC 35-45-10-1
"Stalk" defined
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, "stalk" means a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened. The term does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

IC 35-45-10-2
"Harassment" defined
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "harassment" means conduct directed toward a victim that includes but is not limited to repeated or continuing impermissible contact that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity, such as lawful picketing pursuant to labor disputes or lawful employer-related activities pursuant to labor disputes.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

IC 35-45-10-3
"Impermissible contact" defined
Sec. 3. As used in this chapter, "impermissible contact" includes but is not limited to knowingly or intentionally following or pursuing the victim.
As added by P.L.242-1993, SEC.4.

Mr. Freeman, Sir, how do we justify the conflicting laws? How can we logically square making it a felony for a private citizen to make me feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened, but making it completely legal if the same acts are performed by an agent of the state? Why does the very low threshold of "stalking" apply to a private citizen, but the very high bar of "reasonable expectation of privacy" apply to a governmental official?

LOL, what?

 

[Kutnupe14]

LOL, what?

X2, and add a "wut?"

 

[HoughMade]

Statists everywhere I look.

We have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our driving records and criminal records. Cops should not be able to view either without a warrant.

(if you don't see the inherent purple....)