Gun Show Customer License Plates Come Under Scrutiny

[sliguns]

In a free society, if you have not given an officer reason to think that you have committed some crime or are imminently going to commit some crime, then the officer should not even be looking at you. It ought to be illegal to do so. A prosecutable offense. Because it is invasive to be *checked out*/license plate scanned (and be recorded, in some states this is the case) when you’ve done nothing whatsoever to give anyone any reason to suspect that you’ve done a single thing to warrant it. The only people who should expect to be the focus of a cop’s attentions in a free society are people who’ve given reason to be suspicious of them. That’s it.

 

[jmcrawf1]

It does when you are violating the spirit and the purpose of the fourth ammendment and doing legally only on a technicality.

So the 4th amendment says that a person has a right to be secure in their houses, papers, effects. The dmv database contains information that YOU gave to the government because you wanted to drive. It doesn't fall anywhere near the 4th amendment.

The government uses that information that you gave them to beat you (not you personally, but criminals) to beat them at their own game. And this hurts your feelings why?

 

[jmcrawf1]

In a free society, if you have not given an officer reason to think that you have committed some crime or are imminently going to commit some crime, then the officer should not even be looking at you. It ought to be illegal to do so. A prosecutable offense. Because it is invasive to be *checked out* (and be recorded, in some states this is the case) when you’ve done nothing whatsoever to give anyone any reason to suspect that you’ve done a single thing to warrant it. The only people who should expect to be the focus of a cop’s attentions in a free society are people who’ve given reason to be suspicious of them. That’s it.

After running those license plates through the dmv database and alpr's im sure the police became suspicious of a few people.

 

[sliguns]

Google the definition of a public place and curtilage. You're making my brain hurt. Or better yet, go to your anti law enforcement buddies over at photography is not a crime and even they can explain it to you.

So that's a "no" from you then? Just ad hominems and red herrings I suppose.

Be well

 

[sliguns]

After running those license plates through the dmv database and alpr's im sure the police became suspicious of a few people.

and thus the entire foundation of the country is flipped on it's head

 

[jmcrawf1]

So that's a "no" from you then? Just ad hominems and red herrings I suppose.

Be well

I gave you the case but you're too stupid to read it. Or you can read an entire court case in two minutes. I'm gonna go with the first one.

 

[sliguns]

I gave you the case but you're too stupid to read it. Or you can read an entire court case in two minutes. I'm gonna go with the first one.

And now name calling

triple threat guy!


I pointed out the premise of the case you cited is wholly different from our discussion...YOU then refused to address it.

be well man, and i'd cool it on the name calling if I were you.

 

[Whitebread]

Google the definition of a public place and curtilage. You're making my brain hurt. Or better yet, go to your anti law enforcement buddies over at photography is not a crime and even they can explain it to you.

You talking about those first amendment audit fools? What about filming you prevent your free exercise of rights. See it's not a visible plate we object to is using that plate to look into my personal information because my plate was in plain view of the public. There plenty of reasons why you should not freely be able to scan my plate without cause that would have not hint to do with "good police work". Maybe you don't like my bumper sticker and want to come whip my @$$. Maybe you are some douche who sees my gorgeous wife driving down the road and decide to be a stalker. And instead of doing either with the dash cams and body cams watch you wait till you are off the clock.

 

[MOTOR51]

It's all about "rights" vs "privilege". LEO's and loons will never be on the same page on this subject because to a loon everything is a right. It's easy to see that getting info from plates is not violating people's rights because driving on a highway is a privilege. Why is this confusing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whitebread]

So the 4th amendment says that a person has a right to be secure in their houses, papers, effects. The dmv database contains information that YOU gave to the government because you wanted to drive. It doesn't fall anywhere near the 4th amendment.

The government uses that information that you gave them to beat you (not you personally, but criminals) to beat them at their own game. And this hurts your feelings why?

Go through that again houses, papers, and personal effects. Now put aside you bias mindset and think to yourself what they could possibly be discussing when they referred to papers and personal effects. Is my truck not a personal effect? Is my personal information compulsory given to the government in order to drive on the roads and bridges my tax dollar go to pay for not "papers". Again our founding fathers didn't know they needed to specify that you can't go looking at whitebreads license plates because they had not yet been invented.

 

[Whitebread]

It's all about "rights" vs "privilege". LEO's and loons will never be on the same page on this subject because to a loon everything is a right. It's easy to see that getting info from plates is not violating people's rights because driving on a highway is a privilege. Why is this confusing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct it is a privilege to drive, but it's a right to not be spied on while you are legally enjoying your privileges.

 

[jmcrawf1]

And now name calling

triple threat guy!


I pointed out the premise of the case you cited is wholly different from our discussion...YOU then refused to address it.

be well man, and i'd cool it on the name calling if I were you.

The premise of the case is that a warrantless search into a license plate is unreasonable under the 4th. So what are YOU arguing?

Be well fellow freedom fighter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whitebread]

I would like to put one further point forward there is no means of legal movement of any distance worth speaking of in this country without using public roads or bridges. How could one ever be secure in ones papers and personal effects if the logic of if it's in public it's fair game. Your logic is flawed.

 

[sliguns]

The premise of the case is that a warrantless search into a license plate is unreasonable under the 4th.

Yes and what have white/I been saying? No searches absent reason, right? What's the premise of the case you cited? The officer had REASON (as flimsy as some might think it was).

So there it is, spelled out so clearly. Your cited case had REASON (the guy - at minimum - committed a traffic violation), however, the OP case, is wholly without such reason.

thank you for the well wishes.

 

[jmcrawf1]

Yes and what have white/I been saying? No searches absent reason, right? What's the premise of the case you cited? The officer had REASON (as flimsy as some might think it was).

So there it is, spelled out so clearly. Your cited case had REASON (the guy - at minimum - committed a traffic violation), however, the OP case, is wholly without such reason.

thank you for the well wishes.

Thats not what the case I JUST POSTED FOR YOU TO READ says:

Thus, so long as the officer had a right to be in a position to observe the defendant’s license
plate, any such observation and corresponding use of the information on the plate does not violate
the Fourth Amendment. In this case, Officer Keeley had a right to be in the parking lot observing
the van – he was in a public place conducting a routine patrol. The district court’s finding that the
van was not parked illegally is thus irrelevant – such a finding goes only to probable cause, which
is not necessary absent a Fourth Amendment privacy interest.4
Once Officer Keeley conducted the
check and discovered the outstanding warrant, he then had probable cause to pull over the vehicle
and arrest the man identified as Ellison. The arrest and resulting search during which the handguns
were found in no way violated the Fourth Amendment, and the district court’s order granting the
motion to suppress was in error.


I don't even know what that REASON dribble you're going on about is. The proper terms are reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Of which you have to demonstrate neither in DMV database checks.

 

[bigtattoo79]

Public transportation may be a option for those that are concerned. Heck I say everyone should just do a 4473 at the door lol.

 

[oleheat]

Well I have to say- this is both surprising and shocking to me.


You mean they still hold gun shows in California??? I'd have thought they'd have been replaced by now with Climate Change Fairs.

 

[JoeLiberty]

Federal agents enlisted local police to scan cars’ plates at shows’ parking lots

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gun-show-customers-license-plates-come-under-scrutiny-1475451302

Are they are scanning and looking for specific cars to make an arrest at the gun show? <-That's probably OK.

Or are they scanning to compile a list of 'gun show visitors' that they can use later for whatever purpose. <-Not cool.

 

[Whitebread]

Are they are scanning and looking for specific cars to make an arrest at the gun show? <-That's probably OK.

Or are they scanning to compile a list of 'gun show visitors' that they can use later for whatever purpose. <-Not cool.

Either way the use of this tech doesn't bode well for freedom.

 

[MOTOR51]

Either way the use of this tech doesn't bode well for freedom.

Lol, of course it doesn't. I bet it's tough being so paranoid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk