No, but the company shouldn't ask you to ANYTHING illegal either. And I'd bet they can't punish you for refusing to break any law.

Oklahoma State Trooper Charlie Hanger stopped Timothy McVeigh for a license plate violation.

What a ridiculous invasion of privacy!

depends on the violation...

plates not matching vehicle, sure

plates reported stolen, sure

plates fake, sure

Reb, without googling the name, do you even know who tim mcveigh was?

mcveigh's case has absolutely zero application to this discussion, but thanks.

and isle - i never told you to stop posting. perhaps reading comprehension isnt your strong point.

http://www.news-star.com/localnews/x844642367/Trooper-who-arrested-Timothy-McVeigh-shares-story

quote:

---

Hanger said this situation shows that routine traffic enforcement works. It helps with traffic safety and gives police probable cause to see what else a driver is doing.

---

quote:

---

once again, that needs to be fixed

---

As the person operating the vehicle, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure that vehicle has up to date registration and insurance. Just like it is your responsibility to obey traffic laws. Always has been, always will be and rightfully so. Spend a little time as a commercial driver and you'll learn this first hand.

In college I got pulled over and was cited because a mud flap on the truck I was driving for a local lumber yard was too short. Guess who got to pay the fine? It wasn't my employer, I assure you. Why? Because part of my responsibility as a driver was to ensure the truck I was driving was legal and safe. We did walk-around inspections every day just for this reason. In my opinion it was nit-picking by the Trooper that pulled me over, but it was still my responsibility. This is no different.

quote:

---

mcveigh's case has absolutely zero application to this discussion, but thanks.

---

I'd say it's very applicable. It's a prime example of why being able to run a plate without probable cause is a good thing.

McVeigh was stopped because he didn't have a plate.....

Essentially the same offense. Just more noticeable.

quote:

---

It's a prime example of why being able to run a plate without probable cause is a good thing.

---

No ... McVeigh was pulled over because of a plate violation, not because they ran his plate without cause.

And it's not the same thing.

One ... is he was pulled over because an offense was observed.

What we are talking about is for whatever reason (or no reason at all) the plate is run just to see what might pop up.



But, using your logic, because you can catch just one "whatever", it's justified to do. That's not how are rights work.

The fact that it is easy for the cops to do is the only real reason you have for them to do it. It reminds me of people who steal software/music/anything digital and don't think it is wrong. Mainly because it is easy and they claim no one was harmed. Just because it is easy to do doesn't make it right.

What are you going to say when retinal scanners are on every sidewalk, stop sign, etc.? You've already said I can't drive, so now I have to walk/ride a bike. Well, now they can scan me and find out whatever they feel like putting in the database. Am I still unreasonable to want some privacy be leaving my property?? Do I now have to stay home?? Walk around with my eyes closed, because, well, my eyeballs are in public so get over it?

Can you explain how the license plate has anything to do with privacy?

quote:

---

and isle - i never told you to stop posting. perhaps reading comprehension isnt your strong point.

---

You didn't "tell" me to stop posting. But you sure as hell told me to **** off in a polite manner. You were pretty clear.

quote:

---

What are you going to say when retinal scanners are on every sidewalk, stop sign, etc.? You've already said I can't drive, so now I have to walk/ride a bike. Well, now they can scan me and find out whatever they feel like putting in the database. Am I still unreasonable to want some privacy be leaving my property?? Do I now have to stay home?? Walk around with my eyes closed, because, well, my eyeballs are in public so get over it?

---

Wow. I think I'm done with this discussion now. No way I can argue with that mindset.

Y'all have fun. And watch out for those nasty privacy invading cops!!

...on that mornin' in late April, Oklahoma '95...


...you do know that there is a chance that I'm older than you, right?

I was thinking the same thing Hoss.

http://www.ktradionetwork.com/nwo/homeland-security-to-test-iris-scanners/

quote:

---

you do know that there is a chance that I'm older than you, right?

---

No reb, I checked out the pullers website, and I can promise you I've got plenty of years on you unless you are one of the profs!

BTW, hope the jaw is doing better!

[This message has been edited by awesome12atm (edited 10/17/2010 3:37p).]

what Hoss said + eleventy billion!

not a current puller...

I was when I was an undergrad.

...still wired shut.

[This message has been edited by TexasRebel (edited 10/17/2010 3:43p).]

FWIW - my view that police scans of plates should not be allowed absent some PC or RS of a violation on the part of the police officer are based on my view of appropriate police authority - my view is not constitutionally based (though I think very good 4th amendment arguments can be made).

On constitutional grounds, it is true that the courts have decided these are allowable. It's also true that courts are often wrong, and I dont have to be a ConLaw expert to know that. If you're interested in the ConLaw arguments, see the court opinion in Ellison here http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0339p-06.pdf , in particular the dissent that explains that the expectation of privacy is not in the plate itself, or the digits on the plate, but rather in the info obtained by a police computer search of that plate.

The reason McVeigh's case isnt applicable here, as sunchaser and others state, is because he was pulled over for not having plates at all. That's a clearly visible violation for which the officer has PC/RS to pull him over. He wasnt caught because the cops ran his plates without PC/RS and found a reason to pull him over.

Yes, we can just let cops do this knowing that it'll result in more criminals being caught and put in jail. For that matter, repealing the 4th amendment would do the same thing. After all, go ask any police officer how much easier it would be for them to nail the bad guy if they werent worried about evidence suppression caused by an illegal search.



[This message has been edited by aggiesq (edited 10/17/2010 3:52p).]

well said ... much better than my rants and ramblings ...

FWIW, 12atm, I also remember listening to the raid of Mt. Carmel, and the Fall of the Berlin Wall.

On the other hand it was fun watching the TV show "Jacked" when they had the car with the plate reader nabbing stolen cars.

To directly address the original issue, what if the officer is running the plate strictly to find if the registration is current? They run it because it is dark and the sticker is not clearly visible, or maybe they are on a two lane roadway and the officer cannot gain a position in which the sticker would become visible.

I am certainly not saying that all officers only run plates just to check registration. I am well aware there are plenty of officers who run plates for a number of other reasons. But I can tell you there are many times that I run the tag for absolutely no other reason than to check the registration because I have no other way to verify whether it is good.

I am curious also, because many of you keep arguing on the basis of the other information that is visible to an officer when a plate is run, whether you would have a problem if it was randomly run if all that was visible was whether it was current or not, and none of the other "private" things?

I'm curious what "confidential" information they're *****ing about anyway.

Name, adress, ins. , and registration validation are not a great secret to any LEO. I dunno maybe Y'alls 28's look a lot different than mine do...

I cannot see how obtaining information that is publicly displayed through available means is a violation of the fourth. You have the numbers in your window, the info is public, what the hell did the illegally search?

[This message has been edited by Ag_of_08 (edited 10/17/2010 9:30p).]

quote:

---

if all that was visible was whether it was current or not, and none of the other "private" things?

---

if all that happens when you run a 10-28 is that it returns the status of the registration, then if not current mails a fine to the registered owner for allowing an unregistered vehicle onto public roads, that would work.

That makes no assumptions about the driver, does not inconvenience anyone (cop or driver), and still enforces registration.

Heck, you can even use it as an excuse to tail the driver and wait for them to put somebody else in danger, if you really want to.

[This message has been edited by TexasRebel (edited 10/17/2010 10:27p).]

quote:

---

That makes no assumptions about the driver, does not inconvenience anyone (cop or driver), and still enforces registration.

---

Except that would be, potentially, ticketing the person who did not break the law. The law reads very clearly that it is illegal to OPERATE a motor vehicle with expired registration, not to own or posses an unregistered vehicle. If he calls "(unit number), I need a return on TX (insert plate)" and dispatch reads it back to him expired(or they run it in the car...either works), the person DRIVING the vehicle is committing the violation.....that's not an assumption. I'd like to see you go before a judge and argue that it's not your fault, it's your buddies car.


So we've gotten to the root of the problem: You don't like the law, it's not the fact the officer ran a 28 and discovered it was expired.



[This message has been edited by Ag_of_08 (edited 10/17/2010 10:45p).]

quote:

---

then if not current mails a fine to the registered owner for allowing an unregistered vehicle onto public roads, that would work.

That makes no assumptions about the driver

---

Rebel I know this has been beat to death between you and some others but I guess we will just have to agree to disagree with this point.

An owner is no more responsible for "allowing" an unregistered vehicle on the road than he/she would be for 50 pounds of Marijuana being found in the trunk on a traffic stop, unless of course the owner is also the driver.

There are NO assumptions being made about the driver if they are stopped for OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH EXPIRED LICENSE PLATES ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY. That is black and white, not assumption based. The operator of the vehicle, AKA driver, is responsible for making sure the vehicle is road worthy.

If the owner is your buddy and he/she wants to pay your ticket, then more power to them.

quote:

---

does not inconvenience anyone (cop or driver)

---

I can also tell you that while you may feel inconvenienced by being stopped for a "silly thing", I for one never feel inconvenienced as it is my job and duty to work traffic. I would not stop you in the first place if I felt it was worthless.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the majority of my arrest and larger cases have come from traffic stops for what most would consider minor traffic violations, including expired license plates.

The real serious criminals don't generally commit egregious traffic violations, most of them don't even know they are committing a violation, otherwise they would correct it on their own. And there is little chance I come into contact with said criminals if I am not out there enforcing a variety of traffic laws on a daily basis.

I think part of there problem platt, they don't get it that even if it's a "minor" law, you're still committing a crime.

08, I've never said it was against the law to own an unregistered vehicle. The key is that the registered owner knows who to delegate the fine to should they not be the driver, and all in all, it is the registered owner's responsibility to register the vehicle, not the driver's.

platt, how many cops have been shot or run over during a traffic stop for nothing more than an unregistered vehicle? Also, the drug argument is apples and oranges... unless they've started requiring titles of ownership and registration for drugs. The major difference is that with a vehicle, the state knows who owns it. With a bag of marijuana, the state assumes that owner is the person with possession.

quote:

---

The operator of the vehicle, AKA driver, is responsible for making sure the vehicle is road worthy.

---

an unregistered vehicle can be 100% road worthy. You're confusing tax with maintenance.

quote:

---

an unregistered vehicle can be 100% road worthy. You're confusing tax with maintenance.

---

No, you're confusing your personal belief with the law. Rail against the law, that's fine, but leave law enforcement out of it. Those officers enforce the law, and the law says YOU, the OPERATOR, have to make sure the vehicle is legal to operate, or "roadworthy".

Several years ago, I was riding around with a local cop in Gruver. During the ride, we entered the motel parking lot and entered the plates on every car in the parking lot.

After that, I frequently noticed the same cop at night driving slowly through the motel parking lot.

One cop here was also known for running the plates of every car he saw that he didn't recognize. One night, he called in one plate and was told to follow that the driver was wanted and armed and very dangerous. He was to follow the car at a safe distance and keep them informed on its position.

He followed it until they reached the long bridge over the Canadian River just north of Borger, Texas. Once the car he was following entered the bridge, a large number of police cars pulled across the bridge and both ends and completely blocked it off. The capture went without an incident.

I suspect that lots of people up to no good think that rural roads and highways, especially at night, draw less attention. In reality, I bet if someone wanted to travel between cities and remain undetected, they would best do it during the busiest times of the day on interstates.

quote:

---

Fun game, especially when you transpose numbers and the BMW in front of you comes up as being registered to a dude wanted on a murder charge.

---

Early one evening when I lived in the Houston area, a cop I had seen around on occasion sitting on the side of the road made a u-turn and followed me all the way home.

An hour or so later, I went to the local 7-11 and saw the cop there. I asked him why he had followed me and he told me that he made a mistake reading the license plate. Since the car didn't match the plate, he thought that was pretty suspicious.