4 ms·

The fact that they're doing it at all is completely unacceptable.

by bigstrat2003 2y ago

umeshunni 2y ago
Sadly the politics of the Bay Area has led to a crime wave and most people feel differently.
gruez 2y ago
Search warrants have existed forever, and allowed police to compel production of certain evidence. This includes breaking into residences or offices. I don't see how towing a car is any different. Unless you think search warrants themselves are "completely unacceptable", I don't see how towing teslas should be singled out.
- snozolli 2y ago
  I don't see how towing a car is any different Before modern FISA courts, we generally had faith that a search warrant was warranted, based upon other investigation. From what the article said, this sounds more like a "fishing expedition".
  - gruez 2y ago
    They did investigate. A guy was stabbed nearby, and the car was suspected to be recording. On a more practical level, the car was recording a public area (ie. the road) anyways, so it's not like that much privacy was lost by granting access to the video.
    - snozolli 2y ago
      and the car was suspected to be recording That's the fishing expedition part. Again, from what the article said, there was no particular reason to believe it was in Sentry mode. I don't know why you're bringing up privacy.
- cabbageicefruit 2y ago
  Towing cars at all without a very crucial reason should be illegal in general. Taking someone’s transportation that they assume they have access to, without their knowledge, and without them being able to find out until the very second they need that transportation is dangerous. Emergencies happen. If you’re taking someone’s car you better have a damn good reason. And “you accidentally parked in the wrong parking spot doesn’t clear that hurdle. That’s what tickets are for. “Really wanting to see the recordings from your car camera” doesn’t clear that hurdle either.
  - mdorazio 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Imagine trying to go to work and you don’t have your car. Are you going to say “well I guess driving is a privilege and not a right so its fine that the police repossess my vehicle at random times” or are you going to be livid like a normal person?
      - anigbrowl 2y ago
        Why not respond to the points the poster made instead of making up alternative scenarios to mad about?
    - monkeywork 2y ago
      Regarding #2 is that not an OPTION that may or may not get turned on? Regarding #1 you are correct that DRIVING is a privilege however property ownership is a RIGHT and I'm assuming we aren't talking about a vehicle in motion when we are talking about the police unable to contact an owner.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    > And “you accidentally parked in the wrong parking spot doesn’t clear that hurdle. That’s what tickets are for. Private lot owners can’t issue legally-enforceable tickets. Their only real option is to tow.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Because you have to then recover the car which is hard to do when your car was effectively stolen
- monkeywork 2y ago
  I think the difference is historically the average person wasn't doing a lot of surveillance where as an office place did. Many people do not want their cameras in the doors, property, cars, etc being used by the police for cases that do not directly impact them.... they do not want to be involved, same as many "witnesses" will simply say they didn't see or know anything and be uncooperative. As cameras start becoming more and more built into every day items many people suddenly can find themselves thrust into situations they want nothing to do with, so sure search warrants have existed forever but the chance of it impacting the average non-involved party were pretty slim, that chance is growing and people dislike it.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  There is a huge gap between a search warrant (in which you are generally the suspect of the investigation) and "this guy's car might have evidence, let's tow it". The proper analogue to a search warrant here is the police getting a warrant to get the data off Tesla's servers, not towing the car away.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >There is a huge gap between a search warrant (in which you are generally the suspect of the investigation) and "this guy's car might have evidence, let's tow it". The cops had a warrant. Moreover, search warrants are granted if there's probable cause. Whether someone is a suspect is irrelevant. >The proper analogue to a search warrant here is the police getting a warrant to get the data off Tesla's servers, not towing the car away. Is it even on tesla's servers? According to the article it's stored on a USB drive in the car.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Yeah, but if you punish me for being a witness, I'll try real damned hard to look the other way.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    Yeah, so many people just seem to be unable to put themselves in the situation. It is astonishing.
dylan604 2y ago
Very much this. Towing by the police should only be something done when the car is in violation of something. I did not see anything about the expense of retrieving the car. You took the person's car so there is definite expense of getting there. Did you force the person to miss a flight, a meeting, a date? WTF do these people think they are so above and beyond rational thought is ridiculous.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Very much this. Towing by the police should only be something done when the car is in violation of something. If the police has a search warrant for your home and you're not there, they can break in, even if you're not "in violation of something". I don't see how this is any different.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    I don't have to make arrangements to go get my home when it is searched. Also, if you're searching my house, more than likely, I'm directly involved in something. They don't break into my house to get my Ring footage, which is much more equivalent in your attempt equating these disparate concepts. You've now made an innocent civilian incur ridiculous fees to get their car out of impound when there was no reason to impound it to begin with. You could just as easily boot the car and wait for the owner to return. It's not like this was a long term parking spot. There are just so many options other than tow this innocent car.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >I don't have to make arrangements to go get my home when it is searched They could however, break your door (if you're not there to let them in), and AFAIK they're not responsible for getting it fixed. >Also, if you're searching my house, more than likely, I'm directly involved in something. That's irrelevant. The standard for a search warrant is "probable cause" regardless. >They don't break into my house to get my Ring footage, which is much more equivalent in your attempt equating these disparate concepts. ...because the ring footage isn't in your house, it's in the cloud. Moreover, if you have an on-premise system and you're on vacation or something, it's plausible that they get a search warrant and break in, especially if they think time is of the essence (eg. your system has limited retention and the footage is going to be wiped). >You could just as easily boot the car and wait for the owner to return. If you read the article the police claims that it's only used if they can't locate the owner. It's unclear what that exactly means, but it's not like they're towing every tesla near the crime scene.

The fact that they're doing it at all is completely unacceptable.

Sadly the politics of the Bay Area has led to a crime wave and most people feel differently.

Search warrants have existed forever, and allowed police to compel production of certain evidence. This includes breaking into residences or offices. I don't see how towing a car is any different. Unless you think search warrants themselves are "completely unacceptable", I don't see how towing teslas should be singled out.

snozolli 2y ago
I don't see how towing a car is any different Before modern FISA courts, we generally had faith that a search warrant was warranted, based upon other investigation. From what the article said, this sounds more like a "fishing expedition".
- gruez 2y ago
  They did investigate. A guy was stabbed nearby, and the car was suspected to be recording. On a more practical level, the car was recording a public area (ie. the road) anyways, so it's not like that much privacy was lost by granting access to the video.
  - snozolli 2y ago
    and the car was suspected to be recording That's the fishing expedition part. Again, from what the article said, there was no particular reason to believe it was in Sentry mode. I don't know why you're bringing up privacy.
cabbageicefruit 2y ago
Towing cars at all without a very crucial reason should be illegal in general. Taking someone’s transportation that they assume they have access to, without their knowledge, and without them being able to find out until the very second they need that transportation is dangerous. Emergencies happen. If you’re taking someone’s car you better have a damn good reason. And “you accidentally parked in the wrong parking spot doesn’t clear that hurdle. That’s what tickets are for. “Really wanting to see the recordings from your car camera” doesn’t clear that hurdle either.
- mdorazio 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Imagine trying to go to work and you don’t have your car. Are you going to say “well I guess driving is a privilege and not a right so its fine that the police repossess my vehicle at random times” or are you going to be livid like a normal person?
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      Why not respond to the points the poster made instead of making up alternative scenarios to mad about?
  - monkeywork 2y ago
    Regarding #2 is that not an OPTION that may or may not get turned on? Regarding #1 you are correct that DRIVING is a privilege however property ownership is a RIGHT and I'm assuming we aren't talking about a vehicle in motion when we are talking about the police unable to contact an owner.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  > And “you accidentally parked in the wrong parking spot doesn’t clear that hurdle. That’s what tickets are for. Private lot owners can’t issue legally-enforceable tickets. Their only real option is to tow.
kjkjadksj 2y ago
Because you have to then recover the car which is hard to do when your car was effectively stolen
monkeywork 2y ago
I think the difference is historically the average person wasn't doing a lot of surveillance where as an office place did. Many people do not want their cameras in the doors, property, cars, etc being used by the police for cases that do not directly impact them.... they do not want to be involved, same as many "witnesses" will simply say they didn't see or know anything and be uncooperative. As cameras start becoming more and more built into every day items many people suddenly can find themselves thrust into situations they want nothing to do with, so sure search warrants have existed forever but the chance of it impacting the average non-involved party were pretty slim, that chance is growing and people dislike it.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
There is a huge gap between a search warrant (in which you are generally the suspect of the investigation) and "this guy's car might have evidence, let's tow it". The proper analogue to a search warrant here is the police getting a warrant to get the data off Tesla's servers, not towing the car away.
- gruez 2y ago
  >There is a huge gap between a search warrant (in which you are generally the suspect of the investigation) and "this guy's car might have evidence, let's tow it". The cops had a warrant. Moreover, search warrants are granted if there's probable cause. Whether someone is a suspect is irrelevant. >The proper analogue to a search warrant here is the police getting a warrant to get the data off Tesla's servers, not towing the car away. Is it even on tesla's servers? According to the article it's stored on a USB drive in the car.
renewiltord 2y ago
Yeah, but if you punish me for being a witness, I'll try real damned hard to look the other way.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  Yeah, so many people just seem to be unable to put themselves in the situation. It is astonishing.

dylan604 2y ago

Very much this. Towing by the police should only be something done when the car is in violation of something. I did not see anything about the expense of retrieving the car. You took the person's car so there is definite expense of getting there. Did you force the person to miss a flight, a meeting, a date? WTF do these people think they are so above and beyond rational thought is ridiculous.

gruez 2y ago
>Very much this. Towing by the police should only be something done when the car is in violation of something. If the police has a search warrant for your home and you're not there, they can break in, even if you're not "in violation of something". I don't see how this is any different.
- dylan604 2y ago
  I don't have to make arrangements to go get my home when it is searched. Also, if you're searching my house, more than likely, I'm directly involved in something. They don't break into my house to get my Ring footage, which is much more equivalent in your attempt equating these disparate concepts. You've now made an innocent civilian incur ridiculous fees to get their car out of impound when there was no reason to impound it to begin with. You could just as easily boot the car and wait for the owner to return. It's not like this was a long term parking spot. There are just so many options other than tow this innocent car.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >I don't have to make arrangements to go get my home when it is searched They could however, break your door (if you're not there to let them in), and AFAIK they're not responsible for getting it fixed. >Also, if you're searching my house, more than likely, I'm directly involved in something. That's irrelevant. The standard for a search warrant is "probable cause" regardless. >They don't break into my house to get my Ring footage, which is much more equivalent in your attempt equating these disparate concepts. ...because the ring footage isn't in your house, it's in the cloud. Moreover, if you have an on-premise system and you're on vacation or something, it's plausible that they get a search warrant and break in, especially if they think time is of the essence (eg. your system has limited retention and the footage is going to be wiped). >You could just as easily boot the car and wait for the owner to return. If you read the article the police claims that it's only used if they can't locate the owner. It's unclear what that exactly means, but it's not like they're towing every tesla near the crime scene.