4 ms·

I wonder the legality of this. A parallel I think about is DUI checkpoints where the police have to announce their location because otherwise it violates 4th am

I wonder the legality of this. A parallel I think about is DUI checkpoints where the police have to announce their location because otherwise it violates 4th amendment. Would automated license plate readers not violate 4th amendment similarly if not disclosed?

llamaimperative 2y ago
No because you don’t need to be searched (or even identified) before being reasonably suspected of a crime if an ALPR detects you. The issue with DUI stops is you have to be stopped before they can test you and the test itself is a “search.” An ALPR detects your crime before it even takes a photo.
briHass 2y ago
DUI checkpoints are a flagrant violation of the Constitution, and one of the most braindead rulings of SCOTUS ever (Michigan v. Sitz). Later cases would uphold that checkpoints for general crime control were violations of the 4th, but 'public safety' was apparently threatened more by drunk driving than by not catching individuals committing crimes that didn't involve intoxicated driving. Our rights have been eroding for decades, and now it can be done at massive scale.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Internal immigration checkpoints and the Californian border fruit Nazis come to mind as well. There is always an excuse.
more_corn 2y ago
There is no expectation of privacy on a public street and certainly not for the license plate which you are required to display by law. I’m not a lawyer and never a surveillance apologist, but I’m pretty sure that courts will find license plate readers legal. If there’s a legal challenge the question will probably come down to the word “search”. Will law enforcement use this data to investigate crimes (yes). Will that use constitute search? Identifying who passed on a public street by way of their license plate is probably not search. But I could be wrong.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Fine, then throw out the requirement to display my plate which is an unlawful self-imposed search of my registration papers without probable cause nor reasonable suspicion. You can't just force people to affix their ID to their method of transportation to get around the fact you can't stop and ask them for it without RAS, it's a cheap sleight of hand around the 4th amendment.
  - m-p-3 2y ago
    The thing is, driving is a privilege and not a right since it can be revoked.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      4th amendment still applies to those engaging in the 'privilege' of driving to work so they can pay the property taxes they must pay so they aren't locked in jail for being homeless. Idea 4A doesn't apply to 'privileges' including the most common method of personal transport is totally nonsensical nor is any exception of the sort implied nor explicitly outlined by the amendment.
      - SR2Z 2y ago
        Your right to privacy is subordinate to the public's interest in identifying the drivers of cars. It's not a 4A violation to require you to display ID when you're driving a machine that statistically is one of the leading killers of both adults and children. It's just good policy.
        ty6853 2y ago
        Identifying ( by essentially always-on search) everyone driving without RAS or PC sounds like a privilege and not a right, that can be revoked, unlike the 4A. As ALPR become ubiquitous it's becoming clear that privilege is subservient to our rights.

llamaimperative 2y ago

No because you don’t need to be searched (or even identified) before being reasonably suspected of a crime if an ALPR detects you. The issue with DUI stops is you have to be stopped before they can test you and the test itself is a “search.” An ALPR detects your crime before it even takes a photo.

briHass 2y ago

DUI checkpoints are a flagrant violation of the Constitution, and one of the most braindead rulings of SCOTUS ever (Michigan v. Sitz). Later cases would uphold that checkpoints for general crime control were violations of the 4th, but 'public safety' was apparently threatened more by drunk driving than by not catching individuals committing crimes that didn't involve intoxicated driving. Our rights have been eroding for decades, and now it can be done at massive scale.

ty6853 2y ago
Internal immigration checkpoints and the Californian border fruit Nazis come to mind as well. There is always an excuse.

more_corn 2y ago

There is no expectation of privacy on a public street and certainly not for the license plate which you are required to display by law. I’m not a lawyer and never a surveillance apologist, but I’m pretty sure that courts will find license plate readers legal. If there’s a legal challenge the question will probably come down to the word “search”. Will law enforcement use this data to investigate crimes (yes). Will that use constitute search? Identifying who passed on a public street by way of their license plate is probably not search. But I could be wrong.

ty6853 2y ago
Fine, then throw out the requirement to display my plate which is an unlawful self-imposed search of my registration papers without probable cause nor reasonable suspicion. You can't just force people to affix their ID to their method of transportation to get around the fact you can't stop and ask them for it without RAS, it's a cheap sleight of hand around the 4th amendment.
- m-p-3 2y ago
  The thing is, driving is a privilege and not a right since it can be revoked.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    4th amendment still applies to those engaging in the 'privilege' of driving to work so they can pay the property taxes they must pay so they aren't locked in jail for being homeless. Idea 4A doesn't apply to 'privileges' including the most common method of personal transport is totally nonsensical nor is any exception of the sort implied nor explicitly outlined by the amendment.
    - SR2Z 2y ago
      Your right to privacy is subordinate to the public's interest in identifying the drivers of cars. It's not a 4A violation to require you to display ID when you're driving a machine that statistically is one of the leading killers of both adults and children. It's just good policy.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        Identifying ( by essentially always-on search) everyone driving without RAS or PC sounds like a privilege and not a right, that can be revoked, unlike the 4A. As ALPR become ubiquitous it's becoming clear that privilege is subservient to our rights.