license plate covers
Fri, 02/28/2014 - 4:14pm
|
12 years
|
There are places which sell a cover for your license plate. Allegedly it blocks your plate from being read by camera.
I'm assuming it no longer works (assuming it ever did). Does anyone have any definitive information?
It's not just about tolls and tickets. Some communities are scanning every plate they can. The clam is they are looking for stolen cars. The statistics suggest this there aren't finding enough stolen cars to justify the $$$ being spent on the toys.
Agreed
...
The argument is wrongly couched as a "right to privacy" argument as it truly is a discussion over retention of an image with the collected attributes the LPR provides.
There are many people who find it hard to articulate their objections to various technologies and "a right to privacy" sounds (to them) like a good argument.
There are also a lot of people who use "the slippery slope" as an argument against new technology. Along the lines of "if we let them use LPRs, what will they do with the data?" And, often the answer - for them - becomes something along the lines of "The government will use it to 'spy' on 'us'"; but, they never try to connect the dots between how a police department wanting to use automation to do a better job of solving crimes and taking criminals off the streets and the "vast conspiracy" with the name of "government".
For people who have such objections, I would hope that they would be writing Letters to the Editor asking about what safeguards will be put in place rather than just railing against whatever.
We had something very interesting happen a couple of weeks ago. The County sheriff was given permission by the County Commission for two LIDAR speed guns with LPR capability. A Police Officer would man the device on two lane roads where a chase car to pull over a speeder would be dangerous. The ticket would have been $50 (no points, etc) sent to the vehicle's owner. Once the news was reported, there was a hue and cry from our citizens. The permission was subsequently withdrawn.
It seems that our citizens think it is their right to speed and anything automatic to catch them needs to be voted down.
It is their right....
We had something very interesting happen a couple of weeks ago. The County sheriff was given permission by the County Commission for two LIDAR speed guns with LPR capability. A Police Officer would man the device on two lane roads where a chase car to pull over a speeder would be dangerous. The ticket would have been $50 (no points, etc) sent to the vehicle's owner. Once the news was reported, there was a hue and cry from our citizens. The permission was subsequently withdrawn.
It seems that our citizens think it is their right to speed and anything automatic to catch them needs to be voted down.
It is government by the people for the people, not government by the profit motivated corporations. Alot of people who favor ticketing cameras don't get that. While it is still illegal to speed, they should be able to have a say on matters involving fair practices in enforcement.
Fair?
...
While it is still illegal to speed, they should be able to have a say on matters involving fair practices in enforcement.
Are you saying that automation (in the instant case, LPR) is "unfair"? And if so, how are you defining "fair" and "unfair"?
No right to privacy, as such
I don't have a problem with searches when they are valid ... meaning when the person who wants to search has probable cause as it is defined by the courts. But ... there's this inconvenient thing called privacy which, when it comes to unreasonable searches, is actually guaranteed by the Constitution of the country in which I live.
...
CC
As I read it, the Constitution does not "guarantee" a "right to privacy". The courts have used the "concept" of privacy to decide any number of cases, but you are trying to relate "privacy" to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You correctly have pointed out that the words "unreasonable" and "probable cause" are key.
I like your statement
what is in my trunk is NONE OF HIS BUSINESS, unless he has probable cause or a search warrant.
I would point out that - just because it is "you" - does not mean that there is not "probable cause".
What I always wonder is why people rail against police officers when it comes to situations like this thread - license plate covers/readers -(where the assumption seems to be that the officer will take advantage of the situation to "search") BUT THEN (in other threads) invoke their "right" (??) to be caught and ticketed by a police officer when they have run a red light or are excessively speeding (where the assumptions is that the police officer will let them off with a warning). Which is it?
Why not refuse to buy at any retail outlet that has a surveillance camera in the lot or in the store or both? Why use the internet where your "interests" are captured and used to "push" ads on you? Why not pay cash for everything so that all of your purchases are not captured whenever and wherever made? Why use a smartphone that can track what cell towers you pass and perhaps prove that you were really in some locations you claim that you never, ever, went there?
We need to recognize that we have - in this age of technology - very little "privacy". And, if we want to rail against things like license plate readers, we also need to bemoan the fact that technology (not the "government" or "law officials") is the driving force.
You are correct in that there is no Constitutional guarantee of privacy writ large, but I will still maintain that violations of privacy when they result from unreasonable searches are prohibited ... not on privacy grounds, but prohibited nonetheless
As for no probable cause because it is "me" ... I'll go out on a limb and say that my default position on that will be that because I am not doing anything illegal (potential speeding violations notwithstanding), there isn't any probable cause unless he can clearly articulate what it is (e.g. at a checkpoint that a white Ford F-150 with a black bed cover like mine was just seen leaving the scene of a felony, etc)
CC
License Plate Covers
The rules regarding covers seem to vary, as usual, from state to state. I live in NY. They are "supposedly " illegal. I work in the livery business and I know they are illegal for our job.
As far as reflecting the camera . There used to be a spray when they first introduced the cameras that I immediately tried. And it worked. Until one time it didn't. Then the DMV warned everyone that if they were caught with the spray on the plate they would get a serious fine. That ended that.
My feeling is that just having that cover on, draws attention if a cop is in back of you. So why bother. It looks cheap and as you say there is no confirmation that it ever worked.
Michael J
better yet
I saw a new BMW with the entire first letter and most of the 2nd of his plate sand blasted off. When i saw the driver at a light, he must have been 50-60 y.o. Again, imho a game. Sorry officer, I am old and my plate is old. Otherwise, through a rlc, without searching the combinations he's home free. These people bet on, and win, that there's no enforcement of the rules.
It Depends...
Don't break the law and you have nothing to worry about.
I won't tell you what I really think about your above comment.
Sometimes situations and circumstances are such that "breaking the Law" may save you from either injury.. or even death!
Nuvi1300WTGPS
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!
In that case
Sometimes situations and circumstances are such that "breaking the Law" may save you from either injury.. or even death!
I'll be more than happy in paying the ticket.
Nüvi 255WT with nüMaps Lifetime North America born on 602117815 / Nüvi 3597LMTHD born on 805972514 / I love Friday’s except when I’m on holidays ~ canuk
Wish I had thought of that
In that case
Sometimes situations and circumstances are such that "breaking the Law" may save you from either injury.. or even death!
I'll be more than happy in paying the ticket.
I thought about responding to that post by Nuvi1300WTGPS, but could not think of what to say.
You did it well.
Illegal in Alberta
got a ticket in MD for using these coves. Some states make them illegal by law.
... this is true in most states.
Not legal to use in Alberta, Canada either.
Not aimed at everybody
Don't break the law and you have nothing to worry about.
I won't tell you what I really think about your above comment.
Sometimes situations and circumstances are such that "breaking the Law" may save you from either injury.. or even death!
Nuvi1300WTGPS
The license plate covers being discussed are designed to circumvent the laws intentionally and continuously. They are not designed to prevent you from getting a ticket when trying to avoid an accident.
My comment was aimed at the discussion subject. Sorry you took it as a blanket comment.
Metricman DriveSmart 76 Williamsburg, VA
Covers....Spray
clear covers that are easily readible from straight on such as right behind or directly in front of you.
If you view at an angle though it distorts the plate. Since most RLC are at an angle these would be an option. I've seen them around and are probably on ebay or amazon.
These work, but are illegal in some states. I used the spray. Unlike the covers, it is essentially undetectable. It makes the plate slightly shinier.
Don't Break The Law....
Don't break the law and you have nothing to worry about.
I won't tell you what I really think about your above comment.
Sometimes situations and circumstances are such that "breaking the Law" may save you from either injury.. or even death!
Nuvi1300WTGPS
The license plate covers being discussed are designed to circumvent the laws intentionally and continuously. They are not designed to prevent you from getting a ticket when trying to avoid an accident.
My comment was aimed at the discussion subject. Sorry you took it as a blanket comment.
Thank you for clarifying your 'don't break the law' statement metricman.
I'm no fan of red light or speed cameras, or license plate readers, but in the case of using covers to avoid tickets for willful law-breaking behavior, I do have to agree with you in this instance.
+1
...
I am okay with Public Records and the FOI Act. That, to me, is part of living in a society.
Unreasonable searches and plate recognition and the [like do] not fall into those [categories], IMO.
...
I am not understanding how plate recognition equates to unreasonable searches.
In my municipality we have highway cameras that one can view through the internet to check on traffic conditions before leaving for work. They are monitored to dispatch a highway incident truck to help stranded vehicles get back on the road again and ease the traffic congestion stranded vehicles cause.
If these cameras had more resolution they could read plates and even identify occupants. I suppose they could be used for Amber Alerts, too. What would you do with them?
What exactly is wrong with plate recognition? It can locate stolen vehicles. It can be used to catch people with outstanding arrest warrants.
Nuvi 2460
I wouldn't do it
As a former LEO I would look unfavorably upon someone who tried to mask their license plate. IMHO, you are looking for trouble when you do something like this.
With God, all things are possible. ——State motto of the Great State of Ohio
makes you wonder
As a former LEO I would look unfavorably upon someone who tried to mask their license plate. IMHO, you are looking for trouble when you do something like this.
Just what are you trying to hide?
Illiterate? Write for free help.
Nothing to hide
Alot of people do not like automated traffic enforcement whether it be red light cameras, speed cameras, or plate readers scanning for other things. They do not have to have anything to hide. They may just be uncomfortable with having all their movements tracked and scrutinized like they are in some totalitarian state. I can understand why plate covers would be appealing.
But then,
Alot of people do not like automated traffic enforcement whether it be red light cameras, speed cameras, or plate readers scanning for other things. They do not have to have anything to hide. They may just be uncomfortable with having all their movements tracked and scrutinized like they are in some totalitarian state. I can understand why plate covers would be appealing.
But then, if your vehicle got stolen, it would make it more difficult to recover.
I often wonder why people are alarmed when law enforcement uses tools like red light/speed cameras or license plate readers to claim that a totalitarian state is upon us, when - for years - Walmart, Target, Starbucks, phone companies, internet service providers, etc. have a complete record of where we went, what we looked at, and what we bought.
When you leave your house, generally your movements are no longer private. Park in a parking lot - chances are you are on camera. Go into some establishment, chances are you are on camera.
If you are worried about your privacy - and I am myself worried - then consider the totality of the problem.
Probable cause
it doesn't seem like the cops stop anybody for license plate covers that are so dark you can't read the plate in bright sunlight, or age old card board temporary license plates. Maybe the cops know that these are the liberals that collect checks from voting and keeping the liberal socialists in office.
So, what does it cost for a ticket with only a covered license plate? It's a fix ticket, and probably does not cost that much and there is no dent on driving record so insurance is not likely to go up. To police, it is something not that big of a deal.
However, it does give them probable cause to look into your car to nail you for something big.
Just my Opinion
I'm of the opinion if you conduct yourself within guidelines set forth in the law you have nothing to hide. Seems to me it's always the biggest offenders (drunks, road rage drivers, etc,etc)and/or their legal representation constantly trying to figure out ways to skirt the laws.
Plenty of problems..
But then, if your vehicle got stolen, it would make it more difficult to recover.
I often wonder why people are alarmed when law enforcement uses tools like red light/speed cameras or license plate readers to claim that a totalitarian state is upon us, when - for years - Walmart, Target, Starbucks, phone companies, internet service providers, etc. have a complete record of where we went, what we looked at, and what we bought.
When you leave your house, generally your movements are no longer private. Park in a parking lot - chances are you are on camera. Go into some establishment, chances are you are on camera.
If you are worried about your privacy - and I am myself worried - then consider the totality of the problem.
Yes there are plenty of problems. The RLCs, speed cameras, and plate readers are just the worst of them. The ticketing devices in particular need to be banned.
Plenty of problems..
But then, if your vehicle got stolen, it would make it more difficult to recover.
I often wonder why people are alarmed when law enforcement uses tools like red light/speed cameras or license plate readers to claim that a totalitarian state is upon us, when - for years - Walmart, Target, Starbucks, phone companies, internet service providers, etc. have a complete record of where we went, what we looked at, and what we bought.
When you leave your house, generally your movements are no longer private. Park in a parking lot - chances are you are on camera. Go into some establishment, chances are you are on camera.
If you are worried about your privacy - and I am myself worried - then consider the totality of the problem.
Yes there are plenty of problems. The RLCs, speed cameras, and plate readers are just the worst of them. The ticketing devices in particular need to be banned.
What problems?
...
Yes there are plenty of problems. The RLCs, speed cameras, and plate readers are just the worst of them. The ticketing devices in particular need to be banned.
Several places have mobilized against Automatic Traffic Enforcement (ATE) devices and voted them out.
I recognize that you oppose ATE.
I stipulate that revenue from ATE is often a reason from using them.
But, you have stated no legitimate reason why ATE should be banned. Do you have any?
Concerns about privacy is not a legitimate reason because a law was broken.
Most people don't want them
...
Yes there are plenty of problems. The RLCs, speed cameras, and plate readers are just the worst of them. The ticketing devices in particular need to be banned.
Several places have mobilized against Automatic Traffic Enforcement (ATE) devices and voted them out.
I recognize that you oppose ATE.
I stipulate that revenue from ATE is often a reason from using them.
But, you have stated no legitimate reason why ATE should be banned. Do you have any?
Concerns about privacy is not a legitimate reason because a law was broken.
Aside from the accuracy problems and due process issues, the only reason needed is that most people don't want them.
The covers are not illegal in all states.
Some states merely have statutes requiring that the plates be readable from a certain distance. As long as the cover doesn't cause non-compliance with that distance requirement, they are not unlawful.
I use the spray, which does not limit the tag's readability from any angle. Other than making the plate a bit shinier, it is undetectable. The sprays only work with systems that use a flash in connection with the RLC...the crystals in the paint cause the photograph to be overexposed.
you mean those
Aside from the accuracy problems and due process issues, the only reason needed is that most people don't want them.
That don't want to take responsibility for their actions are the primary ones opposed.
Illiterate? Write for free help.
What is the issue with due process?
...
Aside from the accuracy problems and due process issues, the only reason needed is that most people don't want them.
I stipulate that there are a very few municipalities that are on the wrong side of "Due Process" because they charge you to contest a ticket.
Are you claiming there is some general "Due Process" problem and if so, does the same argument apply to a traffic ticket issued by a police officer?
Most People Don't Want Them
...
Aside from the accuracy problems and due process issues, the only reason needed is that most people don't want them.
I stipulate that there are a very few municipalities that are on the wrong side of "Due Process" because they charge you to contest a ticket.
Are you claiming there is some general "Due Process" problem and if so, does the same argument apply to a traffic ticket issued by a police officer?
The main point is that most people don't want them, but go ahead and read this and see if you can pick out any general due process issues from this article.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/43/4336.asp
Not worth it
It is not worth the money and risk to get those "covers".
Read your own link
...
The main point is that most people don't want them, but go ahead and read this and see if you can pick out any general due process issues from this article.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/43/4336.asp
I agree that the main point is that people do not like them but a lot of people do not like taxes either.
This was not "due process"
Try again or just give us your analysis in your own words.
Yes it is.
...
The main point is that most people don't want them, but go ahead and read this and see if you can pick out any general due process issues from this article.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/43/4336.asp
I agree that the main point is that people do not like them but a lot of people do not like taxes either.
This was not "due process"
Try again or just give us your analysis in your own words.
I figured some words of wisdom from a judge who was in the process of ruling an automated enforcement ordinance unconstitutional would be better. I'm not sure what your definition of 'due process' is, but this appears to be a due process issue.
Definition
...
I figured some words of wisdom from a judge who was in the process of ruling an automated enforcement ordinance unconstitutional would be better. I'm not sure what your definition of 'due process' is, but this appears to be a due process issue.
Perhaps we can use this definition
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Typically, "Due process" means
1) NOTICE, generally written, but some courts have determined, in rare circumstances, other types of notice suffice. Notice should provide sufficient detail to fully inform the individual of the decision or activity that will have an effect on his/her rights or property or person.
2) right to grieve (that being the right to complain or to disagree with the governmental actor/entity that has decision making authority) and
3) the right to appeal if not satisfied with the outcome of the grievance procedure.
In the instant case, the notice was written, the accused had the right to complain as well as the right to appeal.
your link has the following comment:
"In Jodka, we found that Cleveland Ordinance 413.031 unconstitutionally usurps the authority of the Cleveland Municipal Court to adjudicate certain traffic infractions. As such, we sustain Dawson's facial challenges to Cleveland Ordinance 413.031 and reverse the trial court's decision."
It was the ordinance - not the camera - that was found to be flawed.
Please try again. What constitutes a lack of "due process" in your eyes?
You are correct
...
I am okay with Public Records and the FOI Act. That, to me, is part of living in a society.
Unreasonable searches and plate recognition and the [like do] not fall into those [categories], IMO.
...
I am not understanding how plate recognition equates to unreasonable searches.
In my municipality we have highway cameras that one can view through the internet to check on traffic conditions before leaving for work. They are monitored to dispatch a highway incident truck to help stranded vehicles get back on the road again and ease the traffic congestion stranded vehicles cause.
If these cameras had more resolution they could read plates and even identify occupants. I suppose they could be used for Amber Alerts, too. What would you do with them?
What exactly is wrong with plate recognition? It can locate stolen vehicles. It can be used to catch people with outstanding arrest warrants.
The case law is well settled that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to your license plate when operating a motor vehicle on public streets.
Was on Mythbusters, most
Was on Mythbusters, most were a joke. I would never buy them.
Reasonable Expectation
The case law is well settled that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to your license plate when operating a motor vehicle on public streets.
The way things are going, I have little expectation of privacy with respect to anything, at anytime, in any place.
FYI...
Such license plate covers are illegal in MD and can result in a substantial fine.
RKF (Brookeville, MD) Garmin Nuvi 660, 360 & Street Pilot
Should be illigal
...
Our cop cars got license plate scanners a few years ago and there were some people who were very upset at it. One man was particularly vocal and used some choice words during the town hall meeting. One of our cops looked him up afterward and found that he had a car stolen about a decade ago that was never found. Maybe he was just jealous?
This gets me fired up, too.
Just because a citizen excercizes his right to address his government, armed government agents find this reason enough to delve into his personal history going back decades!
For the high crime of participating in democracy, this opens him up to government inspection?
And nobody finds this sort of intimidation upsetting?
License Plates are Required...
You're required by law to have a license plate on your car. It's there to be read by anyone and everyone who wants to read it, for whatever reason. The purpose is to identify the car. If you don't like it to be read, don't want to be identified, then don't drive your car.
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav
Sun Shade
If you put a sun shade around 3 sides of the plate, it could still be read from behind, but not by the cameras at an angle to the vehicle. I wonder how wide a shade would have to be to not be seen by the $cameras.
Zumo 550 & Zumo 665 My alarm clock is sunshine on chrome.
Hmmm Why buy something that
Hmmm Why buy something that doesn't work?! Sounds like with big brother watching best to stay home.
nuvi 250 --> 1250T --> 265T Lost my 1250T
Covers
I have used license plate covers on all my vehicles and my kids cars as well, Never had a cop stop me for it or even comment on them when I have been stopped. Just keep them clean and make sure they don't cover and of the stickers on the plates.
they also help to keep your stickers safe, slows people down if they try to take them off your plates.
johnm405 660 & MSS&T
The covers are a good thing
Anything that makes the plates harder for the cameras to read are a good thing in my opinion. A better solution would be to get rid of the cameras.
The covers might be illegal, BUT
Such license plate covers are illegal in MD and can result in a substantial fine.
The covers might be illegal, BUT the spray coating product is virtually undetectable.
Where can you buy the spray?
Where can you buy the spray?
Bizarre
it doesn't seem like the cops stop anybody for license plate covers that are so dark you can't read the plate in bright sunlight, or age old card board temporary license plates. Maybe the cops know that these are the liberals that collect checks from voting and keeping the liberal socialists in office.
An unreadable license plate is indicative of political affiliation, and cops know that. That's out there.
Spray
Where can you buy the spray?
https://www.phantomplate.com/photoblocker.html
I recently saw this type of
I recently saw this type of cover and it seems to me that this would really work effectively.
an94
Doesn't work at all.
I had one of those curved shiny covers on my ford. I was ticketed by a highway speed camera in Arizona some years ago. The cover didn't work at all, it was clear in the picture I saw.
I tried the spray, that didn't work at all.
none of em work
light is light
if enough light is reflected from the object that your eye can see it: the camera can see it
If the camera can't see it, the cop can't see it and you get pulled over by every cop for the plate offense
Myth busters showed every single gadget and spray at every speed from walking to 90mph
None of em work
the title of my autiobiography "Mistakes have been made"
totally agree
I am not understanding how plate recognition equates to unreasonable searches.
What exactly is wrong with plate recognition? It can locate stolen vehicles. It can be used to catch people with outstanding arrest warrants.
Plate recognition does not equate to unreasonable searches. It comes under automated data collection to which I am opposed.
Too much retention of images. Box Car has a good post. Yes, it 'could' be used to catch people with outstanding warrants, but that should happen after a cop calls in the plate due to a probable cause incident, IMHO.
I'm sure we will disagree on this and that is okay.
If your vehicle is on a public street, why can't it be scanned when the technology exists?
All of you are typing either from a laptop, desktop, tablet, smartphone. Do you really believe for one second, that you are not being filmed in 1080p, and that the video is not going to be uploaded to youtube? All of the devices mentioned have a camera which could easily be enabled by someone remotely.