Pulled over and disarmed in Fishers.

[dsom2006]

I don't like to point out new members' for their BS, but OP has a little gecko in him, or Richard Jewel or something is amiss.

These kind of stops happen everyday in cities and towns all across the this land to people who have no idea what InGunOwners is, so why couldn't it hapen to this guy with a low post count?

 

[dsom2006]

HOLY COW!! Sorry but that is plain amusing to me.

Often times when a poster has no rebuttal and really can't argue the point that was made, they simply attack the poster by saying his post is amusing and adding a funny little icon.

 

[drillsgt]

Taking appropriate action with suspects whom I had good reason to believe were dangerous is the reason I lived to retire.

I guess it depends on your definition of "appropriate". The OP in this case didn't get his face shoved in the pavement and survived the encounter with no unnecessary injuries or excitement and so did the officers who it would appear used great restraint.

 

[drillsgt]

Honestly, I don't always agree with Liberty Sanders, but since I've known of him, he has always had my upmost respect. Even after giving long portion of his life to LE, he's never been one to be in lock step with the "blue line." There's plenty that current guys in our employment could learn from him. I think you were too hasty in you opinion.

You are correct Kutnupe, I have always seen reasonable posts by liberty as well which is why I was surprised by his attitude. It was probably just the brief post that sounded out of character for him. As I read further just now and saw his post #195 he explains in much more appropriate detail what he would do which sounds pretty standard and reasonable to me. His initial post just sounded like he was going to jump out of the car and go all "JBT".

 

[j706]

Often times when a poster has no rebuttal and really can't argue the point that was made, they simply attack the poster by saying his post is amusing and adding a funny little icon.

You have no point to make. You are wrong as wrong can be in reference to your 4th amendment violation claim. More than one LEO poster has explained it for you. Yet you still claim it is a violation of your rights. And then to say if LE can access the information you should be able to also. Sorry but that is just silly.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You have no point to make. You are wrong as wrong can be in reference to your 4th amendment violation claim. More than one LEO poster has explained it for you. Yet you still claim it is a violation of your rights. And then to say if LE can access the information you should be able to also. Sorry but that is just silly.

I believe you missed the point. It seemed pretty clear that he was making the point that this would be an invasion of privacy if anyone else were doing it and likewise LEOs shouldn't be able to rummage through our information just because we happen to cross their paths while they aren't busy with anything else in particular. None of their damned business without some specific reason for doing so.

 

[hopper68]

Sometimes I wonder if people just join INGO to either buy a gun or rant because they just got pulled over.

More important. How could someone who pulls people over everyday at work not bow down and admit someone on the internet who has read a few post knows more about police interaction with the public than they do.

 

[j706]

I believe you missed the point. It seemed pretty clear that he was making the point that this would be an invasion of privacy if anyone else were doing it and likewise LEOs shouldn't be able to rummage through our information just because we happen to cross their paths while they aren't busy with anything else in particular. None of their damned business without some specific reason for doing so.

Yea maybe I did miss his point. But irregardless it is 100% acceptable to run plates at random. Once the plate is run it is also perfectly legal to inquire as to the registered owners drivers information ect. And then of course with the zclient system there is a feature called RMS that can be used for a name search. It runs a search of that data base based on name ect. Very interesting knowledge can be gathered by using it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Yea maybe I did miss his point. But irregardless it is 100% acceptable to run plates at random. Once the plate is run it is also perfectly legal to inquire as to the registered owners drivers information ect. And then of course with the zclient system there is a feature called RMS that can be used for a name search. It runs a search of that data base based on name ect. Very interesting knowledge can be gathered by using it.

Does not make it any more right because it is acceptable or legal.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yea maybe I did miss his point. But irregardless it is 100% acceptable to run plates at random. Once the plate is run it is also perfectly legal to inquire as to the registered owners drivers information ect. And then of course with the zclient system there is a feature called RMS that can be used for a name search. It runs a search of that data base based on name ect. Very interesting knowledge can be gathered by using it.

I will grant you that it is 100% acceptable within the LE and political establishments. Why should you be accessing 'very interesting knowledge' concerning me or anyone else without a specific reason for doing so?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I will grant you that it is 100% acceptable within the LE and political establishments. Why should you be accessing 'very interesting knowledge' concerning me or anyone else without a specific reason for doing so?

You already know the answer to that question

 

[dsom2006]

I believe you missed the point. It seemed pretty clear that he was making the point that this would be an invasion of privacy if anyone else were doing it and likewise LEOs shouldn't be able to rummage through our information just because we happen to cross their paths while they aren't busy with anything else in particular. None of their damned business without some specific reason for doing so.

Exactly! Said much better and clearer than I did. Thank You

 

[dsom2006]

Yea maybe I did miss his point. But irregardless it is 100% acceptable to run plates at random. Once the plate is run it is also perfectly legal to inquire as to the registered owners drivers information ect. And then of course with the zclient system there is a feature called RMS that can be used for a name search. It runs a search of that data base based on name ect. Very interesting knowledge can be gathered by using it.

Like age, marital status, maybe they had a DUI 12 years ago all stuff that is none of your business unless you have reasonable suspicion that they just committed a crime or are about to commit a crime. Sounds to me that just maybe you have researched someone at sometime just a little more than you should have within the realm job.

Also I have clearly said that points that were being made by LEO were in fact good points from the LEO side of the equation. I and it now appears the civillian posters seem to think that it is a violation of our rights. You can believe what you want, but the majority I feel is on the side that my personal info is none of your damn business if I am not suspected of a crime. Legal and acceptable (by LEO) doesn't make it right.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

It's clear to me that some readers misunderstand what takes place when an officer runs a license plate through the mobile data terminal in a police vehicle.

In the vast majority of cases, it's absolutely nothing.

You run the plate...it either comes back with a want of some kind, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, end of story.

Registration information is available. If something about the car makes the officer suspicious, he MAY run the registration information for the purpose of making sure that the information on file matches the make and model of the car. Criminals steal license plates from unattended vehicles and then place them on their own vehicles in order to commit crimes. Detecting discrepancies in vehicle registration information has caught many a criminal and thwarted many a crime.

The idea that LEO's are running around out there using criminal information systems to idly inquire into citizen's personal information simply isn't true. For one thing, using these systems for personal purposes is prohibited, and for the other LEOs have absolutely no interest in or use for such information. CAN an officer do it? He can...but he has absolutely no reason to.

LEOs have need for this information for investigative purposes. Average joes do not. Do you want every Tom, Dick & Harry out there able to run your daughter's license plate to get her address?

 

[jsharmon7]

It's clear to me that some readers misunderstand what takes place when an officer runs a license plate through the mobile data terminal in a police vehicle.

In the vast majority of cases, it's absolutely nothing.

You run the plate...it either comes back with a want of some kind, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, end of story.

Registration information is available. If something about the car makes the officer suspicious, he MAY run the registration information for the purpose of making sure that the information on file matches the make and model of the car. Criminals steal license plates from unattended vehicles and then place them on their own vehicles in order to commit crimes. Detecting discrepancies in vehicle registration information has caught many a criminal and thwarted many a crime.

The idea that LEO's are running around out there using criminal information systems to idly inquire into citizen's personal information simply isn't true. For one thing, using these systems for personal purposes is prohibited, and for the other LEOs have absolutely no interest in or use for such information. CAN an officer do it? He can...but he has absolutely no reason to.

LEOs have need for this information for investigative purposes. Average joes do not. Do you want every Tom, Dick & Harry out there able to run your daughter's license plate to get her address?

Agreed.

And it's all recorded. It would do an officer no good to make up a warrant hit in order to try to pull someone over because it would be very easy to prove there was never anything there, and therefore a fabrication. Then what?

Also, police aren't the only ones with access to your BMV info. Here is a list of other folks who can get it:

IN.gov Accounts: BMV Records Enhanced Access

It's a constant fear of mine that some PI or mobile home park operator will casually peruse my BMV data.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Let me point out here that during my tenure in law enforcement, if a citizen walked into one of our stations, provided proper identification, and asked us to run him a copy of HIS OWN vehicle registration or criminal history, we were absolutely prohibited from providing it. Violation of this prohibition could result in the removal of computer terminals from the station by the state.

Information from these systems CAN be abused, and therefore is strictly controlled.

 

[Denny347]

Look, I see the butthurt is strong in this thread. But randomly running plates it is a legal and acceptable practice for LEO. I am sorry in your OPINION that we are wrong but we are not. Feel free to sue if you think we are acting outside our authority. It won't be the first worthless civil case dumped on me and not the last. If you are bored here is some reading material backing me up.


-Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (only an expectation of privacy if society accepts as reasonable)

-United States v. Matthews, 615 F.2d 1279, 1285 (10th Cir. 1980) “Every court that has addressed this issue has reached the same conclusion. The Tenth Circuit has held on two occasions that license plates are "in plain view on the outside of the car" and thus, are "subject to seizure" because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy

-New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986) (no expectation of privacy in vehicle identification number)

-United States v. Walraven, 892 F.2d 972, 974 (10th Cir. 1989)

-Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 529 (5th Cir. 1999) The Fifth Circuit has also held that "[a] motorist has no privacy interest in her license plate number."

-State v. Richter, 765 A.2d 687 (New Hampshire Supreme Court 2000)

-United States v. $14,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2429, No. 98-4380, 2000 WL 222587, at *3 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2000) (finding no Fourth Amendment violation in a computer check of a license plate)

- United States v. Sparks, 37 Fed. Appx. 826, 829 (8th Cir. 2002)

- Hallstein v. City of Hermosa Beach, 87 Fed. Appx. 17, 19 (9th Cir. 2003)

- United States v. Batten, 73 Fed. Appx. 831, 832 (6th Cir. 2003) As one panel wrote, "[T]here is no case law indicating that there can be any reasonable expectation of privacy in license plates which are required by law to be displayed in public on the front and rear of any vehicle on a public street." Batten, 73 Fed. Appx. at 832;

- Wayne R. LaFave, 1 Search & Seizure § 2.5(b) (4th ed. 2004) ("t is apparent that when a vehicle is parked on the street or in a lot or at some other location where it is readily subject to observation by members of the public, it is no search for the police to look at the exterior of the vehicle.") (citing Katz and Olabisiomotosho )

-U.S. v. Ellison, 462 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2006)

 

[Liberty Sanders]

One more bit of information that is causing some of the confusion here...LEOs don't have access to information that is either personal or private.

Everything that is available to a LEO through his MDT is a matter of public record. The only difference between him and a taxpayer is that the LEO can access it instantly and the taxpayer can't.

If your neighbor wants to know your criminal history he can get it...ditto with your vehicle registration. He just has to jump through more hoops to obtain it.

Just keep in mind that a LEO has professional standards that he is required to follow concerning that information...your neighbor doesn't.

 

[GBuck]

"Irregardless" is not a word. That's all I've got for now. Carry on.

 

[Dirtebiker]

no so long ago black people were warned about "letting the sun set" on them while in certain Hoosier cities.... oh, wait, they still say that...

Where is that?