Reader Comments
These are our reader's opinions and thoughts.The opinions on this site are posted by our readers, and are not edited by Appen Inc.
wow...
May 09, 2008 | 02:00 PM
Nice to see a dialogue that doesn't end up with namecalling and insults. NorthFulton.com bringing people together!
X
You Are Far Too Kind
May 09, 2008 | 12:55 PM
Nick K, I have enjoyed immensely, our discourse relative to this issue. It is situations like this that allow citizens such as ourselves to raise and analyze the pertinent issues of our times. In fact, our democracy was premised on an "informed citizenry".
I would welcome an opportunity to meet and grab a bite for lunch and continue our discussion, please feel free to apprise me of your interest and availability for same. Again, thank you ever so much for your kind and insightful comments.
Robert R. Parker, Jr., LL.B.
I Completely Agree
May 08, 2008 | 05:54 PM
"I am of the opinion that the community "dis-connect" between our law enforcement agencies and the citizens and communities that they serve, is in need of adjustment." This is very true. I feel that in fact, this is very serious matter that if not addressed could only lead to far more serious problems than we currently face today. Remnants of this disconnect are readily apparent in the minority communities in form of the 'no snitching' ideals. Certain communities do not cooperate with police even when they are the victim, instead, the current trend is to settle it without police or government intervention. Pretty scary thought that whole segments of the population deem vigilantism as the preferred method of conflict resolution. This could only balloon forward if not addressed, I could only hope that it does not reach that point.
And Mr. Parker, all I meant was that given your sincerity and devotion in believing that this practice is unconstitutional then maybe we should do something to address it, instead of merely just talking about doing something. Indeed, number of agencies run the license plate on a regular basis without cause and if this practice does indeed run afoul of the searches and seizures clause then we should respond accordingly, via private action as in a writ or prohibition and suits against the state.
Good luck with the BAR Exam, I am confident that you will have no difficulties, especially in light of your years of service as an assistant prosecutor.
Nick K
The Beauty of America
May 08, 2008 | 02:05 PM
Nick, Thank you for both posts today. The beauty of America is that intelligent, mature adults, such as yourself and the undersigned, can agree to disagree and do so graciously and respectfully. I commend you for your possession of both qualities.
I do intend on sitting for the Georgia Bar but in the interim, I would certainly entertain the possiblity of having a discussion with law enforcement policy makers to apprise them of the positions, for and against, the deployment of the Plate Hunter 100. I am of the opinion that the community "dis-connect" between our law enforcement agencies and the citizens and communities that they serve, is in need of adjustment.
I am the first to support the very legitimate needs of our police agencies as they have an obligation to "serve and protect" within the context of our Consitutional Principals that maintain the balance with protection of individual liberties.
However, when, as here, a matter arises that provides an opportunity for additional scrutiny, it would behove us all to be able to engage in a discourse, on the merits, to ascertain if a viable basis for compromise is available and appropriate.
I look forward to continuing that discussion.
Robert R. Parker, Jr., LL.B
Or Another Alternative
May 08, 2008 | 09:56 AM
Or better yet, because you could do this pro se, petition for a writ of prohibition grounded on the unconstitutionality of this device. In other words, petition for the pertinent police departments that do use this device to stop using this device as outside their authority because of the unconstitutionality of this device. You might run into a bit of standing issue unless you could show that they ran your license plate but knock yourself out. Don't need a lawyer for this, just need to be one because you are merely protecting your own interest and not acting in a representative capacity. But somehow, I feel that those hundreds of thousands of people that have their cars towed by this state are without a cause of action on the ground of an illegal license plate search. But then again, I could be wrong and the bold and innovative are often the most successful. I wish you luck Mr. Parker.
Nick K
Stop Assuming its a Search
May 08, 2008 | 09:34 AM
Seriously, I let this go, fine we agree to disagree, but stop assuming that it is a search. Prove that it is a search. You are correct that in order for police to detain and begin the 'search' or investigation there must be reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime has occurred. Stop assuming that the use of this device amounts to a stop or a search.
Here is a better and perhaps more practical situation for illustration purposes.... Parking authority can run your license plate even if they have no grounds to believe that you are illegally parked or have outstanding tickets. If the license plate comes back a hit, they will tow or boot you. How is that permissible I wonder, jee, maybe because it is not considered a search with the meaning of the U.S. and GA Constitutions? What do you think the purpose of the license plate is? To give the registered owner of the car a privacy interest or to maybe track who the registered owner is and how he measures up to certain guidelines? Seriously, STOP ASSUMING THAT THIS PRACTICE AMOUNTS TO A SEARCH. It is NOT a search. Your position would be 100% accurate if this practice amounted to detention or a search, however, it is not.
One more point, efficiency does not, per se, transform an otherwise legitimate law enforcement practice into an illegal practice. Just like the dog is more efficient in picking up the sent of drugs does not mean that use of the dog is constitutionally impermissible as a plain sight 'search'. So just because this thing is able to process the information more efficiently than a single officer does not transform this practice into an impermissible one. A single officer is permitted to 'run' the license plate without any probable cause.
If I am somehow, albeit very unlikely wrong, I suggest you go get your GA Bar License and sit on this gold mine and sue the state of Georgia for wrongful towing along with wrongful booting of cars as a violation of unreasonable searches and seizures. After all, as fruit of the poisoned tree (the illegal 'search' of the license plate) all evidence adduced from it is precluded and is effectively null. Thus we have an unreasonable search and a seizure. I wish you luck with, just make sure to disclose the risks involved in this gold mine (that maybe you are wrong w/e or not this is search) to potential investors or run afoul of multiple security regulations along with other fiduciary regulations.
Nick K
Case Law Evaluated
May 07, 2008 | 06:53 PM
Per the suggestion of Nick K, I took the time to research the case law precedent in the State of Georgia. I read and evaluated several state appellate cases as well as 11th Circuit Court of Appeals cases on searches and seizures.
It appears that the position espoused by this writer is on "all fours" with the position that both the state and federal courts have ruled on this issue. The present usage of the Mobil Plate Hunter 100, is constitutionally impermissible. But hey, dont believe the undersigned, a review of the cases contained in the Georgia Digest on Searches & Seizures will lead all reasonable minds to conclude that despite the improved efficiency of law enforcement, the device under discussion impermissibly crosses the line.
Robert R. Parker, Jr., LL.B.
Plain View Rule vs Privacy
May 05, 2008 | 05:33 AM
The plain view rule has application once an officer is on the scene of a situation and evidence of possible criminal activity is in the "plain view" of the officer, he or she is permitted to act on that evidence. This is far different, then the situation where the police undertake an active "search" of criminal data banks (5 National Criminal Data Banks) for the purpose of looking for evidence of criminal activity based on hte license plate of one or more vehicles in the 1500 searches performed per minute by this device.
The mere fact that the license plate is in "plain view" is not the same as criminal activity or evidence of criminal activity being in the "plain view" of the officier. The license plate on the vehicle is not a criminal act. Nor is it evidence of a crime being committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer.
Check point stops, while permissible, again, only address those that happen to be driving through that area. Not the 1500 or more individuals per minute that the Plate Predator randomly performs searches on without any basis for that intrusion other than the vehicle is on the public roadways. The computer and infra red camera pick up plate numbers within its range, no other evidence of purported criminal activity takes place. A hit comes back that a tag registration has expired or insurance has lasped. Misdemeanors or a mere civil infraction at best, however, under the view espoused by my collegue in support of this device, that is sufficient for purposes of additional law enforcement scrutiny. I dont think so.
In those situations where law enforcement has an actual suspected plate number of someone involved in, say, an "amber alert", then by all means go after them. But random plate checks, without more, impermissibly "crosses the line".
Robert R Parker, Jr., LL.B.
May 05, 2008 | 04:14 AM
Robert, you seem to misunderstand the argument. In order for us to run afoul of unreasonable searches and seizure there needs to be a search in the first place. This is where you would allege that the check of the license plate amounts to a search, however, that is not the case.
Police use security check points all the time and may, without any reason, survey whatever happens to be in plain sight. This, as I am sure you must know, is not a search within the meaning of unreasonable searches and seizures. For this reason, police may use a drug dog to sniff around the car and still come within the ambit of the plain sight rule. Likewise, just because this device is capable of doing more than a lay officer can, just like the dog is capable of detecting a smell of drugs far better than a lay officer can, does not, without more, make the use of the device an unreasonable search of seizure because as I stress again, there is no search to begin with. The analogy meant to highlight that the plain sight rule encompasses the smell of the car and for that purpose police may use an especially trained dog that is far more sensitive than a human. Thus the plain sight is not meant to be limited to what is in plain sight of a regular officer, instead, officers may rely especially trained or tailored devices to assist them.
You are correct, that the device does search and look up records but again, this procedure is not a search within the meaning of 'unreasonable searches and seizures' as articles that are within plain sight are not covered by the prohibition. The license plate along with its number, is within plain sight.
Robert, you likewise misunderstand the protected privacy interest. A privacy interest is said to exist if and only if, amongst other things, it could be said that ordinary people would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that given context. It is difficult to see, how, a lay person, has any reasonable expectation of privacy as it relates to publicly and prominently displayed articles outside a car. This is akin to putting a Hillary bumper sticker and then alleging to have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to one's party affiliation. Or if you don't like that, if you were to write out your own telephone number on the windshield you can hardly expect to have that phone number kept private, there is no longer a reasonable expectation of privacy as it relates to that phone number.
P.S. Robert, you should conduct a brief survey of a police stop requirements. That should come up with plenty of cases where police use dogs at check points, without consent or probable cause instead they do so under the plain sight doctrine. Or better yet, just look up the plain sight rule.
Nick K.
Apples & Oranges
May 04, 2008 | 11:10 PM
The views expressed by Nick, while sincere, are misplaced in a number of ways. First, the device does more than "surmise" it runs real time searches through five (5) National Data Banks and DMV files.
Additionally, the "drug dog" analogy is not applicable because the dog can, by its nature, only "sniff out" one car at a time, not 1500. And that, only after some other series of events have transpired. I am not aware of any law enforcement agency deploying random drug dog searches of the cars of citizens at present.
Thirdly, the fact that license plates are publically visible, does not, without more, authorize a "search" of the status of the registered owner of the vehicle just because the vehicle is on the public roads, without more, like, probable cause to actually suspect that a particular driver has committed an offense.
While it appears innocent on its face, as applied, this is a bad idea that further intrudes on the consitutionally protected privacy of large groups of citizens that happen to be in the range of this random scan. The benefit from the intrusion does not outweigh the diminishment of the individual right to be free of government "searches", "scans" or other forms of "review" without a specific basis directly related to the individual under such scrutiny.
Robert R. Parker, Jr., LL.B.
