By on July 19, 2013

web13-featurepage-alpr-banner-v02

TTAC has recently addressed the issue of police using scanning technology to read license plates and then store their street locations. When the story broke, it centered on a few counties in Northern California, but the American Civil Liberties Union has just released documents that show that the practice is widespread across the United States and that few of the police agencies or private companies that are scanning license plates and storing that data, making it possible to retroactively track drivers, have any meaningful rules in place to protect drivers’ privacy. There are few controls on how the collected data is accessed and used. The documents reveal that many police departments keep the information on millions of people’s locations for years, or even indefinitely, whether or not they are suspected of a crime. Data on tens of millions of drivers is being logged and stored.

ACLU Staff Attorney Catherine Crump, the report’s lead author said, “The spread of these scanners is creating what are, in effect, government location tracking systems recording the movements of many millions of innocent Americans in huge databases. We don’t object to the use of these systems to flag cars that are stolen or belong to fugitives, but these documents show a dire need for rules to make sure that this technology isn’t used for unbridled government surveillance.”

With the help of chapters in 38 states, the ACLU compiled 26,000 pages of documents based on nearly 600 Freedom of Information Act requests submitted to federal, state and local agencies, asking how those agencies use license plate readers and how they manage the data collected. Approximately 300 police departments’ policies were reviewed. According to the civil liberties group, only a minuscule fraction of the scanned plates are used to solve crimes. In Maryland, for example, only 47 out of every million plates scanned (0.005%) were even potentially associated with auto theft or a person wanted for a serious crime.

The issue is not restricted to government agencies. There’s no expectation of privacy in public and for-profit companies can also set up scanners on vehicles or in fixed locations, also without having to protect how that information is used. A firm named Vigilant Solutions has over 800 million registration plate location records. Over 2,200 police agencies, including the Dept. of Homeland Security, pay Vigilant Solutions for access to their data.

The ACLU has suggested a number of specific policies regarding license plate scanning to make sure that nobody’s rights are being infringed. Those recommendations include: that a reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken place must exist before police can examine the information, unless there is a specific legitimate reason for record retention, the scanning data should be automatically deleted within weeks, or days if possible, and people should have the right to know if their cars’ location information has been stored in a law enforcement data base.

You can read the full ACLU report here. Interactive slide show here

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

53 Comments on “ACLU Says License Plate Scanning Widespread, With Few Controls On Collected Data...”


  • avatar
    Sam P

    No surprise given the recent NSA headlines.

  • avatar

    What does the government officially say it wants to do with this data – what is the purpose of collecting and retaining it?

    I would think that if a police car scanner finds a stolen vehicle or criminal suspect, it can automatically alert the cop, and otherwise the information is immediately discarded.

    Why would you develop the system to perform the much costlier task of saving the data? There seems to be no legitimate reason for its use …

    D

    • 0 avatar
      I've got a Jaaaaag

      Because they can. It is really that simple, no matter how they spin it, the answer always is because they can. Until they are challenged in court, slapped on the wrist and told “NO” they will gather as much information as they can.

    • 0 avatar
      67dodgeman

      Say police are called to a house by relatives who haven’t heard from the old woman who lives alone. Police enter, house is ransacked, woman’s been dead for at least a week. With enough scanners, police can determine every car (and owner) who entered or drove past that neighborhood in the relevant time period and consider them persons of interest.

      This is the era of big data police work. Don’t bother with the usual suspects, just collect DNA samples from everyone in the zip code.

      Any attempts to say “fine, okay, but delete the info after a given time period” will always be countered with a supposed need to solve older and older cases. Thus it will be stored forever, limited only by the cost of storage.

      On the flip side, would this info be available to defense lawyers to prove their clients innocent? “You honor, police records clearly show my client’s car was on the other side of town when the robbery occurred.”

    • 0 avatar
      Timothy

      In OH that is exactly what happens, if there isn’t a red flag on the plate scan the image is gone immediately.

    • 0 avatar
      Summicron

      Because vendors use words like “layered”, “fusion” and “nexus” to paint pictures of future grants and promotions.

    • 0 avatar
      bjchase55

      In reading some of the FOIA request responses from the police departments, how they retain the data varies widely. Some don’t store anything other than “hits”. Some store it until the hard drive is full than old data is overwritten with new data, but with “hits” not being overwritten. The estimated time for the old data remaining before being overwritten was a few weeks. In my opinion this should be a no brainer. Any “hits” should be stored in accordance to any current guidelines thay have for physical evidence. Any scan that doesn’t get a “hit” shouldn’t even be saved. It should be purged from temporary memory.

      • 0 avatar
        Summicron

        But they can’t get hits unless no-hit records were first stored. Most senior managers I know in federal security would give up one of their boats before signing off on any optional data purge.

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          Speaking from an IT/technology/programming perspective, there’s absolutely no reason you couldn’t build a license plate scanner that would have a list of plate numbers which are linked to crimes, which would only report on those cars.

          Each scanner needs an up-to-date list, but distributing that is no trickier than any other element of IT.

          They only need to store the full dataset if they want to track suspected vehicles RETROACTIVELY, and see where the vehicles BEFORE they were suspected. Granting this power is something that a free and constitutional country needs to have debated publicly.

          Or we could take the easy way and let the spooks do it and not tell the rest of us that the rules have changed, or what the real laws of our country are….

    • 0 avatar
      ClutchCarGo

      Whether they officially state it or not, much of the govt’s interest in tracking has to do with enforcing registration and insurance requirements. It becomes much easier to catch scofflaws with scanners around.

      Also, the incremental cost of storing the data is small compared to the cost of capturing the data in the first place, and there are potentially valuable applications where they can sell the data to private parties much like the DMV sells your license info.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    About a month ago, I received, gratis, a copy of a very slickly done, large-format book called “The Human Side of Big Data.” The book touted all of the wonderful benefits that will accrue from the collection and mining of very large amounts of data. I’m not sure who published it; but it was a nice propaganda piece.

    But the availability of sufficient computer power to data-mine means that the implication of collecting certain data formerly considered innocuous, have changed radically. For example, under Supreme Court decisions, someone who sends a postal mail has no privacy interest in the fact that he sent a letter to John Doe on April 25, 2003. Same for the fact that the telephone system recorded an 10 minute call between number XXX-XXXX and YYY-YYYY. Or for that matter, that the police can stake out your house and follow you as you drive around on public streets. While unstated in the fundamentally arbitrary court pronouncements that these activities are permissible, the fact is that when they were given the courts’ blessing, the lack of capability to aggregate and mine such data meant that they were relatively unobtrusive and innocuous.

    However, when done on a mass scale — as is now possible — what we have is a ubiquitous surveillance state that has the capability to track everyone’s movements and everyone’s communications, even without accessing their content. While undoubtedly useful in catching criminals (so are illegal “dragnets”), they have a tremendous potential for abuse. And, as the Boston bombers show, they are also less than successful at doing what they claim to do, which is prevent incidents like that.

    So, we ought to be thinking about whether anybody — government or private — should be doing this sort of tracking and data collection. The fact is, even without having your car license spotted and recorded, your movements can be pretty easily tracked through your credit card and ATM use, unless you carry a big bag of cash around with you like a drug dealer.

    • 0 avatar

      Interesting point in your last paragraph, but you always have control over how traceable you are. So if I go to my favorite camera store and buy an expensive camera with my card, obviously the world knows I did it. But if I consider who I date none of the NSA’s business, I can pull out cash in advance to pay for the date, and nobody will be able to trace it.

      So that’s a lot less potentially harmful to privacy than license place monitoring, which is entirely nondiscriminatory in what it sees.

      D

    • 0 avatar
      3Deuce27

      Recently during the NSA surveillance reveal, Firefox put up a ‘Stop Watching Us’ petition to be signed. I forwarded it friends and acquaintances. One of the responses I received, came from a good friend and one of the smartest persons I know. The man who developed the first wireless data transmission from building to building in the late forties, and was elemental in the development of the satellite communication systems, something we all use everyday with satellite TV, banking, and phones.
      The person who set-up the very first live TV transmission from one country to another when Nixon went to China. He should write a book on that adventure. He also set-up the very first satellite remote school system in the world when he enabled India’s remote areas to receive satellite broadcasts from their central school. So he is a fount of communication knowledge … knows what he is talking about.

      In his response to my recent mailing about the FireFox ‘Stop Watching Us’ letter/petition to congress, he gives a bit of history and a heads up about the governments(and other actors) ability to gather our personal information through all electronic forms of communication. . Another recipient of this mailing, also has some past knowledge of the NSA’s capabilities, but I doubt he will chime in on the subject.

      So, a heads up, courtesy of W_ _ _ .

      Hi! Tre

      Thank you for the email about the spying petition. I hope you are well and always wish you the best. My health is great!

      In about 1978, while working at the Hughes Space Group, we developed a “single channel per carrier” modem for use in satellite voice and data communications. The idea of it was to use a small narrow band signal for each telephone or like signal, filling up a satellite transponder’s bandwidth with hundreds of small carriers rather than the single carrier for TV or multichannel multiplexed telephone signals.
      I was delegated to visit NSA to describe it and discuss it with their engineers, which I did. At that time, I became aware that NSA could easily listen in to any phone conversation in the USA or to abroad that was not a wired local to local nearby call, but perhaps going through a local telephone exchange center. Even then, it was not a new idea. It was a very simple matter of processing the multi-carrier signal from a satellite or terrestrial network by demultiplexing it down to the desired single call, no secrets there. They wanted to understand our modem in the event they later might have to listen in on it.

      Later, I observed the mobile telephone signals on a standard laboratory spectrum analyzer with a piece of wire for an antenna and found that by adjusting it properly, one could listen in on the conversations, which were usually “I’ll be home soon, honey!”

      Even on our trip to China in 1972, it was easy to plug in a headset to a multiplex rack and monitor telephone conversations to the USA, although I didn’t do it. That could have happened in any switching center for decades.

      In the intervening 35 years, NSA has vastly expanded their electronic listening capabilities with many new buildings in Washington, perhaps largely to cover internet communications, cell phone calls, terrorist surveillance, and financial transactions. Telephone calls are now a small part of their interests, I think. We, the public, simply don’t have access to the NSA or their facilities. Even in 1978, there were armed guards at the corridor intersections in the building in Maryland that I visited.

      It is important to realize how the world has changed and that we should be careful what we put on the internet, what we say on the telephone, and what we do in public, etc. 1984 has come and gone and we are always being surveilled , as long as we are alive!

      Good Wishes, W _ _ _ _

      • 0 avatar
        Piston Slap Yo Mama

        That was a great read, thanks for posting. Let W_ _ _ _ know I enjoyed it. I’ve strongly suspected all along that my use of cellular phones and the internet was easily intercepted. Despite having nothing to hide, I still enjoy my freedom as an American to be a private individual. I wish others weren’t so dismissive about this right.

  • avatar
    VanillaDude

    Nothing I attempted to post yesterday was posted.
    Will I be allowed to post today?

  • avatar
    scooter81890

    I don’t like this–I hate it, in fact….but from a constitutional law perspective it is difficult to argue that we have a reasonable expectation of privacy when we drive and park our vehicles on public roads in plain sight of others. It is pretty clear, however, that George Orwell was prophetic. He was just 29 years off….

    • 0 avatar
      Piston Slap Yo Mama

      The framers of our Constitution and Bill-O-Rights could not have foreseen ubiquitous computerized camera eyes peering metaphorically and literally into our private lives on a 24/7 basis. I’m sure they’d have railed against it.

      Some jackass will inevitably weigh in here with that old saw about how “driving isn’t a right” and “zero expectation of privacy in public” and they’re missing the point (not you Scooter). Driving, for 90% of America is absolutely necessary to maintain employment and put food on the table. I’d argue it IS a right, much the same as not starving is a right. I’d also argue that anyone not currently under investigation for a crime should not be followed by gov’t officials, with no distinction for whether the surveillance is a cop or the unwinking electronic eye of Big Brother.

      I just re-upped my ACLU membership, and donated more than ever before. I’d suggest TTAC members who care about the Orwellian hole our country is falling down do the same.

  • avatar
    I've got a Jaaaaag

    I want to start by saying the following is just a thought experiment, I have no idea whether this is legal or not.

    Since the cameras being used to read your plate are digital and since digital cameras can see infrared LEDs, would it be possible to mount a couple of infrared LED arrays around your license plate to make it washout to the camera and look completely normal to the human eye?

    Just thinking out loud I’m to lazy to actually try it.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      Center-weighted exposure metering would defeat most attempts at blinding the camera.

      A simple tactic to make it more difficult to scan might be to simply mount a rear bike rack and carry a bicycle. Even if the rack is mounted with the plate fully visible, you have the problem of the tubes that compose both the bike and the rack interfering with the character recognition by obscuring parts of the plate letters in random locations depending on the angle of the camera. Sort of a physical world version of a Captcha code.

      Haven’t tested this theory, but it might work to make it harder to record your plate.

      • 0 avatar
        I've got a Jaaaaag

        It’s funny you mention the bike and bike rack, the last time I passed a police car using one of these devices, I was hauling my bike home from a very popular mountain biking recreation area. I thought I might get pulled over but didn’t of course that may be because this area at any given time has about 20% of the cars hauling a bike.

    • 0 avatar
      Japanese Buick

      Look back a couple of weeks in the TTAC archives Ronnie (I think) did a story on this.

      the problem with this system, even if it works, is that the scanner systems are likely programmed to consider an unreadable or partially readable license plate a “hit” so you’ll get extra attention.

  • avatar
    Summicron

    “unbridled government surveillance.”

    Who the hell cares?

    I put my faith in governmental ineptitude and ever-increasing budget cuts to pay for entitlements.

    Your privacy will be unimpinged but you’ll lose your lives a lot more easily.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      @Summicron
      Not long ago, I would have agreed with you, but now I’m not so sure. There have been abuses.

      http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/cop-database-abuse/

      Then there’s the danger that an OCR read error could place you at the scene of a crime and you could get a visit from the police.

      • 0 avatar
        Summicron

        Not to minimize Rasmusson’s outrage, but that was an in-house sexual abuse case of the kind that occurs always and everywhere when men and women work together. Tech only made it easier.

        I don’t think it much pertains to the gargantuan, undigestible data gluts being considered here. It was essentially a highly personal, peeping-Tom incident.

        And if I got a visit from the police I’d probably already know the officers and, more importantly, they’d know me. I’d have to have become a pretty outstanding minnow to be singled out of the school for anything nasty from higher up the food chain.

        • 0 avatar
          ClutchCarGo

          Gargantuan data sets are rapidly becoming digestible, as well as relatable t other massive data sets. Moore’s Law of computing marches forward, making unimaginable data sets easily usable.

          • 0 avatar
            Summicron

            Yep, but that data is received and disseminated over internet connections. I work with that stuff every day. The data centers continue to increase their awesomeness but you gotta get the data from and to the field.

            That’s what’s being most visibly impacted at the federal level because the H & I bands that keep servers up are more easily maneuvered out during reorgs than the L & M bands ordering the reorgs. And reorgs are happening all over the country.

            As with any other dying institution, pointy-haired bosses and a few of their very busy weasels will have the last mouthfuls off the carcass.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            @”Gargantuan data sets are rapidly becoming digestible”

            The Samsung 1.6TB NVMe SSD XS1715 can hit read speeds of 3,000 MB/s (100 Full HD DVD movies in less than 3 minutes). Hollow-core photonic-bandgap optical fiber moving bits at 99.7% the speed of light, 30% faster than conventional fiber, takes care of data transfer issues.

          • 0 avatar
            Summicron

            Swell… don’t that purty?

            We’ll never get it. We’ll never get anything remotely like it. We won’t even get 3 generations behind it.

            May as well say we can link our regional centers with Arlington using lines of pixie dust.

  • avatar

    My dental records, XRAYS and esophograms are all digital now. I’ll never believe that confidentiality agreements superceed the NSA/CIA/FBI simply because they can basically do whatever they want since we allow them too.

    I’ve always assumed that the government knows everything I type online, say on the phone or put into writing. Thing is, if it makes medicine safer and makes it easier to stop terrorists domestic/foreign from blowing up more buildings in my city, I say have at it.

    • 0 avatar
      3Deuce27

      ” and makes it easier to stop terrorists domestic/foreign from blowing up more buildings in my city, I say have at it.”

      Really?

      Terrorists, whether foreign or domestic have, comparatively, killed and injured an infinitesimal number of citizens in this country. I suspect the police have unwarrantably killed more citizens in a year or so, then terrorists ever will.

      Despite available technology, the NSA, FBI and CIA, don’t have a commendable track record in preventing terrorism. So giving up our privacy for some assumed protection, is a very bad bargain. And people who support that intrusion are part of the problem. Please rethink your position on this important issue.

      Regards… Tre

      Some figures from the CDC>

      Mortality
      All injury deaths; 2010

      Number of deaths: 180,811
      Deaths per 100,000 population: 58.6

      All poisoning deaths

      Number of deaths: 42,917
      Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9

      Motor vehicle traffic deaths

      Number of deaths: 33,687
      Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9

      All firearm deaths

      Number of deaths: 31,672
      Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3

      Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2010, table 18 Adobe PDF file [PDF - 3.1 MB]
      All Drug poisoning deaths

      Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)

      Source: Health, United States, 2012, table 32 Adobe PDF file [PDF - 9.8 MB]

      • 0 avatar
        Piston Slap Yo Mama

        Thanks for noting that here, saved me the time and effort of doing likewise. Terrorism: a Trojan Horse to keep us scared while eroding our freedoms in the name of safety. Or in Orwell terms, it’s the eternal fight against Eurasia and Eastasia, which may or may not actually exist. How do you win a ‘war on terrorism’? Or for that matter a ‘war on drugs’? So your point stands: let’s have a war on something tangible like bank fraud or CEO pay then we’ll see a societal benefit.

        • 0 avatar
          Summicron

          You guys are just seeing way too much volition and coherent agenda in this.

          The security-industrial complex has no cabal of evil genii behind it, no eminence grise aware of and directing its every move.

          It’s just what you get when a high-tech superpower contracts into a white dwarf of a society with virtually no private hiring for the masses of former officers, tech specialists, support staff, trainers, finance specialists, liaison staff etc.

          Add doubling-dipping retired examples of the above plus retired LEOs of high rank, a once very real and potent threat like global terrorism, mix well to provide maximum chafing of everyone against each other and well outside their comfort zones, bake at 450 degrees of suffocating uncertainty and serve to a government seething with corruption, besieged by vendors for concluded wars and addicted to gluts of ill-appropriated funding.

          The tyranny you decry is just ad hoc greed and fear. You do it too much credit when you call it Orwellian.

          • 0 avatar
            3Deuce27

            No argument here with that assessment.

            The war on drugs has too much profit in it to end. For profit prisons. Monies to police bureaucracy’s. Tactical equipment, etc. Profit from war, is centuries old.

            Same could be said for the war on cancer… too much profit to find a cure. Save your donations for lottery tickets.

            The greedy and inhumane have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

          • 0 avatar
            Summicron

            “The greedy and inhumane have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.”

            And we’d be right in there with them if we’d ever had decent shot.

            Ecce homo.

          • 0 avatar
            Piston Slap Yo Mama

            Summicron, conspiracies and cabals have existed since the days we clubbed our dinner to death. Even Eisenhower on his way out of office warned us as a nation to “beware the military industrial complex” – a stunning honesty not seen since from a POTUS.

            You posit we’re incapable of conspiracies, but any society that can engineer a massive space station or design the B2 bomber in complete secrecy should also be capable of engineering mass deceptions. Some of it is probably ad-hoc but I’d wager most of it comes off a ten year+ blueprint.

            I do distinctly remember when I first did web design and Lotus Notes database work in the mid 90′s and the gov’t was laughably out of touch with the internet. I thought back then that there was just no way it could ever be censored, monitored, throttled or shut down. Since then I’ve seen all this + more happen and had my suspicions confirmed in 2005 when AT&T got busted allowing a certain security agency to tap their network trunk traffic. It’s worse than you think.

            I love my country and maintain hope that we’ll change the path we’re going down. Now I’m off to drink frosty adult beverages – a policy that I can change.

          • 0 avatar
            Summicron

            @PSYM

            Well, ya know, I’ll defer to you smart young people on this. I only have my tiny insider’s scope from which to judge. I haven’t made and won’t make any effort to get a comprehensive view of these alleged and scripted encroachments on our personal freedoms.

            I would only remark that for successful government conspiracies on an epic scale the Manhattan Project impresses me as dwarfing all others. But, of course, it was only a secret conspiracy to Americans. The Soviets penetrated it readily enough.

            My personal reality testing tells me that an all-abiding concern for the erosion of personal freedom should have begun at least 30 years ago. Social mobility is the greatest freedom of all and one offered to an unmatched degree in Old America. Globalization and automation have pretty well wiped out that freedom and government had less to do with it than did private enterprise.

            We’ve already had our fangs pulled, so what if they know where in the compound we’ve shuffled? Most of us aren’t capable of doing anything to make them drop their donuts and come after us.

      • 0 avatar
        3Deuce27

        Forgot to add the ‘comparison’ deaths per 100,000 for terrorism. Figures are for 2001 only , the only year where we can get a statistically significant number.

        Terrorism Deaths per 100,000 population: 0.069

        • 0 avatar
          3Deuce27

          Reg; “And we’d be right in there with them if we’d ever had decent shot.”

          And that comment stands on its own.

          • 0 avatar
            Summicron

            Apologies if I’ve misjudged your age.
            I don’t expect grim realism from anyone under 50.

            The body has to begin failing before the mind can begin clearing. And then it goes, too.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    I was fine with licence plates in case I did something wrong, but they’ve gone too far. I just won’t put them on my car or truck any more. And what are they going to do if we all take them off?

    • 0 avatar
      rudiger

      Impound everyone’s vehicle and give them a hefty fine for their trouble.

      Municipalities will make money. Lots and lots of money to hire more cops and expand their data collection facilities.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        They can’t stop everyone. Not possible. Logistical nightmare. But once they become proficient, we put them back on. Then off. Then what?

        If we can’t unite a front, we lose. If it’s just me alone, in my quiet crusade, I still win.

  • avatar
    rudiger

    In Germany, they just arrested a truck driver accused of over 700 highway shootings. He was caught by the targeted use of automated cameras retrieving data of vehicles on highways.

    But the effort was specifically targeted and focused to capture this one guy, and once caught, the entire collection apparatus was dismantled.

    Given the country’s history, Germans have a keen interest and take a very dim view of mass data collection efforts ostensively as pro-active, defensive measure ‘just in case’.

    Something like what is happening in the US would never fly there. Even in this specific instance where it was done in a relatively limited manner to apprehend one criminal (after which the unneeded data was destroyed), got a lot of attention and concern of the civilian population.

  • avatar
    Jeff Waingrow

    Interesting that there’s longer any snarky comment-making about the ACLU like in the good old days when it was constantly lambasted for being part of the left-wing-nut brigade.

    • 0 avatar
      ClutchCarGo

      The ACLU, like lawyers in general, are deemed despicable when deployed against one’s interests, and deemed essential when deployed in support of one’s interests. At least the ACLU always stands on the side of the Constitution rather than the highest bidder.

    • 0 avatar
      Piston Slap Yo Mama

      Some conservatives convulse and have seizures at the merest mention of the ACLU. If only they could grasp that they’re defending the Constitution / Bill Of Rights.
      I just renewed my membership and donated more than ever before.

  • avatar
    porschespeed

    News? This isn’t “news”.

    Me (and everyone else with a clue) told you this was coming 5+ years ago when the podunk locals got LPRs.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    In the past month, I’ve been stopped twice by Miami PD cause the scanner says there is an “issue” with my driver’s license (there is NO issue) and twice was allowed to go on after checking with dispatch, no one seems to be able or willing to correct this, I know it’s only a matter of time when one of these Banana Republic, tigger happy po-pos unloads a few 9mm in my ass saying that I was “reaching” or something like that.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Volt 230 – You’d likely get stopped zero times if you went without licence plates entirely. Throw on some dealer paper (vinyl advertisement) plates and you’re golden.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        Depends on your state.

        Some states require 30 day tags for newly purchased cars, so dealer-ad plates stick out like a sore thumb.

        I’m not sure what the rules are in Colorado, but in Illinois or Virginia this probably wouldn’t work very well.

  • avatar
    dvdlgh

    Could my wife get a hold of this info? Ha Ha! Just kidding Sweetie, you know you’re my one and only.

  • avatar
    3Deuce27

    As far as solving crimes, a scanner would have to be near a crime scene and operating in and around the time the crime was committed. Not likely, unless a cruiser just happened by.

    Recently, in the past year, a friend of mine who was busted for growing pot in the early eighties, and spent some time in the county hoosegow, has been stopped three times and asked if he had any drugs and if they could do a search. In the past twenty years he has never been stopped for anything and has never had any kind of ticket, ever. We suspect a plate reader tagged with his record.

    And so it Goes……


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States