State Police installing license plate readers along metro Detroit freeways

They say it is for "serious crime" only, not speeding, etc. and no face recognition, but how easy is it to flip the switch on that? So? What do you think?

State police say the technology would only be used for serious and violent crimes and could quadruple the chances of making an arrest.

These license plate readers will simply capture an image of a license plate and it will be stored in a database for only 30 days. So, if a serious or violent crime happens on the freeway and they have a description of the vehicle, they'll be able to track down a potential suspect.

“It's modern policing. And technology is the wave of the future for everything," Michigan State Police Lieutenant Michael Shaw said.

With dozens of freeway shootings happening every year on metro Detroit freeways, Michigan State Police say they hope this technology will give them an advantage by adding extra eyes on the roads.

“They don't detect speed. There’s no facial recognition. It doesn't take a picture of anybody in the car. It takes a picture of the back of the car and the license plate," Shaw said.

https://www.wxyz.com/news/michigan-state-police-installing-license-plate-readers-along-metro-detroit-freeways

I don't see a big problem with this. But police need to start enforcing the rules about visible license plates more consistently or it won't be so useful.

Obviously it would be easy for the to expand the usage of a license plate reader to a wider sense of circumstances, but it would not be easy to expand it to something like facial recognition--hard to recognize faces from behind. In the long run though, I have to think things are going to move in that direction--the police [[and not just in Detroit or Michigan) are extremely bad at solving crimes and they need all the help they can get.

City of Detroit already has them on some streets. With the nearly daily shootings on the expressways, many seeming to be random, I'm so for it. Of course, we hope the perps aren't using stolen plates.

I doubt the privacy objection carries much weight on the public freeway.

The Big Brother specter is there. It would be nice to put a date on how long they're expected to be in place but the installation looks permanent. I could see a lawsuit coming.

If this puts an end to the freeway shootings, can we expect the cameras to be taken down {he asked rhetorically}?

Alternatively, if this doesn't put an end to the freeway shootings, can we expect the cameras to be taken down {he asked rhetorically}?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeM

City of Detroit already has them on some streets. With the nearly daily shootings on the expressways, many seeming to be random, I'm so for it. Of course, we hope the perps aren't using stolen plates.

---

About a third of riders I see on a daily basis have no plate at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sehv313

About a third of riders I see on a daily basis have no plate at all.

---

Well, I only do I-94 and I-696, and only a few days a week. I see a car without a plate about once every four to six months - and I'm not including paper plates. More often, I see faded or corroded plates that are partially or totally unreadable, or plates placed in a window.

I wonder if they are good enough to read a plate of a car going 110 mph, which I see way more often than a car without a plate?

The feds just broke a human trafficking ring using plate readers on E Jefferson.

Why make such a point of cameras not being used for traffic violations?

Enforcing traffic laws with cameras is smart and would vastly increase compliance, thereby making the road safer for everyone.

Not to mention it would avoid dangerous police stops on the side of the road. Cops should be on the beat, not waiting on the side of the road to issue tickets like some glorified hall monitor.

Don't like it at all. Slippery slope.

Sorry, I'm all for law and order and do not like anarchy, but I'm am not a 100% fan of law enforcement.

UK has them on the freeways already,they even send you tickets in the mail and in the future have the ability to remotely disable your vehicle,speeding,not using turn signals in lane changes,no insurance etc.

But if people are driving on suspended license,no insurance etc,they are not going to care about receiving a citation in the mail.

Seems like an unreasonable search to me. I'm opposed.

1953

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1953

Seems like an unreasonable search to me. I'm opposed.

1953

---

I think cameras are great. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Running red lights and speeding, especially in certain areas like school zones and busy pedestrian intersections is dangerous. Are you opposed to all the cameras in downtown Detroit? They have prevented or caught people breaking windows, assaulting people, etc. I don't see the difference where they are located.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1953

Seems like an unreasonable search to me. I'm opposed.

1953

---

In what sense is taking a picture of someone's car on a public highway a search? And if it were a search, why would it be unreasonable?

Steve touches on this and related subjects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0vK3UdlH7A
City Installs Traffic Cameras That Issue NOISE Tickets

Quote:

---

It is happening in NYC. https://www.lehtoslaw.com

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 401don

I think cameras are great. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Running red lights and speeding, especially in certain areas like school zones and busy pedestrian intersections is dangerous. Are you opposed to all the cameras in downtown Detroit? They have prevented or caught people breaking windows, assaulting people, etc. I don't see the difference where they are located.

---

Cameras do not prevent crime,they are a tool used after it has already been committed,they do not take your picture and throw the image away,it goes into a data base.

There are no school zones on the freeway,why would they need plate readers? If somebody is a danger to the public and on the freeway it would be a little late to apprehend them after the fact,so because the average person broke the speed limit in the freeway let’s nail those lawbreakers,they need to be in jail.

Where I am at,drive the speed limit on the freeway and you are a danger to the public no different then camping out in the left passing lane.

The U.S. is different then places like Canada,we like our personal freedoms and we prefer not to have every aspect of it put on a hard drive by a government that will find another use for it in the future,outside of the intended use.

People can say it is a deterrence,but that will only work on those who are squeaky clean with the law,they are the ones that will be caught up in it and not the people that you are actually targeting.

this will be the next step

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/qBcebV9qpEk

They use plate readers at the jails and traffic court.

Judge - driving on suspension,did you drive here ?

Suspect - No your honor

Judge - are you sure about that ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Steve touches on this and related subjects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0vK3UdlH7A
City Installs Traffic Cameras That Issue NOISE Tickets

---

Remember the movie about the cop that comes back in the future,the machines that issue demerits for swearing in public? China already has that,and it goes against your social credit score that is used to get a job,buy a house,get married,even rent an apartment.

Some people want that for this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

Cameras do not prevent crime,they are a tool used after it has already been committed,they do not take your picture and throw the image away,it goes into a data base.

There are no school zones on the freeway,why would they need plate readers? If somebody is a danger to the public and on the freeway it would be a little late to apprehend them after the fact,so because the average person broke the speed limit in the freeway let’s nail those lawbreakers,they need to be in jail.

Where I am at,drive the speed limit on the freeway and you are a danger to the public no different then camping out in the left passing lane.

The U.S. is different then places like Canada,we like our personal freedoms and we prefer not to have every aspect of it put on a hard drive by a government that will find another use for it in the future,outside of the intended use.

People can say it is a deterrence,but that will only work on those who are squeaky clean with the law,they are the ones that will be caught up in it and not the people that you are actually targeting.

this will be the next step

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/qBcebV9qpEk

They use plate readers at the jails and traffic court.

Judge - driving on suspension,did you drive here ?

Suspect - No your honor

Judge - are you sure about that ?

---

As usual, I meant to direct my discussion to everyone except you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richard

cameras do not prevent crime,they are a tool used after it has already been committed,they do not take your picture and throw the image away,it goes into a data base.

---

tldr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

In what sense is taking a picture of someone's car on a public highway a search? And if it were a search, why would it be unreasonable?

---

It isn't a search, and it's not unreasonable in and of itself.

But what happens next is them saving the data of where you were and when, tracking your movements, building patterns, etc.

Then things get scary from there. And that IS what will happen next. Not 30 years later, more like 2.


Just like they say Alexa isn't recording everything you say, yet they used an Alexa's recording of everything some guy said 5 whatever years ago inside their own home to prosecute a felony.

This stuff never goes the other direction. The noose only tightens.

One saving grace is it IS illegal for the police to issue tickets this way in Michigan. The MI. constitution says "An officer must witness..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 401don

As usual, I meant to direct my discussion to everyone except you.

---

Does not matter,you posted in a public forum,kinda stands to reason others will respond. Tough concept to understand I guess.

Of course you approve of using anything possible against those who you deem lawbreakers and any means necessary,you live in Canada,we live in the U.S. and do not do willingly give up our rights,even the criminals have rights.Next you guys will deem jaywalkers as Nazis,good for 20 years in the gulag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket

It isn't a search, and it's not unreasonable in and of itself.

But what happens next is them saving the data of where you were and when, tracking your movements, building patterns, etc.

Then things get scary from there. And that IS what will happen next. Not 30 years later, more like 2.


Just like they say Alexa isn't recording everything you say, yet they used an Alexa's recording of everything some guy said 5 whatever years ago inside their own home to prosecute a felony.

This stuff never goes the other direction. The noose only tightens.

One saving grace is it IS illegal for the police to issue tickets this way in Michigan. The MI. constitution says "An officer must witness..."

---

Same law in Fla with red light cameras,but it is an officer basically rubber stamping the tickets.

I was red light camera ticket for left turn on the red,blurry picture was their evidence,dash cam showed I had the green arrow.

$150 if you pay it without contesting,$250 if you contest and lose,do not pay and license is automatically suspended,it’s private company using the police as their collection agency.

Good thing they are only located in the hood,stay out of the hood and you can run red lights at will,which is what happens anyways.

I do genealogy. My son was trying to talk me into taking a DNA test. I said as curious as I was, I wouldn't because it might make me responsible for arresting a relative. He came back at me telling me that his girlfriend and he had already taken a DNA test so it was too late for me. He was right. It was too late so I took a DNA test to satisfy my curiosity.

Every once in a while I read that someone was arrested based on a DNA test one of their relatives, maybe a second cousin, took. Who would ever guess when they took an Ancestry.com test to find out who their ancestors are that it would lead to the arrest of one of their relatives?

I suspect that the applications of license reading technology will similarly be irresistible to law enforcement and judges who will overrule whatever promises were made when the technology was first touted. The Stasi could only have dreamed of such technology.

No-one on this thread, so far, has said that if you didn't do something wrong then you have nothing to fear. Every police state makes that claim. One problem is that we don't know what will be illegal in the future.

Facial recognition and other technologies are already probably here that could read cards in your wallet as you walk by. It will help get the bad guys but how would or does China use these technologies for starters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

but how would or does China use these technologies for starters?

---

It is beyond scary there.

Smartphones have been turned into passports that you must have to buy food, or even leave your apartment.

They also have a social credit system. Say something the gov't doesn't like? They shut you down and you starve.

They don't like something going on in one area? They turn your area's heath status to red, and you're not allowed to leave your appt building, even for food.

The apps and the moron children using them for payments [think QR codes] have made it possible for them to practically eliminate cash. So now the gov't can starve to death anyone that doesn't agree with them, simply by making their QR code not work in their app.

This isn't some future dystopian movie, this is reality, like 4 years AGO. Paying with an app is the equivalent of running INTO the slaughter house. Don't do it.

There is a large investment brokerage house where I am at with 22,000 employees,they implemented a embedded chip program,goes under your skin and you use it to excess the building and even purchase items from the lunch room vending machines.

Just swipe your wrist across the reader,they did not say exact numbers of how many volunteered but claimed it was a majority and those interviewed said they loved it because it was so convenient.

Talk about having the tracking ability,that takes it to whole new levels.

Michigan has avoided using cameras because of our rights under the Mich
constitution. We have the right to face our accuser and cross examination.
Unless they amend this dispute is available.

[[1) a face-to-face-meeting of the defendant and the witnesses against him at trial; [[2) the witnesses should be competent to testify and their testimony is to be given under oath or affirmation, thereby impressing upon them the seriousness of the matter; [[3) the witnesses are subject

to cross-examination; and [[4) the trier of fact is afforded the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor. [ Jemison , unpub. op. at 5, citing Pesquera , 244 Mich. App. at 309, 625 N.W.2d 407, which in turn cited Craig , 497 U.S. at 846, 851, 110 S.Ct. 3157.]

I say bring on the cameras. The social contract of driving has been broken. I'm really tired of going the speed limit and being used as a pylon in somebody's personal stock race on the freeway. When people prove they can no longer handle the responsibility and endanger others, and when extra State Police patrols can't address the problem, it's time to take further steps. You might think what you're experiencing on local Detroit freeways is some kind of new Norm, but it's not. The irresponsible garbage you experience is worse here than any city in the U.S. Don't believe that? Ask people who come here from out of town. They're shocked at what they see and experience on our roads. When you're using your vehicle as a weapon to intimidate others, it's time to take some action. It's no different than pointing a gun at someone, and there is a good chance they're carrying one of those illegally too. 18 States have banned the use of such cameras, which means 32 allow them. From what I've experienced lately on the road, we should now be one of them. JMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bong-Man

I say bring on the cameras. The social contract of driving has been broken. I'm really tired of going the speed limit and being used as a pylon in somebody's personal stock race on the freeway. JMO

---

Well, the vast majority of "posted" speed limits in Michigan are illegally low.

If you are driving 55 on the Lodge for instance, you really should be cited for obstructing traffic.

The state constitution states that the speed limits are to be based on the 85th percentile, based on the speed-study portion of a traffic engineering study, done during free-flowing traffic, and rounded to the nearest 5 mph. ALSO, they are to measure the speed st the FASTEST portion of that segment, and the posted speed MAY NOT be more than 2mph below that number.

In short, you measure the speed of all cars when traffic is light [Sun morning for example), then discard the fastest 7% and the slowest 7%, and the average of the rest. That's to be the speed limit. On the Lodge for instance, that might be 75 mph, on I-94 70? On 696 West of I-96 it might be 80 or 85 mph.

So if you are driving slower than those speeds, the problem is you, not other drivers. You should probably stay off the freeways, or be given tickets for obstructing traffic. And the guy from the police and the guy from the county that together decide the posted speeds should both be sent to jail for fraud.

To search is:

"to try to find something by looking or otherwise seeking carefully and thoroughly."

If the police are trying to find something by collecting information en mass on mostly law abiding people, then its an unreasonable search, unless the merits of the search are outweighed by the risk, such as in a major terrorist situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1953

To search is:

"to try to find something by looking or otherwise seeking carefully and thoroughly."

If the police are trying to find something by collecting information en mass on mostly law abiding people, then its an unreasonable search, unless the merits of the search are outweighed by the risk, such as in a major terrorist situation.

---

No, information gathering and searches are not the same thing, by your chosen definition. Just because you want to call it a search doesn't make it a search.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket

Well, the vast majority of "posted" speed limits in Michigan are illegally low.

If you are driving 55 on the Lodge for instance, you really should be cited for obstructing traffic.

The state constitution states that the speed limits are to be based on the 85th percentile, based on the speed-study portion of a traffic engineering study, done during free-flowing traffic, and rounded to the nearest 5 mph. ALSO, they are to measure the speed st the FASTEST portion of that segment, and the posted speed MAY NOT be more than 2mph below that number.

In short, you measure the speed of all cars when traffic is light [Sun morning for example), then discard the fastest 7% and the slowest 7%, and the average of the rest. That's to be the speed limit. On the Lodge for instance, that might be 75 mph, on I-94 70? On 696 West of I-96 it might be 80 or 85 mph.

So if you are driving slower than those speeds, the problem is you, not other drivers. You should probably stay off the freeways, or be given tickets for obstructing traffic. And the guy from the police and the guy from the county that together decide the posted speeds should both be sent to jail for fraud.

---

Thanks for identifying yourself as part of the problem. Notice he makes no mention of the posted minimum legal speed on a 1950's designed freeway with out-dated entrance/exit ramps? 55mph means 80-85. 70mph means 90....now get out of my way or my F-350 will ride your ass. I've got places to go. Me, me, me. Bring on the cameras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bong-Man

Thanks for identifying yourself as part of the problem. Notice he makes no mention of the posted minimum legal speed on a 1950's designed freeway with out-dated entrance/exit ramps? 55mph means 80-85. 70mph means 90....now get out of my way or my F-350 will ride your ass. I've got places to go. Me, me, me. Bring on the cameras.

---

Well, more like everybody, everybody, taxpayers, economy.

If cars go 1/2 as fast, then they take 2x as long to get to their destination, hence there are 2x as many cars on a freeway at a given time, hence we'll need a lot more lanes. That means big bucks, eminent domain property seizures, and lots of construction and harm to the economy.

Entrance ramps may be somewhat outdated [I-94 more than 696, or I-75), but cars are also WAY more agile, have better brakes, and WAY better tires than the cars of the '50's and 60's on which the ramps were built around.. A modern mini-van can WAY out accelerate, stop and handle that LTD station wagon your parents drove.

So those freeways that were designed and built for 1950's and 60's cars to safely drive 70 mph should now be posted 75 mph, not 55.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

No, information gathering and searches are not the same thing, by your chosen definition. Just because you want to call it a search doesn't make it a search.

---

Police are not supposed to be able to stop you while randomly walking down the street and ask you to identify yourself without being suspected of committing a crime.

Having plate readers on the freeway is akin to - show me your papers - without just cause to ask in the first place.

It automatically puts you into the system,the same system that has been proved to be able to be hacked and other countries that are not as nice as we are,are already compiling a profile in you,every step you take.

Its not the concept of collecting information,it’s what is done with that information or how it can be used against you in the future,you can say that you do not break the law and you have no issue with people compiling information on your every move because it will not effect you.

That is what millions said,up until they were loaded onto the box cars,nobody expects nothing bad to happen,but history tells us that it can and does happen all the time.

This country was founded on the principles of less government in an individual’s life,it seems like anymore people are looking and justifying more ways in order to have the government in every aspect of our life from cradle to grave.

There was actually a Michigan case where the 6th district court ruled in 2006.

Defendant loses when appeals court rules that Americans have no Fourth Amendment protection against computer checks--even extensive ones--of their license-plate numbers.

——————-

But in the other hand there have been arrests of law enforcement officials excessing information in those data bases for nefarious reasons,if they can do it so can others.

There's no such thing as a right to drive on public roads. That's a privilege and you maintain that privilege by following traffic laws. Break them too often, and you lose that privilege.

I'm willing to bet most of the outrage about cameras is less to do with "surveillance" [[CCTV surveillance of roads has been widespread for decades) as it does with drivers who know they break the law and hate the idea that they will have to follow it.

But traffic cameras could literally save hundreds of lives a year, according to at least one study:

https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-ne...g-to-new-study

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richard

police are not supposed to be able to stop you while randomly walking down the street and ask you to identify yourself without being suspected of committing a crime...

---

tldr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casscorridor

There's no such thing as a right to drive on public roads. That's a privilege and you maintain that privilege by following traffic laws. Break them too often, and you lose that privilege.

I'm willing to bet most of the outrage about cameras is less to do with "surveillance" [[CCTV surveillance of roads has been widespread for decades) as it does with drivers who know they break the law and hate the idea that they will have to follow it.

But traffic cameras could literally save hundreds of lives a year, according to at least one study:

https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-ne...g-to-new-study

---

Well we do live in a country that threw all the tea in the harbor when a government became to oppressive,so it is in our blood.

Our speed limit is 70 but most radar is set at 83,watch enough police videos and the only time people are pulled over for following to close on the freeway is when the officer has a hunch that they are trafficking.

So for the most part,it is not because you are breaking the law,they are using the law as a reason,the more laws on the books the more reason and likelihood one violates them.

I do not think there is anybody that can say they never ever broke a law,there are laws on the books from as far back as the 1800s that they can dust off if necessary that people are not aware of,like spitting on the sidewalk in some places.

Seems like 99.9 % of the drivers out there do not even know what a turn signal is,so they are breaking the law,so I do not think anybody can take the stance of,do not break the law and you will have nothing to worry about,odds are they are breaking the laws just like everybody else.

To make it worse they legalize weed and the stoners are on the freeway going 30 mph while thinking they are doing 90.

Traffic cameras do not save lives

Regression to the mean"


"regression to the mean" is the term given to an important statistical error which is constantly incorporated in documents claiming benefits for speed cameras.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html

They are installed under the pretext that they will save lives because you are having a problem spot and looking to solve it,but statistics show there is no long term decrease.

They are popular as revenue generating devices,like the highway plate readers,because all they do all day is sit there all day and night and catch bad guys without actually having to pay an officer to do it.

They may catch a few really bad guys,but at the cost of millions in investment,and they may catch a good guy that is just having a bad day and slipped up when they probably would have never did the dirty deed for the rest of their life.

Highways have been around for 100 years,ya think if they could possibly make them safer they would have thought about it instead of looking for ways of capitalizing on them even more.

[QUOTE=Richard;631561]Well we do live in a country that threw all the tea in the harbor when a government became to oppressive,so it is in our blood[QUOTE]
tldr