on sale now at amazon

on sale now at amazon
"I don't like this book because it don't got know pictures" Chief Rhorerer

“It’s becoming a disturbingly familiar scene in America - mentally unstable cops”

“It’s becoming a disturbingly familiar scene in America - mentally unstable cops”
“It’s becoming a disturbingly familiar scene in America - mentally unstable cops”

Thank God


JUDGES SLAM BRAKES ON LICENSE-PLATE READING SYSTEM

Rule state's data-systems law protects consumers from constant surveillance
A network of cameras that captures your car license plate whenever you drive, recording times and locations, has been dealt a significant blow by the Virginia Supreme Court.
The justices have returned to a lower court a complaint against the automated license plate reader system used by the Fairfax County police department. The court wants to know whether or not police can track down an individual through a license plate.
If so, the system violates the law, the state’s Data Act, according to the court opinion.
The court said the “pictures and associated data stored in the police department’s ALPR database meet the statutory definition of ‘personal information.'”
“However, on the record before the court, we are unable to determine whether the police department’s retention and ‘passive use’ of information generated by ALPRs may be classified as an ‘information system’ governed by the Data Act. Accordingly the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgement in favor of [the police] is reversed. The case will be remanded for a determination on whether the total components and operations of the ALPR record-keeping process provide means through which a link between a license plate number and the vehicle’s owner may be readily made.
 “If such a means exists, then the police department’s ‘passive use’ of ALPRs is not exempt from the operation of the Data Act … because the police department collected and retained personal information without suspicion of criminal activity at any level.”
While this case pertains only to a Virginia law, the Rutherford Institute, which argued for privacy for Americans in the case, called it a “blow to the police’s use of Automated License Plate Readers.”
The complaint was filed by Harrison Neal, who discovered the police were taking photos of his license plate, his car and him without any suspicion of criminal activity and storing the information in a database.
He sued to stop the police from collecting or storing information “without suspicion of any criminal activity.”
The state privacy law states information cannot be collected “unless the need for it has been established in advance,” which would rule out random collections and the use of databases.
“We’re on the losing end of a technological revolution that has already taken hostage our computers, our phones, our finances, our entertainment, our shopping, our appliances, and now, it’s focused its sights on our cars,” said John W. Whitehead, the president of the Rutherford Institute.
“By subjecting Americans to surveillance without their knowledge or compliance and then storing the data for later use, the government has erected the ultimate suspect society. In such an environment, there is no such thing as ‘innocent until proven guilty,'” he said.
Whitehead explained that in reversing the lower court’s decision, the court found that license plate readers collect personal information prohibited by Virginia’s Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act.
The cameras used by the system photograph up to 3,600 license tag numbers per minute, catching every passing car. They then store the tag number and the date, time and location of the photograph in a searchable database. The data is shared with law enforcement, fusion centers and private companies and used to track the movements of persons in their cars.
The lawsuit by Neal cited a 2013 opinion by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli that ALPR data is “personal information” that the Data Act forbids the government from collecting and storing except in connection with an active criminal investigation.
The court ruling specifically said the judges agreed with the AG’s opinion that lawmakers did not give a blanket exemption to law enforcement systems but only those dealing with active investigations and intelligence gathering relating to crimes.

“We conclude that the police department’s sweeping randomized surveillance and collection of personal information does not ‘deal with investigations and intelligence gather related to criminal activity’ and, therefore if the ALPR database is determined to be an information system, it is not exempt from the operation of the Data Act.”


These idiots have killed citizens before in car chases...want this to stop? MAKE THEM PAY FOR THE DAMAGES AND NOT THE PEOPLE OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

Fairfax Co. police roll out car-chase guidelines; some supervisors skeptical

By Dick Uliano

April 3, 2018 7:48 pm




WASHINGTON — Fairfax County, Virginia, police have introduced guidelines that spell out when officers should begin, continue or end a high-speed chase.

But some members of the county’s Board of Supervisors are concerned that the guidelines might not go far enough toward ensuring public safety.

Appearing Tuesday before the board’s Public Safety Committee, police Chief Edwin Roessler said that officers and supervisors must be sure three guidelines are met before officers pursue any suspect in a fleeing vehicle.

The officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that a driver and/or passengers have committed, have attempted to commit, are committing, or have threatened to use violence to commit a violent felony against a person; other criminal offense; or a traffic infraction.

The driver refuses to stop when given the signal to do so.

The need for immediate apprehension outweighs the danger created by the pursuit to the public, officers and offender, including passengers.

“Preservation of all human life is paramount. We’ve moved that up to the front of the page to make it very clear that human life is the key factor in making a decision,” Roessler told the committee.

Roessler told supervisors there were 149 high-speed chases by Fairfax County police officers in 2017, 134 in 2016, and 118 in 2015. He attributed the rise in police chases to an increase in the number of vehicles on county roads.

Some supervisors questioned whether the guidelines provide officers with enough specifics.

“I’m still concerned that the policy is vague,” said Supervisor John Cook, chairman of the Public Safety Committee. “… The first paragraph is anything because it’s violent crime or criminal offense or traffic infraction,” he said.

Cook described the policy’s third component as “kind of squishy.”

Roessler assured supervisors that the policy embodies best practices for police chases and said the policy includes on-track training for officers with refresher training every 36 months.

“It really comes down to how is it going to be trained, because to me this is really, really vague,” said Supervisor Pat Herrity.

Police Chief Roessler said that officers and supervisors need a high level of justification to pursue fleeing vehicles in the county, where roadways are sometimes highly congested. Roessler also said that officers should cancel any high-speed chase if they are needed to provide any emergency medical aid.

Like WTOP on Facebook and follow @WTOP on Twitter to engage in conversation about this article and others.