Will license plate and facial recognition software become routinely used to identify concealed carriers?

[vito]

I've read about police in Maryland stopping a motorist from another state because the police's license plate recognition system identified this man as a licensed concealed carrier. This was used to justify an involuntary search of his vehicle to determine if he had a gun with him, which is illegal in Maryland. Similarly, I have read about Japan increasingly using facial recognition software to enhance security in various venues. I wonder when these technologies will become commonly available here in IL, and elsewhere, to the point that a retail store owner will be able to screen everyone walking in, for example, and link the faces to a publicly available listing of those licensed to carry. Or screening the license plates of every vehicle that enter his parking lot and comparing the owner of the vehicle to the list of concealed carriers. While not advocating carrying where such is banned, either by statute or the legal posting of a "No Guns" sign, I am sure many concealed carriers likely at least occasionally end up in "prohibited" areas. The concept of "concealed means concealed" might not apply as much if those seeking to ban gun carriers have a simple way of identifying potential violators. And will LEO's routinely use these systems to justify searches and harassment of those legally entitled to carry a firearm? I doubt that any of the new technology will actually do anything to reduce criminal activity, but it seems it has the potential to seriously impact the law abiding citizens who wish to practice their 2nd Amendment rights.

[soylentgreen]

Is having an out-of-state CCL while you're in Maryland probable cause that you're committing a crime that a search of your vehicle might reveal? I'd say no. I sure hope the courts would agree.

 

Never ever ever agree to a search. If a police officer decides to search anyway, vocalize your objection, but don't take any actions to stop him. Call your lawyer.

[Bitter Clinger]

As in your example with the Maryland incident, it's already being used and abused.

 

As the technology proliferates, it will abused further by government (because that's what governments do), but they'll pass a "law" which makes it "legal".

[BigJim]

Is having an out-of-state CCL while you're in Maryland probable cause that you're committing a crime that a search of your vehicle might reveal? I'd say no. I sure hope the courts would agree.

 

Never ever ever agree to a search. If a police officer decides to search anyway, vocalize your objection, but don't take any actions to stop him. Call your lawyer.

The courts have already ruled you give up your other rights (search and seizure) if you choose to exercise your 2A rights.

[chicagoresident]

We are already there

http://abc7chicago.com/news/how-is-your-license-plate-data-being-used/805904/

 

This is alleged to be used by Dart's people to scan Illinois license plates at Indiana gun shows.

 

The Dart administration is on record saying they also use the law enforcement Facebook portal to deny conceal carriers based on what's on their Facebook. They also complain about how time consuming it is.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-illinois-concealed-carry-shootings-20180523-story.html

Cara Smith, chief policy officer for Sheriff Tom Dart, was clearly frustrated at the large number of permits issued over the offices objections. Reviewing applications, and in many cases filing objections in vain, detracts resources from our ability to combat gun violence in the city or to our other police work were doing.

 

One case in particular underlines that frustration.

 

The office had filed an objection against a man whose profile photos on Facebook showed him flashing what appeared to be gang signs. In one of the photos, he had a gun tucked in the waistband of his jeans as he sat on the hood of a car.

 

They are one technology salesperson away from automating this using some of the tech your talking about.

[2smartby1/2]

One (of many) reasons as top why I delayed getting my CCW is that I didn't want it attached to my license plate and DL. It is also one of the reasons why I don't have a single picture of a gun, or anything even mentioning a weapon on my Facebook profile. There are zero pics of me holding a gun out there. There is one pic of me at a range (needed for certification), but the pic does not list our names.

 

I understand it is officer safety, but I would really like to have my permit "unlinked" from my license plates.

[InterestedBystander]

One (of many) reasons as top why I delayed getting my CCW is that I didn't want it attached to my license plate and DL. It is also one of the reasons why I don't have a single picture of a gun, or anything even mentioning a weapon on my Facebook profile. There are zero pics of me holding a gun out there. There is one pic of me at a range (needed for certification), but the pic does not list our names.

 

I understand it is officer safety, but I would really like to have my permit "unlinked" from my license plates.

 

It is linked and will never IMO be unlinked. It may not come up in their basic code request but the enhanced is going to bring it up. If you are not registered owner then plate search avoids one of those I suppose. Even before CCL, I would hear FOID card ownership sent back to officers over scanner. IL participates in Nlets as I understand it which reports CCL to other subscribing agencies and states.

[Smallbore]

I thought there was a Supreme Court ruling for a Texas case that an officer seeing a NRA sticker was not probable cause.

How is that any different?

I wish I could remember the details.

[markthesignguy]

You posit TWO different situations, one public by law enforcement personnel in the performance of their duties, the other PRIVATE (retail store owner).

 

In 2012 in Illinois we made SURE the FOID data could NOT be made public. It may have been a Madigan diversion away from Concealed Carry efforts - as we "spent" a lot of our "mojo" on that issue that year.

[soylentgreen]

 

Is having an out-of-state CCL while you're in Maryland probable cause that you're committing a crime that a search of your vehicle might reveal? I'd say no. I sure hope the courts would agree.

 

Never ever ever agree to a search. If a police officer decides to search anyway, vocalize your objection, but don't take any actions to stop him. Call your lawyer.

The courts have already ruled you give up your other rights (search and seizure) if you choose to exercise your 2A rights.

 

 

Which court are you talking about? Which case? I know that the Illinois supreme court ruled that if an officer sees your FOID, he has probable cause to search for guns. I'm not sure why...since it's legal for a FOID card holder to transport guns. I guess the cops want to make sure you're doing it right...otherwise off to jail you go!

 

What other cases are there that have said you've given up your fourth amendment freedoms simply by owning guns?

[BigJim]

 

 

Is having an out-of-state CCL while you're in Maryland probable cause that you're committing a crime that a search of your vehicle might reveal? I'd say no. I sure hope the courts would agree.

 

Never ever ever agree to a search. If a police officer decides to search anyway, vocalize your objection, but don't take any actions to stop him. Call your lawyer.

The courts have already ruled you give up your other rights (search and seizure) if you choose to exercise your 2A rights.

 

 

Which court are you talking about? Which case? I know that the Illinois supreme court ruled that if an officer sees your FOID, he has probable cause to search for guns. I'm not sure why...since it's legal for a FOID card holder to transport guns. I guess the cops want to make sure you're doing it right...otherwise off to jail you go!

 

What other cases are there that have said you've given up your fourth amendment freedoms simply by owning guns?

 

Don't remember the case. I believe it was on the east coast. It was discussed here somewhere.

[soylentgreen]

Is being a known gun owner probable cause for an officer to think you might be committing some kind of gun crime? I wouldn't think so. Owning a car isn't sufficient reason to presume you've blown a stop sign.

I hope the recent decision of the 9th Circuit is a signal that gun ownership is no longer taboo in America. It's been a long dark nightmare.

[MSD]

I wonder if being a known gang member waives your 4th amendment rights without anything further for probable cause or warrant to stop or search. I don't see a court buying that argument. Hmmmm.

 

I am familiar with the cases involving auto searches which hold that a lower privacy interest exists within a car and it makes some sense that if an Officer has independent probable cause to stop and/or arrest then the officer should be able to ascertain the location of weapons that might pose a danger. The obvious distinction is independent probable cause that a crime has been committed or a vehicle law broken.

[vito]

Isn't "probable cause" referring to the likelihood of criminal activity having taken place or about to take place? But ultimate vindication does little good at the time the police are abusing their authority. Even if they had no right to do so, once you are arrested it will take time and money to make things right. The action in MD is a page right out of the fascist book of tactics. Maybe next the MD State Police will wear jackboots and carry Lugers.

[Euler]

Isn't "probable cause" referring to the likelihood of criminal activity having taken place or about to take place?

Reasonable cause and probable cause are defined vaguely on purpose, because any attempt to define them exactly would result in criminals trying to game the system. Instead they're defined by practice and precedent.

 

However, reasonable cause is generally that a reasonable person would suspect that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. It comes from the 4th Amendment language that individuals should be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Police can stop you, ask you what you're doing, and frisk you (search your outer garments) if they have reasonable cause. Basically, reasonable cause is based on suspicion.

 

Probable cause, a higher standard, is that a cautious person would believe that there is sufficient evidence that a crime has probably occurred or is probably about to occur. It also comes from the 4th Amendment language that no warrants should be issued unless they are based on probable cause. Basically, probable cause is based on evidence. Having a concealed carry license is evidence of abiding by the law, not breaking it.

 

Any results of unreasonable and unwarranted searches and seizures is inadmissible in court. If the only reason police stop (i.e., detain) a person is because he's obeying the law, then the stop is illegal and any evidence of a crime that they find from that stop is inadmissible.

 

IANAL

 

FWIW, when I first moved to IL, a muni cop stopped me "for having an IA license plate. Lots of illegal guns and drugs come into IL from IA." Seriously, people in IA have exactly the opposite impression of the source of crime and contraband.

[Euler]

Facial Recognition Software Wrongly Identifies 28 Lawmakers As Crime Suspects

Facial recognition software sold by Amazon mistakenly identified 28 members of Congress as people who had been arrested for crimes, the American Civil Liberties Union announced on Thursday.

 

Amazon Rekognition has been marketed as tool that provides extremely accurate facial analysis through photos and video.

 

The ACLU tested that assertion by using the software to scan photos of every current member of the House and Senate in a database that the watchdog built from thousands of publicly available arrest photos.

...

"This is partly a result of vendors pushing facial recognition technology because it becomes another avenue of revenue," Jeramie Scott, national security counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., told NPR. He compared facial recognition software to body cameras worn by law enforcement, which can be used for police accountability or, increasingly, public surveillance.

 

He stressed the need for debate so that the technology doesn't become a poor solution for bad policy. "Because of the disproportionate error rate, and because of the real risk of depriving civil liberties posed by facial recognition technology, we need to have a conversation about how and when and under what circumstances this technology should be used by law enforcement, if at all."

[BigJim]

Facial Recognition Software Wrongly Identifies 28 Lawmakers As Crime Suspect

Maybe this facial recognition software is smarter then we think!!!