• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Does Mandating license plates violate " Our right to Privacy"?

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
In my theory I believe the answer to my topic query is clearly YES.. I believe states by mandating license plates on personal automobiles are violating our " Right to Privacy".. The state by this license plate mandate is actually putting citizens at risk to governmental intrusion, at risk to identity thieves, our children at risk to pedophiles and at risk to over zealous LEO"S... Since the plates are mandated for travel on the roadways and since citizens comply they in theory give up said right to privacy under threats from the state if citizen fails to comply. Since the plate is displayed for the world to see and view, we actually give away our privacy and other rights as well, for example a leo can run your plate for no reason other than they can hence government intrusion and a clear violation of the fifth and fourteen amendments.. In a land mark case Griswold v Connecticut 381, U.S. 479 (1965).

The justices ruled 7-2 that " Right to privacy" even when not explicitly included in the Bill Of Rights was to be found in the " penumbras" and "Emanations" of other constitutional protections such as the self-incrimination claus of the fifth amendment or the " freedom of association clause" of the first amendment. The Right to Privacy" is seen as a right of "protection from Governmental intrusion.. Therefore the mandating of license plates not only put citizens at risk to thieves and perverts and over zealous LEO's, the mandating in my opinion is a violation of our 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments..

The Griswold case was actually one of the main cases where the Supremes quoted the ninth amendment.. To wit. " The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.".

Mandating of license plates for our very own property is reducing us to sitting ducks.. The state would argue that the plates are for the citizens Protection in the case of vehicle thief or accident for notifying family etc, however the mandating of a license plate is clearly a "cash cow" for the states and is no longer a safe guard for its citizens.. The information on that plate puts us and our families at risk.

I am looking forward to the excellent legal minds here on OCDO to weight in, your opinions and thoughts are much appreciated..
Again this is just my theory and my opinion.

Best regards
CCJ
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Unless there is some way for an outsider to obtain the name and address of the registered owner of said car, "No, it doesn't."

Interesting point. But the answer is YES.

I've been dealing with this issue with my DMV and Mass. toll authority (MTA). The federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) has been struck down by some courts but its still the law here. This law prohibits DMV's from giving out car reg. info to anyone other than a small set of exemptions ~ law enforcement/judicial exemptions mostly

A few months ago the MTA changed how they bill ... they took down the toll booths as collection points and went to a "send bill in mail via finding out reg. owner via plate information".

So now MTA contacts my DMV for information to send our just bills (not for a judicial proceeding) and my DMV does it ... ignoring the DPPA.

And even, in CT, the plate information, and information at the DMV could provide a person, does not provide with the information as to who the owner actually is of the motor vehicle is in any event (See Gill v. Petrazzoli Bros., 10 Conn.App. 22)....let alone who the operator was (and MTA related laws and regulations seems to demand payment from the operator) .

So who are they sending these bills to? Who knows. But one thing is clear ... its wrong.



So one instance of where plate information is given out by my DMV in an unlawful manner. I have contacted my DMV about this MTA new billing and the DPPA and guess what? They don't care. Not surprising...they violate many laws regarding giving out information.


[and with the technology today, plate readers etc., plates are now just "tracking devices" IMO]
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
UNC hospital complex has at least one $40K pickup, electronic scanning, computer, printer, which drives through their parking lots and scans all vehicle plates placing them into their computer system. the driver is immediately notified if hospital staff is parking in the 'general' parking areas who then pushes a button on the computer and a ticket is immediately generated and the driver places it on the "offender's" windscreen.

it is up to the 'scofflaw parking offender' to protest to the UNC's traffic magistrate they were parked as a patient vice employee.

when i inquired to the driver what happens to the scanned vehicle plate information i was told it goes into the mainframe nightly.

this obvious intrusion is not mentioned on their parking website nor their ordinance(?).
http://move.unc.edu/parking/
https://move.unc.edu/files/2014/11/ordinance.pdf

my email query to the board of trustees and UNC chancellor (and his or her designee) have gone unanswered.

apparently this hospital entity has access to NC Citizens DMV records.

ipse
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
The 'state' is the government and the government is the state.

Toll road toll paying transponders are obsolescent.

I have an Illinois I-Pass that is not recognized on all other states' toll roads, and they're OK with it for Pay Per Plate.

As I stated, the DPPA is not enforceable anymore in some places ... check you location to see...if its been struck down then you'll need to check your state laws.

w/o the DPPA or another state law I would say getting plate info from DMV is OK for anyone, not just .govs.

And of course they are happy with play by plate .. duh ... its $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, screw everything else.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Interesting point. But the answer is YES.
I cannot help but notice all those are either government agencies or acting on behalf of a government agency. I may not have made myself clear when I used the term 'outsider'; I meant those outside of government, you know; common folk.

That car license plate belongs to the state, they can do anything they want with their property.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
UNC hospital complex has at least one $40K pickup, electronic scanning, computer, printer, which drives through their parking lots and scans all vehicle plates placing them into their computer system. the driver is immediately notified if hospital staff is parking in the 'general' parking areas who then pushes a button on the computer and a ticket is immediately generated and the driver places it on the "offender's" windscreen.

it is up to the 'scofflaw parking offender' to protest to the UNC's traffic magistrate they were parked as a patient vice employee.

when i inquired to the driver what happens to the scanned vehicle plate information i was told it goes into the mainframe nightly.

this obvious intrusion is not mentioned on their parking website nor their ordinance(?).
http://move.unc.edu/parking/
https://move.unc.edu/files/2014/11/ordinance.pdf

my email query to the board of trustees and UNC chancellor (and his or her designee) have gone unanswered.

apparently this hospital entity has access to NC Citizens DMV records.

ipse

Time for a record request of your DMV ... for records that they provided to this business. And to check the DPPA and state laws. If the hospital is a public agency then all these records are yours for the taking .. the DPPA only applies to DMVs I think.

People think that because they do it that "it" must be legal.

But folks here should know better.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Time for a record request of your DMV ... for records that they provided to this business. And to check the DPPA and state laws. If the hospital is a public agency then all these records are yours for the taking .. the DPPA only applies to DMVs I think.

People think that because they do it that "it" must be legal.

But folks here should know better.

got side tracked but plan on after the holiday since i will be in the area anyway, on visiting the UNC's traffic office and seeing if the head person is available to discuss the issue(s).

will check with my friends in DMV to see who is responsible individual to answer my query instead of lowly clerk.

ipse
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I cannot help but notice all those are either government agencies or acting on behalf of a government agency. I may not have made myself clear when I used the term 'outsider'; I meant those outside of government, you know; common folk.

That car license plate belongs to the state, they can do anything they want with their property.

In the MTA its a Mass. agency seeking records from a CT state agency. They are outside each other's governmental body. CT DMV is just another person like you and me to Mass.

Also, in many states where DPPA is Ka-poot, I would think that DMV records are open to all that ask.

And, also I have gotten plate information from my DMV ... wish to see these records shoot me a PM with email and I'll shoot it over to you or anyone who asks. Its a small file relating to about a dozen plates of vehicles owned by private persons.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Sure, whatever you say, DM.

I have been involved with DMV record issues for many years ... before the DPPA was passed one could get another person's information from DMV very easily.

Learn about the history of why the DPPA was passed and the history of DMV/public records availability aspect and you'll be better off and know more than you did before.

IMO all DMV records should be publicly available...but the laws are there and I expect .govs to follow them just like us commoners.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
The state would argue that the plates are for the citizens Protection in the case of vehicle thief or accident for notifying family etc,

If you're going to use straw men arguments, at least make them clever.

The purpose of the license plate is primarily 2-fold:

1-To identify the owner of the vehicle if it is involved in a hit and run, flees from police, etc.

2-To provide confirmation that legally required taxes have been paid and any required safety inspections performed and passed, to operate the vehicle on the public roads. Additionally, in Utah, registration will not be issued or renewed without also asserting that legally required financial responsibility (usually in the form of liability insurance) has been provided.

My license plate poses a very minimal risk to my privacy. The much higher risk is the registration paperwork I'm legally required to keep in my car under Utah State law. This has my name and address on it. We've had cases of cars being stolen from workplace parking lots and then, using the registration most of us keep in our glove boxes or attached to our visors, driven directly to the owners' home. The garage door opener in the car makes access to the garage, and then to the interior of the home in many cases, trivial and non-noticed to all but the most nosey of neighbors. Kind of scary.

I took to putting my registration paperwork into the in-car gun safe just to slow down such efforts if my car were ever stolen. And I need to visit with my State legislator to remove the home address from the registration paperwork.

But my license plate? Not a real risk to my privacy unless cops are routinely running plate numbers they should not.

Someone recently posted a nice history of road use laws and how the risk to the public increases from a person walking, to riding a single horse, to driving a team of horses, to operating a motor vehicle. Marshaul has, a couple times in the somewhat distant past, explained how at some point, the risk of injury rises to the level of infringing rights. In other words, in some cases, the risk of injury to others is high enough to warrant some pre-emptive rules.

Before trying to compare this RKBA, remember, that all we have to do to avoid hurting another with our guns is....NOTHING. A gun left lying on a table, or even in a holster on my hip, will--except in the most unusual, bizarre, and rare circumstances--do no harm whatsoever unless I (or another person), take some specific action with that gun.

In contrast, having put a car into motion on a public road, a driver must continue to properly do a whole host of activities to prevent that car from very likely inflicting grave injury, death, or serious property damage on another. A car sitting in my garage or parked in my back field, or even operated exclusively on my private property, poses little or no risk to the public. And so, no registration is legally required in the jurisdictions of which I'm aware. But once that car is put into motion, the odds are high that grave harm will occur unless lots of things are done correctly, and continue to be done correctly.


On a related topic, I view driver licenses as essentially bail cards. In cases of routine traffic infractions, having identified the driver and his place of residence, an officer can have some degree of confidence that the driver will appear in court (or can be found if required) for the hearing. Lacking such trusted ID, an officer might well be justified to take all minor traffic offenders into custody and immediately before a magistrate. Hardly a workable system in our current society. Additionally, the license offers proof that required driver training or testing was completed successfully.

These observations should not be misinterpreted as wholesale support for every aspect of current laws surrounding driver licenses or license plates. Clearly there is a cash cow element.

I don't believe registration or licenses should necessarily expire each year or every 4 or 5 years. I'm not fond of property tax on automobiles. I'd much prefer we finance roads and related costs through gas taxes (electric cars will put a wrinkle in this at some point) than through registration fees or property tax assessments on cars.

It is just that I recognize there are some legitimate purposes behind license plates and driver licenses.
Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Fuel taxes are paid into the general fund, and an insignificant fraction of the cost of highway construction and maintenance.

There are federal and (generally) State fuel taxes.

As far as I know, Federal fuel taxes go into the Highway Trust Fund, but that fund got raided in '92 and '93 to pay for deficit reduction. In '97 the federal gas tax was again directed solely to the trust fund. But it hasn't kept up with inflation.

In Utah, State fuel taxes are earmarked for road construction and maintenance.

(Off topic, 100% of our State income tax goes to education. That leaves property tax and sales tax, along with federal money with its strings attached, to fund everything else we do. Utah's total tax burden ranks slightly above the mid-point for the nation.)

This article with data from 2014 indicates that the feds spend about $41B a year while taking in about $21B a year on gas taxes. Tolls make up some of the difference, with general fund having to cover a lot.

Of course, money is taken out of gas tax to fund mass transit, bike paths, and hiking trails. And then non-gas tax money goes back into the highway fund. It is a nice shell game that makes the situation look even worse than it is. Drivers are forced to pay for mass transit and biking trails, and then need that much more subsidy.

In any event, roads need to be paid for and I'll much rather pay at the pump (even though that means a higher gas tax is needed) than pay in any other way currently used or proposed.

For example, direct per mileage fees give government too much visibility into where I'm going and what I might be doing.

Auto registration fees means the car enthusiast with 5 or 6 cars that each get driven no more than 1000 miles a year ends up paying a lot just to be able to drive his classic Cadi to church on Sundays.

And deficit spending by feds is a long term loser.

Gas tax is the least offensive means I can find.

Ideally, we'd decrease the federal gas tax so that the feds' ability to bribe the States goes down. Federal funding should be limited to areas where States have no benefit nor interest in the road. See the 30 mile section of I-15 through Arizona for exhibit A of such a road.

Then we'd increase State gas taxes quite a bit and States would build and maintain roads without federal interference. In my State, I'd push to keep the gas tax earmarked for roads, and force mass transit and trails to be funded from some other source.

Charles
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Without getting too deep into the conversation, I would say there is no expectation of privacy on a public highway. Registration, insurance, DL are not mandated for private property.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Without getting too deep into the conversation, I would say there is no expectation of privacy on a public highway. Registration, insurance, DL are not mandated for private property.

But one can take steps to hide one's ID ( masks, disguises, etc) ... IMO reg., ins., DL are not mandatory for travelers.

Everyone can have their own opinion.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP I believe the answer to my topic query is clearly YES.
CCJ

Oh, my heaven's yes. I totally agree.

But, I'm going to take the conversation in a different direction by questioning the premise. Not yours, CCJ--the court's when it started down the path of privacy.

At the bottom, this is not my original idea. I read it somewhere several years ago. The author's analysis was to me so striking that I nearly dropped my coffee (code for good scotch) on my keyboard.

Today, one of the touch-stones of court analysis on the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) is privacy. Their analysis includes the question whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in this or that. If the court finds he does, the search--and whatever it discovered--may be invalidated and suppressed. One of the way's the courts analyze whether a person had a "reasonable" expectation of privacy is to examine whether "society" would recognize or agree with that "expectation of privacy."

Well that author I read several years ago pointed out something. The Fourth Amendment doesn't mention privacy; it mentions security. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..."

By shifting the premise to privacy, the Supreme Court minimized the security angle, and granted itself large, new power. Think about it for a second. The supreme court declares that society does or does not consider a certain thing private. What does that really mean? It means the supreme court set itself up as mind-readers of each of 300 million members of America (society). And, that is on each privacy question that comes before the court on a search-and-seizure angle (and, probably the other angles, but I cannot say for sure.) My, my, my. What a herculean effort that must be. Why, we should all bow down and thank those justices for the massive time and mental concentration it must take to read all those minds. And, we cannot forget the federal circuit courts of appeal--they have to do the same thing every time a new privacy question comes before them.

Let me tell you how bad its gotten. Its gotten so bad, that after the initial privacy angle, the courts have declared that if you don't hide something from view or discovery by others, then you didn't consider it private--and it is no longer protected by the Fourth Amendment. Yep. You cannot feel secure in your own mind by your own understanding of whether others will or won't snoop, look closer, etc. No, you have to actively hide something to prove your interest in keeping it private. Well, when you're in public with whichever possession, anyway.

Can it really be long before not drawing your curtains is declared that you had no expectation of privacy inside your house? No, no, no. You cannot rely on your trust in most of your fellow human beings not to stare in from the street. Nope. At some point, perhaps not far, failing to draw your curtains will be proof that you didn't mind government pressing their nose against your window.

Privacy is also a wedge, the camel's nose under the tent. And, a false, invented premise, at least when it comes to search-and-seizure.

Can anybody cite even one single supreme court case where the court analyzes a case based on security: the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects?
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I cannot help but notice all those are either government agencies or acting on behalf of a government agency. I may not have made myself clear when I used the term 'outsider'; I meant those outside of government, you know; common folk.

That car license plate belongs to the state, they can do anything they want with their property.
Thank you for the reply.

They should not have the right to mandate a citizen purchase their property and apply said property onto our property..
Their property was made by some convict making 1$ a day, and they want to charge a citizen $48.00 for the privilege of applying said plate to citizens property, exposing citizens personal information for all to see.

Regards
 
Top