Surveillance Vehicles?

[rezman]

The problem with this is make one stop and you've gamed the system. Using Turner as an example, it's 86 miles. At a speed limit of 75MPH that's just over an hour. So if you're there in an hour, you sped, you get a ticket, right? So if you drive 90MPH you're in trouble, cause it's timed.

Anyone who gets a ticket deserves it, because all you need to do is stop once to go pee and you've padded the time. Other than the cops along the way might have something to say about it, you can do 90. The time in line waiting to pay might even be enough to pad it up. Of course, back in the days of "double nickel" maybe it made sense, but it's just not worth the time now. Even with the automation of Pikepass.

They don’t do that any more. But they used to. And yes, you could pull over somewhere and pad your time. I’ve made numerous hot runs to Tulsa in under an hour. And that was beyond gate to gate. and would have deserved the ticket had I heen stopped. But I never had to pay a fine at the gates or through pike pass.

[stile99]

But most people who drive 90 wouldn’t stop to beat the system. The point is getting from A to B as fast as possible.

That was the "anyone who gets a ticket deserves it" part. I will always always always support a tax on the stupid.

[emtefury]

U.S. v. Jones--a unanimous decision--established that the 4th Amendment protects against warrantless searches in which law enforcement would place a GPS device on someone's vehicle to track their location. Law enforcement argued in that case that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy on a public thoroughfare. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. If law enforcement was to post a sign near wherever these cameras are to inform the public that their license plates were being photographed, I don't think there's a constitutional issue. Otherwise, I think this practice has a lot of problems constitutionally.

To put a spin on this. If it is a repo company, the 4th amendment does not apply because it is not a Government actor.

[Scott5114]

My understanding is that most turnpike authorities in the US—I can't speak for OTA specifically, though—have a policy of not sharing toll timestamps with law enforcement unless required to by the courts, because of fears that it would lower usage rates of the electronic tolling system (e.g. PikePass, EZPass) or the turnpike generally. (The latter is something that OTA would likely be concerned with, as most of their turnpikes can be easily bypassed by US or state routes that preceded the turnpikes.) In most states, fines collected on the turnpike are not paid to the turnpike authority, so a turnpike authority has little incentive to turn the information over without a court order.

[CloudDeckMedia]

During my dad’s 30+ year tenure on the OTA board, he would never allow speed enforcement using the toll system, either by a time-stamped stub or electronically through PikePass. He also rejected how the NJ Turnpike employees notified NJ Troopers of equipment violations.

[TheTravellers]

The turnpike timing for speeding and surveillance from vehicles on the side of the road may not be illegal, but it's certainly questionable... Sort of like this:

Taylor Swift Used Facial-Recognition Tech On Unknowing Fans To Find Stalkers

Fans of the pop star were unknowingly monitored by facial-recognition technology at Swift’s May performance at the stadium, according to a Rolling Stone report. The system, built into a kiosk showcasing rehearsal footage for Swift’s Reputation tour, was intended to weed out people who threaten the pop star.

Images taken at Swift’s performance, which boasted a guest appearance by Shawn Mendes, reportedly were sent to a “command post” in Nashville to be cross-referenced against a database that included hundreds of people who had stalked the singer in the past, according to Rolling Stone.

[Midtowner]

To put a spin on this. If it is a repo company, the 4th amendment does not apply because it is not a Government actor.

In Oklahoma, GPS tracking absent consent is stalking. Even before that was the case, I still wouldn't allow my private investigators to use GPS trackers as I thought there were very questionable issues when private parties used them.

[hoya]

That was the "anyone who gets a ticket deserves it" part. I will always always always support a tax on the stupid.

Hope you weren’t dumb enough to let someone borrow your car.

[Jersey Boss]

KOCO on the story.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...45957959484391

2100 scofflaws identified in first weeks of program. Long overdue.

[BBatesokc]

My understanding is that most turnpike authorities in the US—I can't speak for OTA specifically, though—have a policy of not sharing toll timestamps with law enforcement unless required to by the courts, because of fears that it would lower usage rates of the electronic tolling system (e.g. PikePass, EZPass) or the turnpike generally. (The latter is something that OTA would likely be concerned with, as most of their turnpikes can be easily bypassed by US or state routes that preceded the turnpikes.) In most states, fines collected on the turnpike are not paid to the turnpike authority, so a turnpike authority has little incentive to turn the information over without a court order.

I don’t believe a court order is necessary in Oklahoma. Just experienced this at a bond hearing. Prosecutor used the defendant’s PikePass time stamps to show the court that the defendant was driving excessively prior to an accident. I checked. No warrant was needed to get the information.

[BBatesokc]

Professionally I love the tag scanners. As a PI I have access to the massive databases containing those images. I can enter a tag number and basicallly give you what a GPS used to provide (just less detail, but still enough to track many people). Makes skip tracing easier. Also helps identify where an individual works.

However, as a citizen I don’t like them, in some states there is simply no avoiding the scanners - as they are part of insurance inforcement, warrant enforcement, repossession enforcement, etc. Thry scan public roads and private property (driveways, apt parking lots, store parking lots, etc.)

[emtefury]

KOCO on the story.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...45957959484391

2100 scofflaws identified in first weeks of program. Long overdue.

Thanks for the link. $174 fine is not much. It is about a month or two of a car insurance payment for the offenders. I don’t see it stopping them. Not much to lose.

[Pete]

Thanks for the link. $174 fine is not much. It is about a month or two of a car insurance payment for the offenders. I don’t see it stopping them. Not much to lose.

Depending on how long they have been uninsured, their rates will be higher as a result.

I believe you can't just pay the fine... You also have to demonstrate proof of insurance. And having it reinstated after a lapse is an additional penalty.

[stile99]

Thanks for the link. $174 fine is not much. It is about a month or two of a car insurance payment for the offenders. I don’t see it stopping them. Not much to lose.

$174 fine first time, AND you have to provide proof that you have insurance now, AND you sign an agreement to follow the law for the next two years. Second time? I would imagine it would be higher, especially if it is within that two year period. They have a lot to lose, if Oklahoma actually DOES anything this time.

[Jeepnokc]

I have several issues here. First, this should be overseen by the court system...not the DA's office. Second, this is a private company that is collecting the data and retaining the data on behalf of the state. They, as well as the DA's office split the money and the private company is the one that actually sends out the citation and collects the money. Law enforcement for profit is never a good thing. Further, the owner of the car is being held liable. So, your adult kid takes your extra car that you aren't driving so don't have it insured out while you are out of town.... you get the ticket. You sell a car a cancel the insurance but the buyer doesn't transfer the title or insure it....you get the ticket.

"Gatso USA, a Beverly, Massachusetts-based company that specializes in red-light-running and speeding detection systems, will initially get $80, or 43 percent, of each fine. Its cut will decrease to $74 after two years and $68 after five years, according to a contract approved by the state after months of legal review and negotiation. The company could expect to bring in $1.6 million a month, or $19 million a year, if the 20,000 citations are issued monthly. Gatso is a subsidiary of a Dutch company."

"It will be overseen by the District Attorneys Council rather than law enforcement, and the state’s 27 district attorneys’ offices are expected to receive millions of dollars in citation revenue a year, although no estimates were provided. District attorneys have complained that their revenue sources are diminishing because of state budget cuts and the drop in bounced-check fines."

"Citations will come from the company, not district attorneys. If vehicle owners don’t pay the citations, the information gets forwarded to district attorneys for potential prosecution... Vehicle owners who receive inaccurate citations can avoid payment by showing that they were insured at the time they were scanned."

http://oklahomawatch.org/2017/11/16/...matic-tickets/

[jerrywall]

So, your adult kid takes your extra car that you aren't driving so don't have it insured out while you are out of town

Just on this note, if your car is drive able and is registered, it must still carry liability insurance.

As for the for profit angle... I don't like it with speeding and with red light running, as those are scenarios that are hard to fight, and there's a built in incentive for a for-profit company to be a little aggressive on the ticketing. However, whether or not a car has insurance is pretty black and white. If you've sold a car legally you have paperwork to show when you've sold it, and it is pretty easy to fight. I had a car I sold not get registered by the new owners and rack up tons of parking tickets. When I was contacted, I provided documentation, and that was that.

[rezman]

If you own a running, driveable vehicle, but it is not being driven on public roadways, you can black tag the vehicle to keep it registered, and you do not have to carry liability insurance on it.

[Jersey Boss]

This big brother, profit driven system could have been avoided entirely with a couple of changes in the way cars are registered. The changes would also solve problems like Jerry had with the parking tickets.
1. Tags stay with owner, instead of the car.
2. Tag is issued upon proof of insurance.
3. State gives party that cancelled insurance to surrender tag within 10 days.
4. Driving with a invalid tag results in vehicle impoundment.

[jerrywall]

If you own a running, driveable vehicle, but it is not being driven on public roadways, you can black tag the vehicle to keep it registered, and you do not have to carry liability insurance on it.

Someone isn't gonna black tag their vehicle while on vacation which is I didnt bring it up. And by driveable I consider street driveable, which doesn't include a black tag. There's also the storage scenario, but again, not very likely (but potentially more for an extremely long vacation or a deployment).

[jerrywall]

This big brother, profit driven system could have been avoided entirely with a couple of changes in the way cars are registered. The changes would also solve problems like Jerry had with the parking tickets.
1. Tags stay with owner, instead of the car.
2. Tag is issued upon proof of insurance.
3. State gives party that cancelled insurance to surrender tag within 10 days.
4. Driving with a invalid tag results in vehicle impoundment.

You still run into the problem with #4, which is what this system is attempting to solve. Identifying those vehicles on the road driving without insurance (or with invalid tags).

[Jersey Boss]

Poster #37-Fine of 174 not much. My system of impoundment, towing, storage fee, plus 174. Cost of going w/o insurance is greater than premium. That increases compliance rate.
Completely eliminates buying a used car and never buying insurance. Once you incur cost of insurance you have the mindset to stay insured v high cost of letting it lapse.

[rezman]

Someone isn't gonna black tag their vehicle while on vacation which is I didnt bring it up. And by driveable I consider street driveable, which doesn't include a black tag. There's also the storage scenario, but again, not very likely (but potentially more for an extremely long vacation or a deployment).

Sorry, was going off the statement “if your car is drive able and is registered, it must still carry liability insurance.. Which in itself is not entirely true. But as you calrify, if it is to be driven on public streets, yes absolutely liability insurance is mandatory.

There are a lot of folks who do black tag vehicles. I’ve done it many times my self. But I never drove them on the streets while doing so.

[jerrywall]

Poster #37-Fine of 174 not much. My system of impoundment, towing, storage fee, plus 174. Cost of going w/o insurance is greater than premium. That increases compliance rate.
Completely eliminates buying a used car and never buying insurance. Once you incur cost of insurance you have the mindset to stay insured v high cost of letting it lapse.

Only if you eliminated the monthly option. The common practice now is for folks to sign up for insurance to get registered, and then dropping it after one month (or just not making any payments). I'd be fine with a penalty increase or impounding a car, but this doesnt help with identifying folks driving illegally in the first place. Regardless of the penalty something has to be in place to identify these lawbreakers.

[Jersey Boss]

You are correct in your belief that the monthly option contributes to the problem. The TW wrote an editorial on this practice and I would also agree with it and the concerns expressed by Jeep in outsourcing le to the highest bidder. The state needs to properly fund state services instead of outsourcing to private bidders.
https://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/e...2cd2afab3.html

[catch22]

So this seems very strange to me. A private company is essentially blackmailing you to pay them a fine or else they turn it over to the DA’s office. You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent to the private company. If you don’t pay them, they forward your information to the state. Seems very invasive to me and a bastardization of our laws. Very lazy police work by our justice system.