'Run the Serial Number...'

[whoshisface]

Temporarily securing a firearm for officer's safety is just fine and dandy. Where it they violate the law in PA is checking to see if it's stolen. There is no case number,file number, no probable cause to believe the firearm is stolen or had been used in a crime, then there is no basis to check it against any database. Do they run your jockey shorts too? There is no difference. Private personal property is just that and seizing property for safety is one thing, checking without legal standing to see "WHATEVER" is a huge no no.

No LEO can just arbitrarily run Tags, DL #'s, LTCF, or any other thing just because. There has to be a valid legal reason for an officer to take action.

CL

PA has licence plate readers that scan and automatically check tag numbers.

So... I guess that's against the law too. The thing is that the licence plate is there so that officers can indentify the driver if they violate the law and so they can consistantly check to see if the vehicle was stolen.

[customloaded]

I was under the impression that any police officer who is behind you for more than a few moments probably ran your tag anyway.

You know what, I might be wrong as we are speaking about Pennsylvania. I was a cop in Georgia. In Georgia, an officer must have legal standing to run a tag. You just can't be behind someone and run the tag. There has to be legal justification. Otherwise, we would have Johnny Law running the tag of hot chicks, handing around their house to try and get laid.

It violates the rules for NCIC, National Crime Information Center. Now, I don't know what PA law is but since they use NCIC, I am assuming to get certified to have a computer to do LE work, they have to comply with NCIC rules, regs, and legal requirements. In GA, it was a felony for a public official to use gov computers for just any ole reason. There had to be a valid, legal standing reason. Traffic violation, part of an ongoing document investigation etc...not just because I was following you and I read a bumper sticker I didn't like or the hot chick driving the car.
In fact, vehicles left over night in parking lots could not be run. You could write down the info but couldn't run the tag because the car was just there.
I'll also state that I haven't been in LE for a number of years and things change. So, I just might be talking out my ass at this point.
Make sense?

CL

[ViperGTS19801]

Fair enough, just had heard differently from what you said.

[bac0nfat]

From this thread posted by a police officer:

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/156...forcement.html

What I take from that is: If your gun is in the database, under your name, you're good to go. If it's not in the database at all, you're still good to go. And if it's in the database under a different name, you're still good to go. Why bother checking if the police officer can't take any action no matter what the results are? Why not just run the serial number in a database of lost/stolen firearms?

Anyway this is why I choose not to inform.

[whoshisface]

You know what, I might be wrong as we are speaking about Pennsylvania. I was a cop in Georgia. In Georgia, an officer must have legal standing to run a tag. You just can't be behind someone and run the tag. There has to be legal justification. Otherwise, we would have Johnny Law running the tag of hot chicks, handing around their house to try and get laid.

It violates the rules for NCIC, National Crime Information Center. Now, I don't know what PA law is but since they use NCIC, I am assuming to get certified to have a computer to do LE work, they have to comply with NCIC rules, regs, and legal requirements. In GA, it was a felony for a public official to use gov computers for just any ole reason. There had to be a valid, legal standing reason. Traffic violation, part of an ongoing document investigation etc...not just because I was following you and I read a bumper sticker I didn't like or the hot chick driving the car.
In fact, vehicles left over night in parking lots could not be run. You could write down the info but couldn't run the tag because the car was just there.
I'll also state that I haven't been in LE for a number of years and things change. So, I just might be talking out my ass at this point.
Make sense?

CL

LOL...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45510972...h_and_gadgets/

You can't run from the cop car of the future

No license plate goes unread, no suspicious vehicle goes unnoticed

Police cars of the very near future will be scary smart. Equipped with eight cameras, voice commands, incredibly intelligent software, and LTE radios, perps won't get away with anything.

Motorola Solutions isn't working on building the latest and greatest Droid — that's Motorola Mobility. These guys have their fingers more in corporate and governmental pots. Engineers have done hundreds of ride-alongs, surveys, and simulations, and have applied all of their wireless knowledge into designing a police car that is so advanced it's actually very unsettling. Here are some highlights:

The system could record up to 10,000 license plates during a typical patrol shift.

Automated license plate recognition
The car's outward facing cameras will be scanning every license plate that passes through their field of vision. Impossible, you say? Using infrared as well as standard cameras, Motorola says their system can see and store up 10,000 license plates in a shift. In bad weather. Even if there's a 130 mph difference in speed between the cars. All of which is insane. According to Motorola, "Typically, the system will scan and recognize a plate in about 1 to 2 seconds and compare it instantaneously against a locally stored database of plates of interest (i.e. stolen cars, known felons, people who haven't paid their parking tickets in years, etc)." The system would then alert the officer. Um, wow.


A central database will also keep track of what cars were where and when. Why? Say there was a murder on the 100 block of X Street. Cops put the time of death at about 3 p.m. If a patrol car just happened to have passed by that block 15 minutes earlier, they have a list of all the cars that were parked in that area. If another killing happens somewhere else, and again, the cops had driven by some time around then, the system can cross-check those licenses and come up with a list of suspects. That's an extreme example, of course, but that's how it could be used. Could it also be misused? Yeah, it most definitely could.

LTE and cameras
All those cameras? In addition to constantly caching video, they can also stream it back to headquarters in realtime. If a cop pulls someone over, that means more eyes can be on the situation. Such a thing was impossible in the past because there was no wireless technology that could handle that kind of bandwidth. 4G to the rescue. The LTE also means that the officer in the field will have greatly enhanced access to remote computer systems.

LTE aside, the onboard computer will be a pair of eyes as well. The car may be able to see something the cop can't, especially at night, or when the officer is already over at the suspect's vehicle. If, for example, one of the cameras detects motion in the suspect's back seat, the computer system can sound an alert to warn the officer of potential danger. I'd say this has a high potential for false-positives, but I didn't get to see it in action. One of the ways it might alert the officer, besides the obvious bleat from the siren, is via the...



Gizmodo
A Motorola-designed head-worn heads-up display would help cops manage data and control systems.

Heads-up display glasses
Okay, so this one's still a little ways off. The unit I tested in the video above was very much a prototype. The screen that covered one of my eyes looked like a feature phone from a few years ago, it just did basic tasks, and it was slow to respond to voice commands. The concept, however, is very interesting. It would open the door not only for the car's computer or someone at headquarters to be able to relay messages to the officer as they are speaking with a suspect, but it could record video and offer more situational awareness than the officer would have with just the naked eyes. Infrared vision is just one of the possibilities.

View future cop car gallery on Gizmodo

Motorola's whole system is designed to be extremely intuitive and easy to use in a high pressure situation. Almost everything is done with either a single button-press or a voice command. They even thought to put the voice control button right on the steering wheel. Oh, and it's coming sooner than you think. Many of these features are being tested and rolled out now in cities like Los Angeles, and they will be coming to more and more areas soon. As LTE blankets the country, these systems will follow, and over the course of the next few years it will be rule rather than the exception. Basically, there's never been a worse time to be on the cops' bad side.

[kadar]

From another thread

Or you could just put a piece of tape over it to make it unreadable. IMO, based on Arizone v. Hicks, removing the tape would constitute a 'search', and thus, require a warrant in order to be legal.

I've done this to the guns that I carry.

[bac0nfat]

From another thread

Not sure if that's a good idea:

(a) General rule.--No person shall possess a firearm which has had the manufacturer's number integral to the frame or receiver altered, changed, removed or obliterated.

obliterated

past participle, past tense of ob·lit·er·ate (Verb)
Verb:
Destroy utterly; wipe out.
Cause to become invisible or indistinct; blot out.

Good luck with that one in court, it's a felony.

[whoshisface]

Not sure if that's a good idea:




obliterated

past participle, past tense of ob·lit·er·ate (Verb)
Verb:
Destroy utterly; wipe out.
Cause to become invisible or indistinct; blot out.

Good luck with that one in court, it's a felony.

It is not invisible, it is not visible with the tape over it but removing the tape makes it visible. Nothing prevents one from putting a piece of tape over it, you are not altering it in any manner. It is still there and complete. If this was illegal putting your gun in a holster could be considered "to make invisible"

[Valorius]

From this thread posted by a police officer:

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/156...forcement.html

Wow, this is good stuff. Be a good idea to carry a copy of this in your wallet to give to a cop should he somehow end up in possession of your firearm.

+rep inbound.

[bac0nfat]

It is not invisible, it is not visible with the tape over it but removing the tape makes it visible. Nothing prevents one from putting a piece of tape over it, you are not altering it in any manner. It is still there and complete. If this was illegal putting your gun in a holster could be considered "to make invisible"

That would be a good closing argument when you're fighting it in court.

I'm not saying that it's definitely illegal, but it's a gray area that I wouldn't want to venture into considering the possible consequences. We know how police officers and prosecutors like to stretch the letter of the law to mean whatever they want, so I'd rather play it safe and not mess with the serial number in any way.

And speaking of the holster covering up the serial number, wouldn't that accomplish the same thing as the tape? If they don't need a warrant to pull off the holster, why would they need a warrant to pull off the tape?