I wonder if this "violation" came about as the result of a regulatory action or a legislative one? I do believe there's a good (not guaranteed, but good) case for a probable cause dismissal if the charge is filed.

Wow, bizarre! I would have been a smart mouth and tell the cop to buy the camera some glasses. Seriously, I would have taken his badge and gone fishing. Considering the fact she didn't get a ticket for anything I find that pretty peculiar.

I am personally aware that there are still intersection who have red light cameras, but this is strange.

As far as your comment, "There are signs of it everywhere, and of the increasing Orwellian overtones to our society."

I think society asked for it by their actions. They expect total security at all times and when they don't get it, they sue. Some one runs a red light kills their family member, it is a hit run and dammit, why were there no cameras at the intersection.(I know that to some may see this as an exaggeration, but believe me, it is said and believed.)

Look at this case at Staples Center where this small child fall off of the beverage counter he standing on, while his parents are present, mind you, and he falls over the barrier and now there is a law suit because Staples Center didn't do enough to present something like this from happening. There should have been every possible safety measure in place - how far so we need to go and when do people take responsibility for their "inaction" I digress, but I hope you get my point.

So the technical inability of your camera is my problem?

Sounds like half the story. I doubt "inability to scan" by itself is a violation. More likely it's an indicator of speeding. The automated speed traps are silly, uneconomical, and highly unlikely to save more lives. But they are legal. Glad we don't have them in LA anymore.

Nevahoida this. Are we sure the woman wasn't just really attractive and the cop just really lonely?

And what Snake said

Ask the commenter if she minds sharing the state or even city she lives in.

He said, "well that light you just went through has a camera and it couldn't scan your license plate", and that it was a violation to not be able to scan your plate to 50 feet. . . . Bad enough cameras everywhere, but scanning in all the plates that pass through?

If this was a red light camera, then it wasn't necessarily* scanning in all the plates that pass through. The LW quotes the officer as saying that the LW "went through" a light, making it sound like she went through a red light and triggered the camera.

*I say not necessarily because the explanation below may not apply to red light cameras in all locations.

From "Red Light Camera 101: 'Know Your Enemy'" at chicagonow.com...

[Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) spokesperson Brian] Steele explained that red light cameras are not running continuously. They are triggered by an under pavement sensor, located at the white stop bar markings, before the entrance of the intersection. This sensor only becomes active when the traffic light turns red. NOT yellow, but full on red. So, if you are already within the intersection when the light changes from yellow to red, you are safe--no ticket.

The red light camera will not trigger if your vehicle is already within the intersection when the light turns red. This is true even if just your front wheels are past the white stop bar on the pavement. You are still safe, as you are technically within the intersection, and can proceed to clear the intersection without being ticketed.

As example, if you're in the intersection making a left hand turn and the light turns red, simply complete your turn and clear the intersection without fear of getting a ticket.

The under pavement sensor will only activate AFTER the light turns red.

The systems aren't interlocked enough for this, and there are far too many potential false signals to alert a cop in this way. If HE can read your plate far enough away, that is the issue. I'd bet some money that the regulatory statute isn't written in such technical terms as a "camera must be able to scan from 50 feet" Based on the number of times I've ever been pulled over for what seems to be a bull story, I think fishing is often the expedition.

If you DID in fact run a red, and he did in fact see you, the traffic cam would have been irrelevant, because the Cop on the scene trumps everything else.

Go back to the intersection and see if it has cameras AND STROBES. They don't "scan" you moving, they take 2 single images, one at trigger and one a moment later to confirm. They only read your plate then.

But fishing? Yeah, a neighbor got one of the red light tix in the mail, and it showed that he was actually PAST the intersection when taken, and so there shouldn't have been a ticket sent at all. Some quality control they got there...

Cameras don't read license plates. If they did, we'd have bar codes or a national standard like this, and not the 50 different sets of sunsets and mountain ranges that we actually have on our cars.

However, some cops like to peek down blouses.

Cameras don't read license plates. If they did, we'd have bar codes or a national standard like this, and not the 50 different sets of sunsets and mountain ranges that we actually have on our cars. -- Crid at November 12, 2011 3:43 PM

Actually they do and can -- Google "Automatic License Plate Recognition System". They are still in the early phases, but the system can be mounted on a cop car. While they're sitting still it can be turned on and read just about all plates as they come by.

I'm of the opinion they shouldn't be legal -- interrogating every vehicle just because you're driving down the road bothers me.

> They are still in the early phases

'Zactly. This blog post is the first time I've heard it said that the driver of a licensed automobile should expect to have its plate read by a machine in real time. Again, the driver/commenter in this incident has yet to describe the neckline of the sweater she was wearing when the event occurred.

Some police cameras are used to scan for plates reported stolen, being driven by suspects, missing persons, etc.

There are devices sold that keep license plates from being observed by cameras, enabling the users to run traffic lights or avoid paying tolls.

The original poster didn't say if it was a red light camera or if she was using a plate blocking device.

Hello, that happened to me. I am in Ohio. I was not speeding. In fact following about 2 car lengths behind a van that was going about 7 miles under the speed limit. The cops said the bulb above the plate probably had dirt on it, and that I needed to take care of that. I only wrote because I really find it disturbing that every single plate at that light is scanned while someone sits there to get any that for whatever reason can't be scanned by some camera. Getting pulled over with no cause is really not the American way. The cop in question was not rude to me and did not keep me long. The problem is more in the system itself. It is like an automated check point. I don't think those should be used either.

No, I did not run a red light. He just explained to me that the camera at the light scans plates. That they need to be able to see your plate to at least 50 feet. That is what I was told.

Thanks for the deets Mel.

Hey, how long is it before your plate is on Spokeo?

No problem. I really just find the whole "watch our every damn move" annoying. The system itself is the problem. I had no idea these things could even do that. I will be doing some research into this.

Any covering over the plate can interfere and some types are illegal. These are common enough in CA that there may be a separate sensor that goes off when it sees one of these, red light or not.

What "sensors"? Where? What do they look like? Who operates them?

Are these the someone that probe your blood at the water fountain to make sure you haven't taken drugs or had gay sex or voted Democrat?

I hate those!

Sensors!

Melody,

That's interesting that that happened to you in Ohio, thanks for sharing that.

I would encourage you to post that in this thread at Obama Administration Argues For “Orwellian” New Powers To Track U.S. Citizens (jonathanturley.org)

This is the first I've heard of their being a scan requirement anywhere.

I know where I live, I often carry an empty hitch mounted bike rack on my car out of my general mischievousness/orneryness thinking my hitch mounted bike rack, even empty, obscures most of my plate in a somewhat legally understandable manner.

I'm just surprised that it was so efficient. Signal to cop to pullover in just a few moments? Whodathunk any government entity would be so johnny-on-the-spot?

all your information is theirs:

"Lancaster will soon begin filming its citizens from above, as a camera-equipped plane circles over the city under a controversial plan to track potential criminal activity...

The plane will fly 10 hours a day, from altitudes of 1,000 to 3,000 feet as its pilot watches for robberies, drug deals, car accidents and other incidents. The footage will be sent in real time to the local Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department station.

via laobserved link to daily news:

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_19319734

It was a lone woman in the car.

See also: Airport security search lines.

Crid - Not only do plate scanning cameras exist, they are using them in Ohio to look for particular vehicles, such as stolen ones. I'm not sure if they are looking for plates belonging to people with warrants yet, but that is probably planned. They have been talking about it on the radio in the Cincinnati area for months.

I'M NOT SAYING THEY DON'T EXIST.

I'm saying they're not checking the thoroughness of you're most personal grooming the way people seem eager to believe they are.

I'm with Crid--he was checking to see whether or not you were cute.

There was a cop in a city I used to live in who got in *huge* trouble because when he saw a girl he was interested in he'd run the plate, get her info and then use the PD resources to find out where she worked and arrange a "meet cute" to quote Roger Ebert. All this is hugely illegal. It was totally covered up--the only reason I know is because I knew people who knew people, and my friends wanted me to be aware of how dirty cops treat women.

This cop is doing the same. By pulling you over with a bullshit reason he's giving himself a legit reason to run your plates and get your contact info. By not giving you a written warning he has avoided giving you his name and badge number--you have zero proof this incident happened and now you can't put in a complaint. Slick, no?

And I have no doubt the scanning cameras exist, but are they synced with the GPS systems in all the cars so as to send an instant message to the cop sitting right next to the red light? What message did he get? How can the system send a cop after a particular plate if it can't read said plate? Did the camera call dispatch and have an APB put out for the plate that it couldn't read--all in a matter of seconds? (Dispatching for an emergent situation takes waaaaaaay longer than that and involves two dispatchers, btw.)

No, I smell dirty, filthy cop here, with a piquant undertone of "pants on fire."

>>Getting pulled over with no cause is really not the American way.

Of course it is. Next time it will be the TSA, searching you in your car at random to keep you safe.

Of course it is. Next time it will be the TSA, searching you in your car at random to keep you safe. -- Matt at November 13, 2011 7:45 AM

Well they're doing it to truckers already:

TSA sets security checks at Tennessee weigh stations
fleetowner.com/regulations/tsa-security-checks-tennessee-1025/

What I would like to do if they start that in my state is get every single pick-up, RV, or anything that is remotely a truck to hit the weigh stations while they're there. Technically you can get any vehicle weighed there. If the weigh station is in constant "bypass" mode because they can't get process out the cars and non-commercial vehicles, how often do you think the state would do it?

"I'm just surprised that it was so efficient. Signal to cop to pullover in just a few moments?"

It was a bullshit story the cop made up. What really happened is that he wanted to scan her boobs.

Scanning our cars, our bodies at the airport, our email and our Internet shopping...all of it.

Yes, it is intrusive and depressing. And you can moan and complain and write to your Congressman.

And as soon as one terrorist or serial killer or rapist or child kidnapper is caught by using these technologies, you'll shut up and bear it.

Stinky thing about the marriage of progress and technology: it is wonderful and sucks simultaneously.

There's a CNN story today called, "We're all liars". You are being conditioned to accept authority because you are worthless.

And everybody who thinks it's the job of the police to look after them makes that come true.

I work in the intelligent transportation industry, and I've never heard of a camera that operates in this way. I think either the cop misstated what happened, or the woman misinterpreted his statement. That doesn't make this any less disturbing, though.

Deathbysnoosnoo hit on an ongoing problem: abuse of the LE data systems. I used to work for an agency that had, as one responsibility, trying to maintain system security; which included trying to find out about such abuses. They're actual violations of law, in some systems federal law, and agencies generally try to handle it in-house, because if they get officially gigged it can be downright nasty. And rightly so.

But it still goes on.