ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

California

Vigilant Solutions and Watch Systems team to deliver solution for improved registered sex offender compliance

LIVERMORE, Calif., Aug. 19, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — Vigilant Solutions and Watch Systems announce today that they have worked together, and in close collaboration with mutual customers, to provide improved abilities to manage registered sex offender compliance efforts throughout the country. Full Press Release

Join the discussion

  1. mike t

    As predicted a few years ago by commenters on this site “We are now being monitored by license plate recognition” whenever we travel. Recommendation: Rent a car if you plan on taking a vacation. Hopefully the rental agency doesn’t have to report your contract to the monitoring authorities.

    Vigilant Solutions and Watch Systems team to deliver solution for improved registered sex offender compliance

    LIVERMORE, Calif., Aug. 19, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — Vigilant Solutions and Watch Systems announce today that they have worked together, and in close collaboration with mutual customers, to provide improved abilities to manage registered sex offender compliance efforts throughout the country.

    Vigilant Solutions is the leading license plate recognition (LPR) technology provider in North America, and maintains the largest database of commercially-generated LPR data of over 3.5 billion detections. Watch Systems provides the nation’s leading offender management and community notification solution managing over 60% of the nation’s registered sex offenders and sending over 10 million notifications every year.

    Read more:
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vigilant-solutions-and-watch-systems-team-to-deliver-solution-for-improved-registered-sex-offender-compliance-300130332.html?$G1Ref

    • LM

      YES! The UPC barcode tattoos are coming next. Hitler would have loved this gimmick! Your life as you knew it has forever been compromised and circumvented all in the name of security theater. Your humanity and real name has been stripped and “Sex offender” is now your slave name.

      Protecting “Our children..” What a delusional fantasy.

    • Bruce Ferrell

      Likely some stupid questions… How is this different that the company that supplies facebook cross reference information from the various registeries? If it’s not different, is either legal? If not, are suits against Facebook (and by extension their “supplier”) possible? I seem to recall a citizen action when the local prosecutor had declined to act.

      Just thinking

  2. curiouser

    This one just screams ACLU lawsuit….

  3. td777

    Big Brother is watching…always

  4. MJK

    This is all tailored only to those registered citizens who are actually registered and have also registered their vehicle(s) to law enforcement. Not to mention that it discriminates against otherwise compliant RC’s that happen to own a vehicle.

    My concern is that my wife and I have two vehicles, both of which I drive and so are listed on my registration. She could potentially be caught up in this by mistaken identity (she travels by car periodically for work) resulting in a substantial amount of embarrassment and humiliation for us both.

    • VA

      That’s one thing I like about Virginia, I have to register only the vehicles that are in my name. Now, until I am off paper I have to inform my PO of any vehicle I may USE, but hello everything else that possibly matters is in my wife’s name. No violations that way, less stress overall too.

  5. Nicholas Maietta

    These companies are getting bigger and more influential because nobody is suing them when they are small.

    They are collecting information on ever American they can, not just sex offenders’ whereabouts. They are pushing the Orwellian Prediction more quickly into reality by targeting “criminals” and especially those dangerously monstrous sex offenders that loiter behind bushes next to schools and playgrounds trying to prey on your little snowflakes.

    These companies know they are not in it for the long haul, but if they can gain enough ground while they can, by the time the wheels of Justice work against them, they may be in the same position as many other shady companies are: Like the mugshot industry, the GPS tracking industry, the 3rd party background check companies, loan shark companies.. you name it. All it takes it to take advantage of the slow wheels of justice, the lack of willingness of people to hire a good lawyer or two and sue them into oblivion when they are small.

  6. Robert Curtis

    What’s scary beyond the registered citizen is how far are the powers that be are willing to go with this kind of technology?

    I need more political activist trainees to train to make up to $100,000 in the field with me and others. This is not a gimmick. we need to show up, stand up and speak up.

    I need trainees for all areas of the state but you need to be off probation and parole to allow you freedom to be most effective. If you’re not off paper I am willing to train someone close to you possibly a family member or other loved one.

    The money is great but it’s the political involvement part that will empower and motivate you. the 2016 elections are around the corner so lets roll up are sleeves and go to work kicking some serious *#%. Robert Curtis (949) 872-8768

  7. Paul

    I think this could present a legal challenge.

    Clearly, in order for Vigilante Systems, sorry…Vigilant Systems to provide law enforcement with alerts, Vigilant Systems would require access to information which is not generally made public – specifically, license plate information.

    Penal Code 290.45 states, in part, the following:

    290.45. (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
    except as provided in paragraph (2), any designated law enforcement
    entity may provide information to the public about a person required
    to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290, by whatever
    means the entity deems appropriate, when necessary to ensure the
    public safety based upon information available to the entity
    concerning that specific person.
    (2) The law enforcement entity shall include, with the disclosure,
    a statement that the purpose of the release of information is to
    allow members of the public to protect themselves and their children
    from sex offenders.

    (b) Information that may be provided pursuant to subdivision (a)
    may include, but is not limited to, the offender’s name, known
    aliases, gender, race, physical description, photograph, date of
    birth, address, which shall be verified prior to publication,
    description and license plate number of the offender’s vehicles or
    vehicles the offender is known to drive, type of victim targeted by
    the offender, relevant parole or probation conditions, crimes
    resulting in classification under this section, and date of release
    from confinement, but excluding information that would identify the
    victim.

    The key statement here is, “…when necessary to ensure the public safety based upon information available to the entity concerning that specific person.”

    In order for this system to work as advertised, information is provided as a blanket, and concerns anyone registered. It is one thing to use Vigilant to track down a specific person who presents a specific threat. It’s an entirely different issue when it’s a blanket program targeting everyone.

    I would say that, unless they have specific information concerning specific registered citizens who pose a specific threat, there is a significant legal challenge available here.

    Am I wrong?

    • Eric Knight

      In short, they need a warrant before they can even access the data. Also, Vigilant cannot actually use the data themselves. They can only access the data that is specific within the scope of the warrant.

      I am not sure of the constitutionality of whether those on probation/parole need a warrant, but certainly those OFF paper cannot be tracked in this manner without a warrant. For such a warrant to be issued, it must also contain constraints and time limits if it is an ongoing investigation into a crime.

      Would someone of legal acumen care to take this further?

      • Paul

        The constitutional questions regarding the legality of license plate scanners are still being hashed out. Here’s the link: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/eff-and-aclu-win-review-automated-license-plate-reader-case?from=sls

        But 290.45 is pretty clear in the circumstances that allow license plate information to be shared.

        • New Person

          If I recall correctly, GPS monitoring systems was ruled unconstitutional. Now, the scope was limited to GPS onto private items, but many of the justices implied that any kind of monitoring without warrant was unconstitutional.

          Justice Sotomayor wrote, “I, for one, doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year.”

          Justice Alito listed other “new devices that permit the monitoring of a person’s movements” that fit uneasily with traditional Fourth Amendment privacy analysis.

          Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us/police-use-of-gps-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?_r=0

          The Supreme Court did rule in such a favor that tracking someone without a warrant is unconstitutional due to the fourth amendment.

          Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

          Using laymen’s interpretation, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons” is person him or herself. Registering outside of parole or probation seems to be an intrusion upon a Person.

          Given the fact that the Supreme Court believed that sex offenders re-offend at a “frightening and high” rate to the tune of 80% as its basis for probable cause, the research work by Professor of Law Ira Mark Ellman identifies the false fact of a high re-offense rate. When over 95% of registered citizens do not re-offend, then the notion of probable cause should be negated and the local governments must need an actual warrant.

          Due to the obvious error that the Supreme Court relied upon, people should file a Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Every time I have to register I am forced to give information, though I give no probable cause.

          The way the Supreme Court ruled upon the GPS tracker and upheld the fourth amendment, I find it contradicting to force persons to register information with no probable cause or warrant. There is no volunteering of information when the penalty for not registering is a felony. The very first right of the people to be secured in is “in their persons”.

          Secured in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. Applying this to the 21st century, that would also include the internet as it is digital paper. This would also include a person’s effects such as a vehicle.

          So the fourth amendment deems GPS units unconstitutional, yet forcing citizens to register is not constitutional? After paying dues, a registered citizen will always be deemed a criminal and loses fourth amendment rights? I thought registering was for probation and parole. After that’s completed, one still doesn’t have fourth amendment rights, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated.

          We aren’t citizen’s because we can’t share in the fourth amendment. Those rights aren’t afforded to us after we’ve paid our dues. Every time we chose to move, we are forced to disclose so much information as well as do so for the rest of our lives year after year. Citizens do not have to register as such nor be penalized for failure to register. They are not forced into this “search” by registering.

          Citizens have rights… I feel as though we have no rights, and thus aren’t citizens.

          So I thank Janice for all her work to make us into citizens again.

        • mike t

          @ New Person

          I believe you’re right when considering similarities to a 4th amendment rights case against GPS that were reversed by the supreme court. The following came to mind albeit the “monitoring device”, our license plate, is attached to a vehicle and not our person. There have been other cases thrown out of court where GPS is attached to a suspects vehicle without a warrant:

          Grady v. North Carolina (14-593)

          Washington — The United States Supreme Court (March, 2015) summarily reversed a North Carolina judicial decision upholding a program that allows state officials to use a GPS device to monitor the movements of repeat sex offenders 24 hours a day, seven days a week – for the rest of their lives.

          In a five-page unsigned opinion, the US Supreme Court reversed that ruling and declared that Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches apply to government actions in both the civil and criminal spheres.

          The Supreme Court’s action in the Grady case comes at a time when the high court has become increasingly protective of Fourth Amendment rights, particularly when high-tech surveillance or monitoring equipment is being used.

          The court also said that any time a state attaches a monitoring device to a person’s body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individual’s movements, it amounts to a search.
          (In this instance “the device” is the license plate that you’re required by law to maintain on your vehicle being monitored by an instrument that can track it’s movement without a warrant.)

          Article from Christian Science Monitor
          http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0330/GPS-monitoring-of-sex-offenders-for-life-Supreme-Court-reverses-N.C.-case-video

  8. Q

    This whole sex offender thing is getting really sick. I guess this is just one more group of people that are so disconnected from the facts surrounding this largely manufactured issue that they actually think they are doing something needed. I’ll bet there was allot of federal funding involved.

  9. LM

    I just made a comment on another post the other day about this! It’s all about the $$$$$ NOT “safety.”

  10. Q

    I just had a scary thought; what if LE decided that it’s OK for the public to have this information? Most of our private and personal information is already plastered all over the world anyway, and every time some registrant or innocent family member gets murdered because our information has been made public nobody seems to notice or appears to be able to draw the glaringly obvious conclusion about why this happens, and any press coverage simply turns into a platform for all of the hatemongers to spew their filth. I can see someone writing an app that would be available on the play store! It’s already a life threatening experience being on the registry, the danger to our very lives would increase tenfold and beyond!I can also see some poor excuse for an elected official writing and pushing a bill to make this public, and then acting like he’s protecting everyone.

    • Timmr

      If I am not mistaken, there already is an app to track registrants wearing GPS. It’s another thing that reinforces the paranoia that there are sex offenders everywhere.

      • Nicholas Maietta

        In California, if this is true, following the movements of an individual can quickly become Stalking, which is a registerable offense in California.

        The GPS coordinates of an individual is to be made available to law enforcement, limited generally to the parole or probation officer.

        If there is something we don’t know, PLEASE TELL US.

  11. stephen

    I agree that this company is getting info without a warrant, plus their telling people to contact the states that don’t use their system and Ask for it. perhaps someone should stand by their front gate and record all the plates going in.
    Go after their stock holders.

  12. David

    We knew this was coming, now didn’t we? The government operates on the principle that, if it is technologically possible, then it must be done.

    As with the travel restrictions on RSOs to foreign locales, the technological capability necessary to to provide such tracking creates the demand for its eventuality.

    In this case, our government masters are working with a private company to foment a sense of urgency in the public. Soon, it will be of such an order of expectation that any sex offender not being so-tracked will evoke shrieks of self-righteous fury and demands for closing the inevitable but egregious “loop-hole”.

    Perhaps only tangentially related is recent news that Uber is being sued by the City of San Francisco and Los Angeles for HIRING FORMER SEX OFFENDERS and other ex-felons as drivers. http://www.kpax.com/story/29845277/sex-offenders-convicted-murderers-find-jobs-at-uber#.VdeXZ89yGnI.twitter

    As with everything else, technological capability is creating the expectation by the public for wrap-around security from forces both real and imagined and for its limitless hunger for revenge to be continuously sated.

    These are expectations never before imposed upon government which, in turn, dutifully fulfills its ever-expanding obligations.

  13. anonymously

    New Person wrote “this to the 21st century, that would also include the internet as it is digital paper. This would also include a person’s effects such as a vehicle.”

    Is your car getting searched? Still on parole?

    “fourth amendment rights? I thought registering was for probation and parole. After that’s completed, one still doesn’t have fourth amendment rights, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated.”

    Is your house or person being searched? If off parole, this should not be happening.

    “Citizens have rights… I feel as though we have no rights, and thus aren’t citizens.”

    Are you basing that statement on fictitious conditions of registrants not having their 4th Amendment rights?

    • Justice For ALL

      How is this fictitious?

      Every other citizen has the right to travel where they wish, whenever they wish, Registrants don’t.

      Citizens can leave the country freely, registrants can’t.

      Citizens can live wherever they wish to live, registrants can’t.

      Citizens have the right to privacy, registrants don’t.

      Citizens have a right to due process AFTER committing a crime, registrants are held in civil commitment JUST IN CASE they MIGHT commit a crime in the future.

      Citizens have the luxury of government aid if needed, registrants are having that right taken away systematically.

      So tell me again how this is fictitious? All in the name of safety, right? Bullcrap.

  14. anonymously

    It looked like the poster I was responding to was saying registrants aren’t citizens and basing that statement on the fictitious conditions of registrants off parole having their cars, homes and persons searched without warrant or probable cause. Their post was kind of unclear. Do you think that registrants off parole are having their cars, homes and persons searched with no warrant or probable cause? If that was really happening , then its just business as usual to take away the 1st Amendment right of anonymous speech in the cyber-world. What I am saying is that SB 448/Prop 35 internet clause is going furthur than any other restriction. Registrants do not get searched in their bodies, homes, cars without warrant or probable cause when they are not on parole. They should not be linked to their anonymous comments and have their anonymity destroyed and free speech chilled when off parole either. This is why it’s important to be accurate when describing conditions of registrants.

    And Justice For All said “Every other citizen has the right to travel where they wish, whenever they wish, Registrants don’t.
    Citizens can leave the country freely, registrants can’t.”

    Registrants are citizens. Don’t be so quick to give up your citizenship. See below.

    ‘experimentation, see Nuremberg Code.

    Title page of RGB I No. 100 proclaiming the laws, issued 16 September 1935
    The Nuremberg Laws (German: Nürnberger Gesetze) were antisemitic laws ….. and the Reich Citizenship Law, which declared that only those of German or related blood were eligible to be Reich citizens; the remainder were classed as state subjects, without citizenship rights. …. Jewish citizens were harassed and subjected to violent attacks. They were actively suppressed, stripped of their citizenship and civil rights, and eventually completely removed from German society.’

    With citizenship gone, oppression increases.

    “Citizens can live wherever they wish to live, registrants can’t.”

    I agree it’s wrong. As citizens, some success has been seen to reverse this.

    “Citizens have the right to privacy, registrants don’t.”

    With SB 448, we must not regress in the cyber-world to a fictitious status quo on par with fictitious conditions of registrants off parole getting their persons, homes or cars searched without warrant or probable cause. SB 448 must be stopped. This is new territory of unacceptability

    “Citizens have a right to due process AFTER committing a crime, registrants are held in civil commitment JUST IN CASE they MIGHT commit a crime in the future.”

    The only thing I implied was fictitious is registrants off parole being legally subject to searchs of their persons, cars or homes. Everything else, I agree is wrong and happening.

  15. cool CA RC

    I m thinking of just going to rent a car.
    Register that car under my name to the LE.
    and let see how the next renter feel about not being able to enter parks because they are scanning the car LP.

  16. Stephen

    Legislatures hate to have their home Addresses posted for all to see, they get very upset. Run with that info.

  17. Mike

    A radio news story this weekend stated that San Jose is considering adding license plate scanners to all their garbage trucks. The story said quite a few other cities were considering similar actions.

  18. Tired of this

    I’m thinking stealth license plate camera countermeasures are in order. That, and/or another vehicle that’s not in your name and that you don’t use “regularly” (whatever that means). I refuse to be tracked in my daily business.

  19. Paul

    Reference CA Vehicle Code: 5201(6)(2)(C)

  20. tattooarms

    Just had my new work truck vandalised sunday night and monday night. Thinking someone found me on line and is attacking me the only way they think they won’t get caught. Its not legal for me to face a camera at the street where i am forced to park and i work 12 hour days and just don’t have it in me to stay up all night to catch them. Police will do nothing. So here it is. I have a brand new truck that will be hit with bats or pipes or whatever they use and it will be on going unless i do something on my own to stop it. Not sure why i am posting this just wanted to vent. There are a lot more important issues than me and my truck. Been living with things like this for the last 14 years. Wasn’t this bad until my name and address went public. Gotta get used to it eventuality. (288.8a) no hope of things changing for me. Good luck to all who RSOL CAN help!

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.