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)

National

GA: Tag reading cams going up at these schools to catch speeders, sex offenders

[wsbtv.com – 6/22/19]

GWINNETT COUNTY, Ga. – School’s out, but new safety measures are already planned for the upcoming school year.

New tag reading cameras are going up at four schools in Gwinnett County to catch speeders and sex offenders in school zones.

“I believe it’ll be a great idea because the safety of our children is what’s important,” said parent Lauren Walker-Robertson.
Content Continues Below

Officials are also working to allow the cameras access to the statewide offender database. That way, the cameras can read tags and alert police of sex offenders who enter school zones.
“So, it’s not just speed cameras, it’s two-fold. It also acts as a safety measure for the schools as well,” Sadowski said.

Read more

 

Join the discussion

  1. Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

    Here’s a new kind of headline: “Tag reading cams going up at these schools to catch speeders, sex offenders”

    To be clear, they’re going to “catch” sex offenders who drive their cars down city streets in the vicinity of public schools.

    “Officials are also working to allow the cameras access to the statewide offender database. That way, the cameras can read tags and alert police of sex offenders who enter school zones.” Alert them to do what?

    • CR

      That’s in Georgia, in case anyone is curious. Maybe not the first time this has been done, and doubtless not the last.

    • TS

      That is very interesting @NDIK. Thanks for bringing that here.

      A couple things: 1) They capture the license plate tag of the speeding car registered to the owner of the car, but not the driver specifically for possibly citing as speeding through a school zone (usually a larger traffic citation punishment). So what? This will do what good? Last I knew, there was no third party traffic infraction citing system in place for someone other than the registered owner is driving the car and breaks a traffic law. 2) Same sentiment as #1 but substitute “person impacted by the registry as the registered owner of the car” and not the specific driver going through the school zone even if they are not speeding or speeding. Again, so what? What good will this do? Tracking metrics for what reason? A click bait headline “A Sex Offender speed through school zone!!” perhaps? Tracking cars regardless of who the driver is? The first time someone is bothered by this system outside of a school I hope someone brings this to court or the council to show the frivolousness of it. A waste of taxpayer money, an election year ploy, and should go away like red light cameras are doing. As the song says “The Devil went down to Georgia…”

    • Will Allen

      People who support this “$EX offender” stuff truly are just morons. The cameras are a great idea. We need to keep people from speeding in school zones. But the “$EX offender” stuff? Pure nonsense that will obviously distract police and anyone else from doing actually useful work. That is IF anyone actually pays attention to it. Which is hard to imagine that they would be that damn dumb. Or, once they see how useless it is, surely wouldn’t be that dumb for long.

      It is not illegal in Georgia for Registered People (RPs) to drive through school zones. I don’t think it is illegal for RPs to be even be in schools. I do think it is illegal for RPs to loiter in or near schools. But loiter means to be somewhere where a person would not typically be for a typical purpose. So if anyone could be there and not be loitering, then an RP could as well. I’m certain that dumbf*cks think that is a safety “loophole”.

      So I don’t know what these Law Enforcement Criminals (LECs) are going to be looking out for. Further, I know plenty of people who have numerous cars Registered and their entire family drives them. Are these scumbag LECs going to be stalking the children of RPs? Probably. Probably will be harassing them. While the LECs are busy jacking off watching the children of RPs, other people will be committing crimes. Happening all the time these days.

      I will give the LECs a tiny bit of credit and say that I think that maybe half the time they might not be as stupid as they appear. They may not believe their “$EX offender” idiocy but are just saying it in order to brag and show the gullible public just how much they need your money. And a lot more of it.

      I’ve told LEC geniuses before that I promise them if I am going to drive a car somewhere to commit a crime, that it won’t be any car that I have Registered. Promised them! I told them they could stop worrying about the Registered cars because I’ll be using a different one. Maybe they think I’m as stupid as they are?

      Lastly, we have to continue to note that these LECs don’t care about people who have shot children with guns. They are fine with those people being at and in schools. They are fine with drunks like Ron Book/Crook driving around schools as well. None of that is dangerous. Only people seeing genitals is.

      I think I’ve found the protest chant that all anti-Registry organizations can use! “Bullets, not dicks! Bullets, not dicks!” That should get some attention.

    • R M

      As far as I know, there are no restrictions on a person in Ga convicted of sex crime to drive down a public street (unless if they are on intensive supervision and then it’s still very doubtful).

  2. jw

    Georgia’s laws place restrictions on where registered citizens reside, work, or loiter. Driving to the store, or to the Sheriff’s Office to register, it not residing, working, or loitering. An 8 second video of tags would hardly be sufficient, IMO, to prove loitering. That’s less time than an average nose-pick. Driving rapidly enough to trigger a speed camera seems the opposite of loitering. “OMG didn’t realize there was a school on this road, feets don’t fail me now!”

    • Will Allen

      You are correct about Georgia’s laws but additionally, any restrictions depend on when a person was convicted (and/or perhaps when probation/parole ends or whatever – but point being that restrictions are date-based). Some people don’t have any restrictions at all.

      Having said that, I think any RP can go to schools, parks, or wherever. Going to a school to pick up a child, to vote, or to watch a sports game is not loitering. Their “scans” for Registered People (RPs) will be nothing but a nuisance to them. If they are smart, they won’t be paying any attention to it.

      Many, many law enforcement agencies in Georgia have license plate readers on their police cars. Those readers can read and process ALL of the visible plates of all cars on 8 lane interstate roads, all the time, while the police car is driving down the road. I have read numerous articles where some law enforcement criminal brags that they can “detect” RPs with their readers. I don’t know if they do or not. And that certainly seems a hell of a lot more useless than these school cameras even.

      The mobile readers are set to alert if a wanted license is found and they are very effective. Do they also alert if a Registered vehicle is seen? What the hell would the point of that be? That would surely distract from important work. Or perhaps they can set the alerts to sound/look differently based on the target? Then they could ignore the RP ones.

      I recall when they first started getting these readers (maybe like 10 years ago) and some LECs were bragging that they could drive through parks and see the vehicles of RPs there. Never mind that it was completely legal for any RP to be in a park. I would hope that the LECs themselves are not so dumb that they actually thought that might be useful. But the general public is that dumb. Obviously they believe this nonsense, since they’ve been sold the Registries joke.

      • JM from wi

        @ Will Allen
        “Having said that, I think any RP can go to schools, parks, or wherever. Going to a school to pick up a child, to vote, or to watch a sports game is not loitering.”
        In Wisconsin it is a class A misdemeanor for 1st offence and Class H felony for 2nd offence to be in a school / play field / school property ….
        note; If you have a child in school you can notify the principal and jump through some hoops to work within the law. Voting is okay. Deliveries to the school are subject to the law.
        The $ex businesses like Raptor are cashing in. Save just one child.

        • Will Allen

          100% unacceptable. Learn the people who support that and do anything you can to lower the quality of their lives. Keep it legal. But there is no reason they should live in peace.

        • Tim in WI

          JM,
          I’M in rock county and just getting into an FTR with purpose. It may be possible to get your testimony concerning the state’s use of the registry AND affirmative restraints etc. IF YOU’RE INTERESTED. I’m just underway and see the judge for the first time July 9. It is time to expose & ” the people’s true intent”.

        • JM from wi

          @ Tim in Wi
          Tim I think we may have corresponded previously. I could not bring up the e-mail I think you sent me—-

      • SR

        In CA, I believe it’s a felony for ANY RC to be on school grounds at ANY point of time, regardless of the reason, unless you have written permission from the school principle. There are no exceptions for voting or anything else.

        • Will Allen

          Same comment as I just made to “JM from wi” – 100% unacceptable. Learn the people who support that and do anything you can to lower the quality of their lives. Keep it legal. But there is no reason they should live in peace.

        • cool CA RC

          Here you go
          California PC 626.81

          (B) A Unless the principal or authorized administrator finds that it is in the best interest of the child for the person to attend a specific event and authorizes the attendance at the event, a person may not enter into a school building or upon school grounds pursuant to this paragraph if he or she is required to register for a conviction in a court in this state or a federal or military court of a violation of Section 243.4, 261, 286, 288, 288.5, 288a, or 289, Section 209 with the intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 236.1, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 272, a felony violation of Section 288.2, or a violation of subdivision (c) of Section 653f.
          (4) A registered sex offender may enter a polling place located in a school building or on school grounds for the purpose of voting in an election.

          Punishment for a violation of this section shall be as follows:
          (1) Upon a first conviction by a fine of not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.

        • SR @ Cool RC

          I think you may have been looking at an outdated section. Here’s the current one that seemingly covers all 290’s, not just the penal codes your post lists.

          http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=626.81.

          626.81.
          (a) A person who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290, who comes into any school building or upon any school ground without lawful business thereon and written permission indicating the date or dates and times for which permission has been granted from the chief administrative official of that school, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

          (b) (1) The chief administrative official of a school may grant a person who is subject to this section and not a family member of a pupil who attends that school, permission to come into a school building or upon the school grounds to volunteer at the school, provided that, notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (c) of Section 290.45, at least 14 days prior to the first date for which permission has been granted, the chief administrative official notifies or causes to be notified the parent or guardian of each child attending the school that a person who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 has been granted permission to come into a school building or upon school grounds, the date or dates and times for which permission has been granted, and his or her right to obtain information regarding the person from a designated law enforcement entity pursuant to Section 290.45. The notice required by this paragraph shall be provided by one of the methods identified in Section 48981 of the Education Code.

      • jw

        Being on school grounds is a separate issue from the tag reading cameras. While there may be questions about whether statutes forbid someone from being on school grounds, what requires permission, what date was the offense, etc., there certainly nothing in Georgia statutes indicates it is prohibited to drive a vehicle past a school.

        I guess the question will become is showing up on this tag cam a probable cause to detain for questioning.

        • Will Allen

          It is a separate issue.

          If a Registered Person (RP) in GA is driving a car down a street past a school (or anywhere else) like any other normal person, there is no probable cause to stop the RP, let alone ask them what they are doing. If I was stopped, I would try to legally harm whomever did it. Probably for years and years, depending on how I felt.

          I don’t have any questions about RPs being in schools in GA. I think it is allowed for any normal reason as for any other person. I do not think there is any more probable cause there either to ask an RP what they are doing there versus anyone else.

          This is how it all should be across the entire U.S. and in any free country.

  3. Joe123

    Of course they don’t let anyone comment on their news articles.

    What part of “TEACHERS have Sexual Relationships with their Students” do those idiot politicians not understand?

    Not once have I seen a single report of anyone on the registry just ‘Loitering’ at or around the school.

    Do they have an IQ test before you are elected into politics? Any qualifications such are reading and math comprehension skills required?

  4. Dustin

    It’s just a money grab by the county.The sex offender line was just thrown in to silence opposition to the cameras being installed.

  5. SR

    Now we just wait for the inevitable falls arrest when a registrants spouse uses the family car to drop and pickup kids. That should be a fun can of worms. I wonder if they thought of any provisions for this very likely outcome.

  6. bob

    I should take a trip there and stand about a few blocks away and shine my 6.5 watt blue laser right at the CCD ! burn a few cams out that will cost them quite a few bucks to keep replacing ! !! And im not sure on destruction of property but 100% legal for me to own and use LOL (just a 6.5Watt laser not LEGAL to sell !)

  7. Chris f

    So they will be tracking a specific group of people that arent doing anything wrong?

    I do believe that falls under the same unconstitional umbrella as GPS tracking of people where it wasnt judicially determined to be needed as part of their probation or parole. Without a warrant, that’s a no-no.

    • CR

      @Chris f:

      This is not a 4th amendment issue like the continuous search of GPS monitoring. Videotaping your car traveling down the road past a fixed point is not the same as tracking you, nor is it a “search”. Even if you are captured on camera by many different cameras, it doesn’t constitute tracking.

      This camera is capturing 8 seconds of video of everyone who travels down the street in its view. There is no expectation of privacy while in public, particularly when traveling on public roads. Police cannot conduct a search of your car absent probable cause, but they or anyone else can videotape or photograph your car in public as much as they wish.

      • Chris f (@ CR)

        I would have to disagree that it isnt a violation of the 4th if they are cross referencing and pulling just the info of a registered citizen. Once you have enough data on a persons locations it violates them whether they pull itnfrom gps coordinates or from a combination of license plate and facial recognition cameras. It would be different if they were using publicly available data to investigate an actual crime.

      • AJ

        @CR & @Chris f:
        IIRC, it’s the physical attachment of a tracking device to a car (US v. Jones, which was a slamdunk) or a person (Grady, the NC RC) that SCOTUS found to be a 4th Amdt. unreasonable search. From Jones: “the Government’s physical intrusion on an ‘effect’ for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a ‘search.'” The only question after that was the reasonableness of it. However, given these cameras are catching regulated activity (driving on a public road) in the public forum, and nothing is physically attached to one’s effects, I don’t see how it rises to be a search, and determining its reasonableness is moot.

        While they may be excessively surveilling select people in the public domain, I don’t see how that rises to any sort of constitutional violation. Put another way, if it’s constitutional for cops to go only to RCs’ homes to knock on doors (which it is, says FL v. Jardines), which is something much closer to invading one’s 4th Amdt. space and effects, I don’t see how there’s an argument that public roadways cannot be monitored and select users logged. I get the combining of data concern, which is certainly disgusting. I don’t know that’s it’s unconstitutional; I doubt it is.

        • Chris f (@AJ)

          @AJ

          I understand it sounds like a reach, but I base my opinion on reading the majority and dissenting opinions from both gps and cell phone tower tracking data, and that third party doctrine stuff.

          If the government can use the accumulated historical data to track a person’s travels that may involve thier religion, association’s, family, and political functions then that requires a warrant with probable cause or government is over reaching its bounds. The ends cant justify the means. They cant look into your private affairs until they find something and then get a warrant to use that data.

          As far as police checking on registered citizens after they are not under the government supervision of probation or parole, I dont believe that is constitional either as it is government intrusion without cause. It is just something else like Smith V Doe that was found constitional even though it isnt and wouldnt be for any other convicted person. Cops knocking on a previosly convicted drug dealers door without cause used to be called police harrasment. Police can claim the knock and talk exemption only if they are actually investigating something specific.

        • AJ

          @Chris f:
          “They cant look into your private affairs until they find something and then get a warrant to use that data.”
          —–
          Your statement makes the point: private affairs. Performing a State-regulated act (driving) on a public roadway in plain view is nowhere near a private affair. Therein lies the constitutionality. Were the a constitutional problem, don’t you think there would be all sorts of lawsuits for those pop-up cop camera towers? Or for businesses or individuals recording the public areas around their private property?

          Also, recording affairs in public doesn’t fall under the Third Party (or “Pen Register”) Doctrine. Third Party Doctrine requires my sharing private information with someone else. What private info am I sharing with whom by driving?

          =====
          “Police can claim the knock and talk exemption only if they are actually investigating something specific.”
          —–
          False. There’s no “exemption,” it’s simply something any individual–including LEOs–can do, within certain constraints.* Read Scalia’s Opinion from FL v. Jardines (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/1/), I think it may clarify knock-and-talk. (Truly, LEOs only control the “knock” portion. The person behind the door controls the “talk” portion.) And for the real-world perspective, see: https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/legal_features/constitutional_qa_knock_and_talk_police_tactics

          *I’m speaking from the legal perspective, not my personal one. Personally I see them as LE doing an end-around on the Constitution.

        • TS

          @AJ

          “Truly, LEOs only control the “knock” portion. The person behind the door controls the “talk” portion.”

          Well said and worth remembering just as you wrote it when checks, etc are attempted.

        • Chris f (@ AJ)

          @AJ
          My argument isn’t that there is legal precident, but just taking the justice’s comments on various privacy issues as an indication of how things could go if the proper challenge is made. I also am not trying to say anything is wrong with any government or private recording at locations. My argument is that the gathering, storage, and cross referencing of recording using unique identifiers such as license plates and facial recognition will cross the line. At that point, the government can ascertain through times and locations what your religious and political affiliations are and everyone you associate with as well as if you are gay and how often you buy alcohol. You don’t give up privacy just because you must use the governent’s roads to get anywhere. Just the knowedge that the government does that will force people into not doing those things and impact all of the constitional protections for speech, religion, and associating with others.

          So, yes, government and private business and citizens may record and look at anything out in public view as much as they want to. But the moment it gets consolidated into a database with no method of opting out, I believe it crosses a line that the judiciary would have a problem with.

          As far as registration checks go, if you tell police that they are not welcome to come to your home to conduct these, then you revoke the implied welcome mat that the justices say exist and knock and talk shouldnt apply. They can still come to my door to sell tickets to the policeman’s ball though.

        • Will Allen

          Chris f:

          Just want to point out that they are not the “government’s roads”. You and I own them. We have a say on everything about them.

          Total aside, but, I’ve heard that private companies have been allowed to run toll roads for governments and make a profit on it. And I’ve heard that people outside of the U.S. have ownership in it. THAT seems like complete nonsense to me and something we should not allow. We would be paying some rich person in China to be allowed to drive on a road across the street from us.

        • AJ

          @Chris f:
          “As far as registration checks go, if you tell police that they are not welcome to come to your home to conduct these, then you revoke the implied welcome mat that the justices say exist and knock and talk shouldnt apply.”
          —–
          In some previous readings I did about 4th Amdt. violations, this appears not to be the case. While you can perhaps bar the individuals from returning, you cannot bar the entity. IOW, you could tell Ofcs. Hugh Fitzpatrick, Patrick Fitzhugh, and Dick Fitzwell they’re barred from your property, but that does not stop all of the staff and personnel of their employer, the Climax (GA) Police Department, by such a statement. Likewise you can stop Sally from selling her GS cookies at your door, but that doesn’t stop the entire GS machine from coming back again and again. (And do you really think Sally or the GS have the means to amass, track and disseminate such info?) Putting one member of a group on notice of trespass does not put the whole group on notice (much to the pleasure of BS, GS, JW, politicians, HS sports teams, etc)–after all, it’s your, not someone else’s, right, prerogative, and responsibility to let someone know your Welcome mat excludes them.

          That all blathered, I do agree the compiling and combining of information on someone or someones is a problem, and I do think it will somehow, someday be addressed. That sort of dragnet is not something our society has historically accepted.

          Side note: in the early days of data mining, a HS girl was “outed” as being pregnant when (I believe) T@rget started sending coupons for baby clothes, toys, and diapers to her house. She denied it up and down to mom and dad, but time proved the truth. Similarly, FB in its early days managed to out a number of still-closeted gays. They adjusted their algorithms.

      • CR

        @AJ, that is how I see it too. As objectionable as this kind of surveillance is, especially when data is aggregated from multiple sources to form a more comprehensive picture of an individual’s travels and activities in public, it does not constitute “tracking” in the sense that a GPS monitor does. Maybe using drones to follow someone about without a warrant might be viewed as a 4th amendment violation, since it is not just a plain view passive surveillance. Covertly videoing someone on their private property without a warrant has been found to be a 4th amendment violation. One example is United States v Vargas. However, plain view surveillance of public spaces by law enforcement is something that SCOTUS has so far not deemed to violate the 4th amendment.

        Video surveillance is old hat now. It’s been around for decades. The technology just keeps on advancing. Some cities have hundreds or thousands of video cameras watching streets and parks and other public spaces. Cameras today can incorporate many invasive technologies, such as license-plate readers, gun-shot detection, facial recognition, thermal imaging. They can be tied together so that subjects can be actively tracked in real-time from one system to another. So far, the use of this technology to conduct comprehensive surveillance of people in public has not been deemed to violate the 4th amendment. No one has any reasonable expectation of privacy in public.

        The technology being employed at this school is not new. I’m sure it’s being done elsewhere. The only thing that is different here is that media and the county officials specifically called out “sex offenders” in their public comments about the system. That’s just the cost-justifying, back-patting, fear-mongering theater we’ve all seen before.

        • Will Allen

          “That’s just the cost-justifying, back-patting, fear-mongering theater we’ve all seen before.”

          Yep, although of course no one should be surprised that there are some law enforcement criminals who actually think that it is useful to watch Registered People.

          We all need to work to try to limit the budgets and other resources of law enforcement. When they can worry about RPs, they ALWAYS have too much money, time, and other resources on their hands. We should take it. Get involved with local groups that watch their budgets and beat them up. They desperately need oversight anyway. Not enough people do it.

          Most law enforcement are just organized criminal operations. They operate a drug business and steal drug proceeds in order to fund more drug operations. They organize their labor and extort far, far more income and benefits than people in the free market would ever get. They don’t want to compete and operate in the free market.

          As long as Registries exist, make law enforcement suffer because of it. Never help them. THAT should be the main effect of the Registries.

        • AJ

          @CR:
          Are you referring to US v Vargas in the 7th CCoA, or some other case? URL, please.

          As an aside, Gov’t. use of thermal imaging on someone’s residence to observe what’s going on or who’s inside IS a 4th Amdt. violation. Beyond that, your statement of the plain-view exception is spot on. Plain view is always okay for LEOs, whether it’s peeking into your car windows while operating or parked on public roadways or spaces, watching you in public, seeing something laying (or growing!) on your property, or noticing something while executing a search warrant for something else. (Plain view does not apply when LEOs peek into the windows of your residence. That’s a warrantless search.)

        • AJ

          @Will Allen:
          “Most law enforcement are just organized criminal operations.”
          —–
          You mean like this? https://reason.com/2012/08/06/brutal-revelations-add-up-for-minnesotas/

        • CR

          @AJ, sorry. No, the case is CR-13-6025-EFS, US District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The judge ruled that covert surveillance of Vargas’ front yard using a camera that sent continuous WIFI images to the police for six weeks without a warrant violated the 4th amendment. The government initially appealed the ruling to the 9th circuit, but they dropped their appeal and the criminal charges against Vargas shortly afterwards, so the 9th never considered it.

          https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-vargas-56
          https://www.eff.org/files/2014/12/15/vargas_reply_brief_re_privilege.pdf
          https://www.eff.org/files/2014/12/15/vargas_order.pdf (see discussion of curtilage here)

          related:
          http://fourthamendment.com/?p=18721
          http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-66/issue-3/articles/hiding-plain-fourth-amendment-government-surveillance-public.html

          Another one (SD Supreme Court) with elements similar to Vargas:
          https://ujs.sd.gov/uploads/sc/opinions/27739.pdf

          Perhaps this is starting to change, but for now, by and large, it seems like most courts have found that extended warrantless pole-camera surveillance of a suspect’s property is not a 4th amendment violation.

          For example: Massachusetts case decided based on 1st circuit precedence:

          https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_14-cr-10296/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_14-cr-10296-0.pdf

        • Will Allen

          @AJ:

          Yep, just like that. I’ve also seen plenty myself firsthand. I had a law enforcement criminal (LEC) steal a very expensive piece of jewelry from me. The LECs often like to claim that things (e.g. cash, vehicles, etc.) have some nexus to some crime and thus try to justify their theft. But the jewelry had no nexus and no claim was made because the jewelry simply didn’t exist. It was just gone and 100% stolen by them for their personal gain.

          I know LECs are criminals. There is only one question about it and that is just how many of them are? I’ve heard that the criminal 90% of law enforcement officers give the good 10% a bad name.

          As long as Registries exist, F law enforcement every day. Too bad. Their jobs could be much, much easier. They could be respected. But they don’t want it and they don’t deserve it.

        • AJ

          @CR:
          Thanks for those goodies and gems. Only in the WA case does it appear there were sufficient privacy barriers to sway the court’s opinion. That seems to be the crux of the matter and it seems it has been, and will continue to be, decided on a case-by-case basis (which in all truth is for now probably the most prudent path).

          I do get a little bit of heartburn from the courts deciding that a utility pole is somewhere the general public can go. BS. If you or I were to do that w/o permission, we’d be nailed for trespassing; the chance of getting permission is nil, simply for liability reasons. While I can see a pole being okay if it merely augments a publicly available view, a view only possible due to being high on a pole is another matter.

          I find interesting the SCOTUS analysis from Jones. It seems SCOTUS sees surveillance as individual (constitutional) rain drops that at some unknown point become a (unconstitutional) flood. It’s kind of along the lines of whatever SCOTUS Justice who said he couldn’t define obscenity, but he knew it when he saw it. I suspect these types of cases will fall in that camp, too. Undefinable, but “too far” is recognizable.

          Finally, has anyone else noticed what seems to be a disproportionate amount of Hispanic-rooted last names in court cases? The ratio of Hispanic-rooted names to what appear to be Anglo-Saxon-rooted names seems out of balance compared to the Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic population. Hmmm…there’s probably some sort of Masters or Doctoral thesis there for someone (though not this cat!).

          @Chris f:
          The cases @CR posted touch on your concerns and perspective. The $64,000 question is when have things gone too far? What sort of tracking and compiling, and for how long, becomes too much and beyond what society views as reasonable? I don’t think you’ll a court or citizen in the land who will think 8 second clips of a stretch of public roadways is unreasonable, regardless the rationale behind it.

  8. GRR

    It is the electronic/camera companies going to the school districts selling their products. Everything is free up front and once installed the district’s pay payments. Same for parking meters, and traffic signal light cameras at most all cities across the nation.

    I don’t believe it’s the districts/city’s reaching out but the fear marketing platform by the companies.

  9. NorthEastPENN

    Wonder why the cameras don’t pick up tags of people convicted of selling drugs to children, people driving a car in a school zone of which has been convicted of DUI several times, etc.

    Sorry, “my bad”! That would not get you re-elected. Or maybe it is because there would be far less click-thrus on the news article.

  10. kat

    Joe123 makes a good point-
    Seems to be a lot more “teacher-student sex offenses” going on INSIDE of the schools than OUTSIDE.
    People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!

  11. JesusH

    Last year the school district in my town announced they had implemented the Raptor system at every school.

    Every adult coming on campus would need to scan their ID before getting in. They stressed that it would only look for sex offenders and NOT immigration status. They pointed that out a few times.

    But I guess drug dealers, murderers, muggers and others are ok.

    Was this really such a big problem to justify the tens of thousands of dollars spent on it? Huge waste of resources.

  12. Facts should matter

    This is only the beginning.. more insanity is coming. At what point do you draw the line and say: “ENOUGH!”

    Pretty soon they’ll amend SORNA to require everyone with “access to a vehicle” to have GPS installed in all said vehicle(s) and have the data monitored by the local sheriffs’ office (all in the name of public safety). AND… guess who pays for it? You got it. Oh, and automatic FTR for non-compliance.

    Don’t think they haven’t already thought of this!

  13. T

    As George Carlin said, we sure do got some dumb people in this country.

    What’s the public going to do if they know an individual that’s identified a registrant and is at a school, call the police and create story that a “sex offender” is at a school and therefore has commit a crime?

Leave a Reply to Facts should matter Cancel 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 *

.