Slashdot Mirror


What Happens When Police License Plate Readers Make Mistakes? (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The Verge reports that San Francisco Bay Area police "pulled over a California privacy advocate and held him at gunpoint after a database error caused a license plate reader to flag a car as stolen, a lawsuit alleges." Brian Hofer, the chairman of Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission, was handcuffed and surrounded by multiple police cars, and says a police deputy injured his brother by throwing him to the ground. They were finally released -- 40 minutes later. But ironically, Hofer has been a staunch critic of license plate readers, "which he points out have led to wrongful detentions, invasions of privacy and potentially costly lawsuits." (California bus driver Denise Green was detained at gunpoint when her own car was incorrectly identified as stolen -- leading to a lawsuit which she eventually settled for nearly $500,000.) And at least one thief simply swapped license plates with an innocent driver.

The executive director of Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, a state government program, acknowledged that the accuracy rate of the license plate readers is about 90 percent, yet "added that in some cases, the technology has actually exonerated people, or given potential suspects alibis. But there is no way for the public to know just how effective the license plate reader technology is in capturing criminals" -- apparently because police departments aren't capturing that data. Only one of the region's police departments, in Piedmont, California, reported its "efficacy metrics" to the agency -- with 7,500 "hits" which over 11 months led to 28 arrests (and the recovery of 39 cars) after reading 21.3 million license plates. The license plate readers cost $20,000 per patrol car.

In Hofer's case, he was driving a rental car which had previously been reported as stolen but then later recovered -- though for some reason the police or rental car agency failed to update their database. But he criticizes the fact that "somebody could pull a gun on your because of an alert that a computer system gave them."

"They're just pulling guns and going cowboy on us," Hofer says. "It's a pretty terrifying position to be in....

"This is happening more frequently than it should be. They're not ensuring the accuracy of their data and people's lives are literally at risk."

35 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Why can't they assess the situation better? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Rather than going in guns blazing and injuring people with excessive force, why not just pull the car over and talk to the people?

    If they are going to be violent or belligerent it would be quite obvious.

    The one time police pulled me over because I was driving the same kind of car as someone they were looking for, they just walked up, told me to keep my hands visible (this is sensible) and talked to me, calmly asked for my ID, ran it and said "you're free to go" once they realized I wasn't the person. No guns out, no "GET OUT OF THE CAR!!", no being wrestled to the ground.

    Police have gotten way too gung-ho lately, it's time to dial that back a few dozen pegs.

    1. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is that really the norm these days? I had one run-in with a US cop but that was ages ago: he pulled me over for running a 4 way stop (red blinking traffic light, I didn't even know what the hell that meant, and assumed it was the same as blinking yellow). It was the middle of the night on a quiet street, but the cop didn't seem overly concerned for his safety. No guns, no shouting, just a polite chat (and he let me off with a warning).

      Pretty much what I'd expect of a normal cop. But then again I suppose the same could happen over here. Our cops generally do not pull out their guns unless there is an immediate and clear threat, but if the call comes down about armed suspects fleeing the scene and an ANPR matches the plate, you better believe that they will take similar precautions i.e. take cover and order the driver out of the car at gunpoint.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is that really the norm these days? I had one run-in with a US cop but that was ages ago

      My experience is that the worse they think they can treat you, the worse they treat you. As a kid I got busted for vandalism twice. Actually did it once, in Santa Cruz. White kid in a white neighborhood, no ID because of my age, got treated very well. Didn't do it the second time, still white in a white neighborhood but also a poor one, Lakeport. Got cuffed and put in the front seat of a shitty little Impala (the FWD kind) with my face against the dash where I could have been killed (neck snapped) by the airbag in a collision. That cop was a SWAT team member who eventually got kicked off the force for failing to turn in drug evidence, instead giving it to underage girls and fucking them. I got the full story on him years later when I brought it up with a friend of mine, who actually knows two of the girls in question personally, but everyone knew he was crooked.

      My first traffic stop, which was literally for nothing, involved two cops pointing guns in my face, with fingers on triggers. I was in a brown chevy citation so I guess they figured I couldn't afford a lawyer — which was a correct assumption. But over the years, they've harassed me less. Got pulled over at about 30 years old in a way rattier-looking 240SX with patchy paint and no bumper cover but with the bumper installed, cop tried to tell me I had no bumper. I explained to him that I did have a bumper but no cover, and he gave back my license and I drove away. More recently, a CHP stopped on the side of the road and helped me do a tire change, it was hot AF out so I was exhausted, and my shitty little Audi jack had folded up and tried to kill me. Luckily, I wasn't dumb enough to be under the car at the time. We used his jack, and he even did part of the work.

      if the call comes down about armed suspects fleeing the scene and an ANPR matches the plate, you better believe that they will take similar precautions i.e. take cover and order the driver out of the car at gunpoint.

      If they're behind the vehicle, and the driver doesn't appear to be fleeing, maybe they should use their twin spherical plate readers (you know, their eyes) to double-check the information before endangering citizens' lives by pointing loaded guns at them. As a gun owner, and son of a US Marine, I learned before I was even out of grade school that you don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill, and you don't put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot. And in fact, questions reflecting those facts are present on the test that Californians have to pass in order to secure permission to purchase a firearm. But somehow, the cops get it wrong again and again, with the result that they shoot innocent people again and again. Why are the cops held to a lower standard than the rest of us, when they have such a higher level of power and authority? That's ass-backwards.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by Krishnoid · · Score: 2

      Everything in your post seems to pull together one picture: your experience with the cop totally depends on which specific cop you run into. If you're in a police district where they conscientiously train people how to behave and how to treat people in the area, I can imagine treatment being more consistent, but your experience sounds somewhat random. Or maybe improves with age?

    4. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As it turns out, cops are people. Like all other people, most are good, some are awesome, and some are assholes.

    5. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by narcc · · Score: 5, Funny

      You treat them with the respect they deserve,

      Are you insane? NEVER treat a cop with the respect they deserve. That'll get you shot.

    6. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fixed the crappy formatting grouping related data to make it easier to read ...

      1. Logging workers
      Fatal injuries: 135.9 per 100,000 workers

      2. Fishers and related fishing workers
      Fatal injuries: 86 per 100,000 workers

      4. Roofers
      Fatal injuries: 48.6 per 100,000

      5. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
      Fatal injuries: 34.1 per 100,000 workers

      6. Structural iron and steel workers
      Fatal injuries: 25.1 per 100,000 workers

      7. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers
      Fatal injuries: 24.7 per 100,000 workers

      8. Farmers, ranchers, and agricultural managers
      Fatal injuries: 23.1 per 100,000 workers

      9. Construction and extraction supervisors
      Fatal injuries: 18 per 100,000 workers

      10. Agricultural workers
      Fatal injuries: 17.4 per 100,000 workers

      11. Grounds maintenance workers
      Fatal injuries: 17.4 per 100,000 workers

      12. Supervisors of mechanics, installers, and repairers
      Fatal injuries: 15.7 per 100,000 workers

      13. Construction laborers
      Fatal injuries: 15.1 per 100,000 workers

      14. Police and sheriffâ(TM)s patrol officers
      Fatal injuries: 14.6 per 100,000 workers

      15. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
      Fatal injuries: 14.6 per 100,000 workers

      16. Maintenance and repair workers
      Fatal injuries: 13.4 per 100,000 workers

      17. Taxi drivers and chauffeurs
      Fatal injuries: 13.2 per 100,000 workers

      18. Landscaping supervisors
      Fatal injuries: 13.2 per 100,000 workers

      20. Athletes, coaches, umpires, and related workers
      Fatal injuries: 11.7 per 100,000 workers

      21. Operating engineers and construction equipment operators
      Fatal injuries: 10.6 per 100,000 workers

      22. Electricians
      Fatal injuries: 10 per 100,000 workers

      23. Industrial machinery workers
      Fatal injuries: 9.3 per 100,000 workers

      24. Painters
      Fatal injuries: 8.6 per 100,000 workers

      25. Heat, air conditioning, and refrigerator mechanics and installers
      Fatal injuries: 8.4 per 100,000 workers

    7. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Did you pause to think that maybe the reason the safety numbers are better than your list of the worst, is because the police follow safety practices which include taking no chances when approaching a stolen vehicle?

      My definition of safety practices might differ slightly from theirs (and yours).

      One key point of contention might revolve around having a sniper shoot them from several hundred yards away.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re: Why can't they assess the situation better? by triffid_98 · · Score: 2

      It would be much safer for them to open fire on you en-mass from several hundred feet away because they mistook you for a dangerous criminal. This is not a hypothetical straw man argument, here is one example that I happen to recall off the top of my head...
      https://jalopnik.com/lapd-to-w...

    9. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by lrichardson · · Score: 2

      As it turns out, cops are people. Like all other people, most are good, some are awesome, and some are assholes.

      Yeah, except their average tends to be significantly less intelligent than the citizenry they are allegedly protecting. Most estimates put the current average IQ of US LE officers at around 93. Why? Because of various boneheaded court decisions. Jordan v New London sided with the police, in that they could set a maximum IQ for hiring. Doesn't matter that their reason for it - a belief that smarter people left the force more quickly - turned out to be wrong. That precedent led to most departments adopting the same standards - basically, people over scoring over 110 need not apply.

      The second is the still controversial concept of 'qualified immunity', as set in Harlow v Fitzgerald. Which has been leveraged, hammered, and beaten into the current unrecognizable form. Ignorantia juris non excusat - ignorance of the law is no excuse ... EXCEPT if you are a cop! Cases like Pauly v White are now the norm - if the cop thought they were enforcing the law, then they are excused from all wrongdoing, including killing innocent people. This has led to most cops going out of their way to remain ignorant of the actual law. Because - obviously - if you actually knew the law, then you could be held liable for violating it.

      Sure, there are a lot of good cops ... the problem is that the trend is going the other way

    10. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by jythie · · Score: 2

      Because they keep seeing 'cops are in danger' on TV, and their union bosses tell them 'you are always in danger', then they hire expensive motivational speakers and trainers (who just happen to be ex-cops) to come in and scare all the cops into believing they are constantly in danger and thus they must use excessive force 'just in case'.

      Police anxiety is surprisingly profitable.

    11. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by jythie · · Score: 2

      Yeah.. cops keeping their 'job as safe as possible' makes them a danger to everyone around them, and ironically a danger to themselves since they have been trained to escalate as a first solution, which increases the chances of things becoming violent. Their 'safety practices' are why the job is so dangerous.

    12. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Obviously you haven't seen (or don't care about) recent the body cam video of a traffic stop in Vallejo California where the driver turned to "get his license" and got off two rounds before the another officer shot him.

      Stuff like that is why the cop is supposed to stand behind the A-pillar, and if there are multiple suspects in the vehicle, they are supposed to get backup before approaching... and lots of other rules I don't know. There were literally video games about this back in the eighties, the first three (and especially the first two) of which focus on correct police procedure. You literally can't win the games without it. Instead of teaching correct procedure, apparently, police academies spend their time teaching that there is a war on cops — even though this is the safest time in history to be one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by sjames · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the assholes are allowed to draw a gun on people and even rough them up a little with no consequences. When it isn't warranted, that's called assault with a deadly weapon and battery, respectively.

    14. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      And you are free to believe whatever you want to make up, regardless of supporting information.

    15. Re:Why can't they assess the situation better? by e3m4n · · Score: 2

      Its California, it makes no sense. My favorite rebuttal to their gun control debate is: Wait, you think the police are racist, excessive force, bullys on a power trip; politicians are corrupt; and the military does the bidding of mega corporations. Yet you insist they are tge only ones who should get to have guns?

      Btw most readers use an IR based technology. Buy this product called VEIL G5 and protect yourself from both LIDAR and plate readers.

  2. Irony by Kunedog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But ironically, Hofer has been a staunch critic of license plate readers

    That's just wisdom, bearing itself out. Irony would be previous support/praise of plate readers on his part.

  3. Wrong problem by wonkavader · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can argue about the plate technology, but the obvious big issue here is that the police help unarmed suspects at gunpoint. We have a severe police hiring, training, and discipline problem.

    1. Re:Wrong problem by chrism238 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      According to the summary:

      In Hofer's case, he was driving a rental car which had previously been reported as stolen but then later recovered

      So, the licence plate reader was working perfectly, it was the database behind it that was in error, because humans had not updated the information. This article's title is unrelated to the story.

    2. Re: Wrong problem by MemeRot · · Score: 2

      Treat it like a property crime

    3. Re:Wrong problem by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 2

      You can argue about the plate technology, but the obvious big issue here is that the police help unarmed suspects at gunpoint. We have a severe police hiring, training, and discipline problem.

      If you pulled over a reported stolen car, what would you do?

      I would start by observing that the driver of the car pulled over when instructed to, and didn't try to run. I would take that - the only evidence I had at the moment - as baseline indication of peaceful compliance... because it is. Due to that, I would approach the car and gesture for the window to be rolled down if it wasn't already. My partner - if any - would be prepared to act if violence started. Once the window was rolled down, I would attempt to assess the situation by immediately stating the reason for the pull-over, without obfuscation or escalation, and ask that the engine be shut off. No games with "do you know why I pulled you over", and certainly no fishing for any other crimes. By volunteering the cause for the pull-over calmly, I would gain a decent assessment of the driver's reaction. If a mistake was being made, or anyone unaware of the car's status as stolen was driving, I'd accept the claim of innocence and indicate I would need evidence, in the form of the driver's ID, and any paperwork such as ownership or rental agreement. THAT is the moment that I would again volunteer that the driver should move slowly and clearly in order to not escalate the situation, that I would give them the opportunity to obtain their papers, but that any questionable actions could result in harm. I would - get this - ready myself to MOVE THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY if a gun is drawn. Because someone seatbelted into a driver's seat has very limited movement and stands basically no real chance to shoot me before I could get to cover. Go from there, either by reading the paperwork or disabling the vehicle/calling for backup as appropriate.

      This isn't rocket science and police - no matter how highly I regard them - aren't entitled to perfect safety at the cost of avoidable accidental civilian deaths.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    4. Re:Wrong problem by wonkavader · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are completely wrong. The victims were unsafe from the first moment a gun was pointed at them. Once a gun is out and pointed at you the chances that you are going to die because of a misunderstanding are real.

      The expectations and behavior of police in the United States is considered sensible by most people in the United States who have never been negatively affected by it. People who have been and people who did not grow up in this nutty situation see things differently. Look at policing in any wealthy western nation other than the US for examples of how things should be done.

    5. Re:Wrong problem by bferrell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Geewhiz! Look at the cop in Vallejo. It was exactly the textbook you quoted.

      The driver pulled to the side as instructed, turned "get his license" and when he turned back, opened fire. The cops partner on the other side then shot the driver.

      All calm and peaceful right up to the moment the driver shot the cop.

      How's your assessment now?

    6. Re:Wrong problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Point the first, the cop is both armored, and supposed to stand where he's not easy to shoot.

      Point the second, the ridiculousness of sentencing in America provides every incentive to shoot the cops, especially for repeat offenders. In some states you can still literally go to prison for life for drug crimes on the first offense, let alone subsequent ones.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Wrong problem by weilawei · · Score: 2

      Zero tolerance for the win. This is also the root cause of many highly escalated fights in our schools.

  4. “Ironic”? Seriously? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is pretty much exactly the OPPOSITE of ironic.

    He was already a critic of these devices - and now he has been provided with additional supporting evidence as to why they are bad.

    It would’ve been ironic (in the colloquial sense) had he previously been a gung-ho supporter of police’s use of license plate scanners.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  5. I wonder how long it will be ... by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 2

    You just know that someone is going to die because they get pulled over due to a false positive and some trigger happy brown shirt over reacts when the detained person sneezes and starts shooting?

    Then the rest of the Police force will close ranks and defend it as a "justified" action and the worst the officer gets is some paid leave while it blows over while the victim's family gets nothing.

    You know it is only a mater of time,

  6. Bullshit argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the USA, with more guns than people, of course people will often be armed. It's their right and everything.

    No, law enforcement thinks it's at war with the population it says it's there to protect and serve. You can see that in many things, and this is one of them.

    Anyhow, "90% accuracy" is both not enough information and really quite damningly low given that most by far plate readings ought to end up negative. Do the math. My conclusion is that those things aren't there for their stated purpose, but to have an easy excuse to play cop once more.

  7. The movie Brazil by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    What happens is we get a thousand minature versions of what happened to Tuttle/Buttle in the movie Brazil

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  8. Anyone else find it a wee bit coincidental by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    that a vocal opponent of license plate readers gets "accidentally" flagged as an ultra violent criminal? Small world, eh? What are the odds?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. Cops are doing their job... to protect YOU by bagofbeans · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, it went all the way to the Supreme Court that police in USA's job is not to protect the people. It's to prosecute crime.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales/

  10. Yeah, but ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... how stupid do they have to be to accept the ANPR output blindly? If the reader 'hits' on a possible stolen vehicle plate, it's going to dump that data out for the cops to read (so they can actually pull the person over). And once the data comes up, it takes a special kind of moron not to realize that the plate on the car they are stopping doesn't match the screen data. Not to mention model, year, color, etc.

    Now, I've received a red light ticket where the ANPR mistook a 'Q' on a plate for an 'O' and mailed me the ticket with (evidently) no human intervention. Because the vehicle description that came up was for a late model red Chevy Suburban. And my vehicle is a 40 year old green Landcruiser.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  11. Re:Are you thick or what. by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's still no excuse to injure an occupant of the vehicle by pulling them out of the car and slamming them to the ground. Surely by that point it would be apparent if an occupant of the vehicle intended to shoot their way out of the situation. That and if you have them physically under control enough to slam them down, they already can't go for a gun, the actual slamming isn't necessary.

    OTOH, pulling a gun on someone who knows they've done nothing to call for that is a GREAT way to make them dangerous by putting them in fear for their life.

    Add to that the fact that the scanner is only 80% accurate in the first place and even if it reads correctly, the database may be wrong (as it was in this case) and you have a significant chance that the people you're interacting with are completely innocent.

  12. Re:Are you thick or what. by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, cops are professionals, terrorists are just volunteers.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  13. but.. by SuperDre · · Score: 3, Informative

    the headline doesn't fit the story, there was nothing wrong with the police license plate reader and it didn't make a mistake, it worked perfectly. The mistake was that somebody forgot to update the database. None of the cases in the story support the notion the reader is at fault (so reading the actual licenseplate wrong), the problem lies with the database itself or criminals using duplicate licenseplates (well nobody can do anything about that until there is a way to make a licenseplate really unique so it can't be copied). An officer can't see if the person driving the vehicle is a person who stole the car or not, and having dealt with a lot of criminals who stole cars and didn't go quietly when stopped, you can ofcourse understand why cops react this way when stopping a carthief. Anybody can claim he/she is innocent.
    In this case the people who forgot to inform the car was found should get a fine for not reporting it properly.
    The article just underlines the fact the system actually works..