Man cited during traffic stop fears his picture might end up online

Originally posted by Blaine91555
The "man" was not cited, his Wife was.

He is just being a pain in the backside for the purpose of being a pain in the backside. He is likely pissed off about his Wife getting a ticket and so he's grasping at straws to get even. Who knows. Maybe his Wife is a dangerous driver who gets lots of tickets and this one drove their insurance rate up?

This is great in fact. Alaska should do this. This way if somebody steals your drivers license or pretends to be you, you have a picture of them to prove your innocence. Makes loads of sense.

That guy did get his minute of fame with 14 minutes left to go. Or perhaps he and his wife are hiding from something?

In Cali pictures are already available to the police via DMV photos, pronounced "soundx".. I used to order "6 packs" from DMV for suspect ID all the time.. I tell DMV I need a picture of you and 5 people that look like you and voila.. it appears. Back in the day we had to manually go through booking photos / high school year books to piece together 6 packs.

There is no need for officers to photograph innocent people who are being detained but not booked.. it has nothing to do with the violation. I can see this for "9 line" field bookings, but not for everyone pulled over.

There is already a method to prevent false ID as well, place a finger print impression on the court copy of the cite using the carbon in the ticket book, or use an stamp pad... its old school, but proven effective.

AND there is the "BlueCheck", the PDA that scans thumb prints in real time and returns with a DMV / booking photo / ID info.. me thinks this "current photo" excuse to to update their BlueCheck database.

I promise you.. those photos WILL end up on the front page or news if the police are looking for you. They'll use facebook, myspace, yearbook, DMV.. whatever pictures they can get.

Looks like I'll have to start wearing my groucho marx glases while driving.

reply to post by Marked One


Anytime someone takes your picture without asking it is wrong. Anytime someone gives this picture to others without asking it is wrong. How many others and who they are makes no moral difference. It is morally the same as posting pictures of girls you see at the mall on Facebook. Again, the number of people who witness your infraction has no bearing on the morality of that infraction.

Originally posted by IceOwl
reply to post by Marked One

 

Anytime someone takes your picture without asking it is wrong. Anytime someone gives this picture to others without asking it is wrong. How many others and who they are makes no moral difference. It is morally the same as posting pictures of girls you see at the mall on Facebook. Again, the number of people who witness your infraction has no bearing on the morality of that infraction.

Okay. Can you please tell that to all the tourists who pass by the Alamo in downtown San Antonio, Texas?

(I once had a couple of Canadian tourists snap my picture from across the San Antonio river-walk as I was handcuffing a guy who had trespassed onto the property of a construction site I was pulling security for. I didn't care.)

So what does it matter?

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
How many people are really scamming police out of ticket revenue by masquerading as somebody else? The idea that there is enough warrant or revenue absconders to justify such an expense is BS. Let's not forget the expense of the management and storage of this data.

That's easy. The local agency just has to show the usefulness of the PDA/camera device to Homeland Security and voila, a government grant pays for the equipment. And, there is an enormous number of people who don't like to pay their traffic fines and use fictitious identifiers to avoid it.