I have always, always, always disagreed with this practice. But our police state has always operated under the assertion that driving is a privelege, not a right. You have to be documented. In order to drive down the street, you have to have a state-issued license plate and a state-issued drivers license and a state-issued inspection sticker and a state-issued registration sticker and (in some states) a state-issued emissions sticker.

By that same line of thinking, I suppose, they could (and do) make the argument that driving on “their” roads means you must open yourself up to any and all investigation. Of course, this is not true. You can refuse to allow an officer to search your trunk. However, the crooked police state then uses the circular logic that your refusal to allow a search constitutes probable cause for suspicion.

I suppose, what this truly boils down to is the idea of state-run and state-provided roadway systems. Staunch libertarians argue for privatization of roads; I’m not entirely sure I like the sound of that. I mean, yay, free market rocks!, and all that jazz. I believe in the power of the free market, and I also believe that our transportation system is not handled in a proper fashion. I mean, the DOT consistently performs work on perfect roadways in order to justify next year’s budget. Thus, the beaurocracy embodied. But at the same time, I can’t say that I fully believe in the idea of privatized roadways. I rather like my big, smooth, continental-crossing superhighways…and I daresay, I don’t know if I would trust the private sector to provide them. In the end, I think a major overhaul of the road beaurocracy is what is needed.

But I digress. To get back to this issue, and how it ties into what I just said, some may make the argument that, since you’re driving on THEIR “public” roads, then you are open to THEIR rules. I simply don’t buy that argument, since your car is your property. If they pull you over for speeding, I believe that they should not be able to do anything other than give you a speeding ticket. Unless, of course, you have a dead body in your backseat, or something else like that. I’m not unreasonable. But I don’t think that being pulled over for speeding should mean that they do a full investigation into your automobile and your records. Even if it happens to catch a few criminals, it still doesn’t work for me.

You said, “The car being photographed is traveling on a public street and is visible while standing on a public street. If your bathroom is visible from a public street you need to purchase some blinds. You can’t seriously suggest that there is no difference between the government taking photos on a public street and the government taking photos inside private homes.”

Of course, they aren’t the exact same thing, but both intrude on my constitutional right to not be searched without probable cause.

“This initiative doesn’t really bother me. There is no stop involved and no ’search’ as that term is construed under the 4th Amendment. What really gets me fired up are the DUI roadblocks. That is a stop, and it is done without probable cause or even its cousin ‘reasonable suspicion’. If you want to get up in arms over something, there’s your obvious abuse of the 4th Amendment.”

I also disagree with roadblocks, on the same grounds. However, I don’t see the distinction that you seem to. Let’s get this straight: with roadblocks, the police investigate you, they “search” you, without probable cause. Now, when the police photograph my car and my face, then perform a subsequent INVESTIGATION into me, without probable cause, how is that different than DUI/DWI roadblocks? The police cannot physically SEARCH your car in either instance…but in both instances, they cast a large investigatory net without cause or warrant.

To me, they are one and the same. In both cases, there is no reason, no PROBABLE CAUSE, for me to be INVESTIGATED. What if the police started going door to door, asking for ID, then checking your ID against wanted lists? How is that different? Oh, well, there is a difference: in that case, at least you can deny their request. When they take your pic without your knowledge, then launch an investigation into you, also without your knowledge, then you have no choice.

The car being photographed is traveling on a public street and is visible while standing on a public street. If your bathroom is visible from a public street you need to purchase some blinds. You can’t seriously suggest that there is no difference between the government taking photos on a public street and the government taking photos inside private homes.

This initiative doesn’t really bother me. There is no stop involved and no ’search’ as that term is construed under the 4th Amendment. What really gets me fired up are the DUI roadblocks. That is a stop, and it is done without probable cause or even its cousin ‘reasonable suspicion’. If you want to get up in arms over something, there’s your obvious abuse of the 4th Amendment.

And, like you said, “the [people] will be photographed. And why is that a bad thing?”

Sandra, this may be a foreign document to you, but I suggest you take a look at the Bill of Rights. Yes, they’re the first ten of what we call “amendments”. And number IV says, “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.”

Now, when a car is “photographed”, then a background investigation is subsequently run on the plates, that constitutes an unreasonable search of your “effects”. Please, explain to me, where is the “warrant issued upon probable cause”? Where is the document that “particularly describes the place to be searched”?

You said, “the cars will be photographed”, but you left out the meat of the issue. No, the cars won’t JUST be photographed. This isn’t a portrait contest. They’re not just taking pictures of cars for the hell of it. No, the pictures they take will be used to identify each car; then, that car will be the target of a subsequent investigation without probable cause.

How is this really any different, on a principled level, from the government installing cameras in my bathroom?