# Blocking license plate info for LEOs



## SargeLorenzo (Jan 21, 2007)

Hey guys, while talking to some of our COs from CA, they said they were able to submit paperwork to block some info that comes up if their license plates were run. The point of this was to keep inmates' visitors, that see us come and go in the parking lot, from getting an address on us. Is this an option in MA?


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2007)

Nope.......... Wishful thinking though.


----------



## T4567 (Jan 26, 2003)

I would support something like that.


----------



## LA Copper (Feb 11, 2005)

Your buddy was right about us here in California. We submit a form to our version of the Registry and both our license plates and our driver's license come back to our names and the department we work for.

For example, my plate and driver license would come back as:

John Doe
Los Angeles Police Department

That way if any of the dirtbags out there have friends or relatives that work at the Registry, they can't find out where we live. We've had this for many years. Maybe your folks should contact the Registry folks and have them start it there.

Also, if an officer decides to run our plate prior to pulling us over (as should always be done), they'll know they're most likely dealing with a police officer.


----------



## SinePari (Aug 15, 2004)

There are ways to do it. I've stopped some state employees from various agencies in their PCs who had no info available. Maybe a friend at the RMV?


----------



## chief801 (Dec 8, 2004)

You can apply for "private" plates that come back with no information other than "active". I had them on an unmarked once. I don't know how we went about getting them, I inherited the car when I got the job.


----------



## OutOfManyOne (Mar 2, 2006)

You need to fill out an application with a letter requesting it from your chief of police or other invetigative federal or state agency. The letter must explain why you need it and the appropriate form has to be completed. After that you are either issued a new plate or confidentialize the other plate. It's more and more common lately as officers use their POVs during certain police functions such as responding to scenes, etc.


----------



## drewpopo (Dec 21, 2002)

if you think about it having your plate private is a waste. If someonme wants to know where you live , all they have to do is follow you home.


----------



## LA Copper (Feb 11, 2005)

drewpopo said:


> if you think about it having your plate private is a waste. If someonme wants to know where you live , all they have to do is follow you home.


I have to disagree, it is not a waste. I would hope that as officers we are always on our guard. That includes both on and off-duty and when you drive out of the station parking lot in your personal vehicle. You never know who is watching....

About 15 years ago, we had a fairly new officer who was followed from her station parking lot to her home. She had worked almost 17 hours, including OT, which obviously made her tired. She didn't notice the car with the three gangsters following her. When she got out of her car to go into her home, she was confronted by two of them, one of which was armed. She was shot in the chest but was still able to return fire and kill the armed suspect. The others were all captured a short time later. (The officer thankfully survived.)

Point being that it always behooves you to be on your guard no matter where you are and it's still a good idea to have your plate private.


----------



## NFAfan (May 10, 2006)

LA Copper said:


> I have to disagree, it is not a waste. I would hope that as officers we are always on our guard. That includes both on and off-duty and when you drive out of the station parking lot in your personal vehicle. You never know who is watching....
> 
> About 15 years ago, we had a fairly new officer who was followed from her station parking lot to her home. She had worked almost 17 hours, including OT, which obviously made her tired. She didn't notice the car with the three gangsters following her. When she got out of her car to go into her home, she was confronted by two of them, one of which was armed. She was shot in the chest but was still able to return fire and kill the armed suspect. The others were all captured a short time later. (The officer thankfully survived.)
> 
> *Point being that it always behooves you to be on your guard no matter where you are and it's still a good idea to have your plate private.*


Is the information database so porous that someone not in an official capacity can obtain this information easily?

Would you be inclined to afford this same level of privacy to individual citizens for their personal security? 
If not, why not?


----------



## LA Copper (Feb 11, 2005)

NFAfan said:


> Is the information database so porous that someone not in an official capacity can obtain this information easily?
> 
> Would you be inclined to afford this same level of privacy to individual citizens for their personal security?
> If not, why not?


Why do you ask?


----------



## NFAfan (May 10, 2006)

LA Copper said:


> Why do you ask?


Because I want to know if you or other LEOs think that the security of the average citizen is secondary to that of a LEO under similar circumstances. Whats your answer?


----------



## OutOfManyOne (Mar 2, 2006)

NFAfan said:


> Because I want to know if you or other LEOs think that the security of the average citizen is secondary to that of a LEO under similar circumstances. Whats your answer?


 Dear dickhead, officers gets these plates blocked because they might be using their POV in such activities as responding to a hostage situation, SWAT team,or other investigative purposes. It protects them because they are using their car to respond for an incident, etc. If they had an assigned cruiser then their plate would come back to the PD.


----------



## NFAfan (May 10, 2006)

OutOfManyOne said:


> Dear dickhead, officers gets these plates blocked because they might be using their POV in such activities as responding to a hostage situation, SWAT team,or other investigative purposes. It protects them because they are using their car to respond for an incident, etc. If they had an assigned cruiser then their plate would come back to the PD.


And this differs from someone who might have other security concerns of equal magnitude how?


----------



## LA Copper (Feb 11, 2005)

NFAfan said:


> Because I want to know if you or other LEOs think that the security of the average citizen is secondary to that of a LEO under similar circumstances. Whats your answer?


Are you an officer? I must say, you certainly don't sound like one.


----------



## OutOfManyOne (Mar 2, 2006)

No he is not, he is a gun nut.


----------



## NFAfan (May 10, 2006)

What is your answer to my two questions posed?

Whether or not I am an officer has no bearing on either of them.



OutOfManyOne said:


> No he is not, he is a gun nut.


Gun nut? C'mon, you can think of something more original than that.


----------



## LA Copper (Feb 11, 2005)

NFAfan said:


> Because I want to know if you or other LEOs think that the security of the average citizen is secondary to that of a LEO under similar circumstances. Whats your answer?


If you were an officer you would understand.

Law enforcement personnel are the only people (not counting the military) who intentionally put themselves in harm's way to protect people we don't even know. (Since I've been on the job, my department has had 36 officers killed in the line of duty, protecting "the average citizen" that we don't 
know.) Law enforcement is the only profession where people intentionally try to hurt or kill us.

The average citizen does not have anything to do with putting a criminal behind bars for a lengthy period of time... Or taking an addict away from his dope for a long time...

As a general rule, the average citizen doesn't have his/her life and the live's of their families threatened by every other bad guy they come in contact with. As a matter of fact, the average citizen doesn't even come into contact with bad guys! But if they do, who do they call? Not the plumber, not the car salesman, not the computer tech, they call the police, that's who! Point being that even if it's the average citizen who has his life threatened, the police are still going to get involved.


----------



## MM1799 (Sep 14, 2006)

LA Copper don't even waste your time. This guy clearly doesn't get it.
Typical citizen response: "why not me?" "me, me, me"


----------



## NFAfan (May 10, 2006)

LA Copper said:


> If you were an officer you would understand.
> 
> Law enforcement personnel are the only people (not counting the military) who intentionally put themselves in harm's way to protect people we don't even know. (Since I've been on the job, my department has had 36 officers killed in the line of duty, protecting "the average citizen" that we don't
> know.) Law enforcement is the only profession where people intentionally try to hurt or kill us.
> ...


Points taken and you are correct, most people may never come in contact with someone trying to kill them, but many do.....hence you are employed.
But as a matter of prevention, would you support affording the same level of privacy to the average citizen under similar circumstances?

Your above answer seems to lean towards a no, which inclines me to believe that the average citizen's security is secondary to that of a LEO concerning the privacy issue of license plates, when faced with similar circumstances.



MM1799 said:


> LA Copper don't even waste your time. This guy clearly doesn't get it.
> Typical citizen response: "why not me?" "me, me, me"


Typical citizen response? I take it you think YOU are not a typical citizen? Get over yourself. Don't let the badge and gun you carry fool you.


----------



## LA Copper (Feb 11, 2005)

NFAfan said:


> Points taken and you are correct, most people may never come in contact with someone trying to kill them, but many do.....hence you are employed.
> But as a matter of prevention, would you support affording the same level of privacy to the average citizen under similar circumstances?
> 
> Your above answer seems to lean towards a no, which inclines me to believe that the average citizen's security is secondary to that of a LEO concerning the privacy issue of license plates, when faced with similar circumstances.
> ...


----------



## MM1799 (Sep 14, 2006)

I am not the typical citizen who thinks that just because the police do something to better protect themselves they have somehow slighted me because I am not allowed the same benefit.

You want to put yourself in harms way? You want to protect people you don't even know? You want to face the possibility of getting stuck with a needle and spending weeks worrying about a test? Getting stabbed or shot and, god forbid, not go home at the end of your shift?

*I think you've earned the right to ask for a little privacy in your daily life.*


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

chief801 said:


> You can apply for "private" plates that come back with no information other than "active". I had them on an unmarked once. I don't know how we went about getting them, I inherited the car when I got the job.


since you are the chief all you need is a letter to the RMV in Boston and they'll issue the plates and keep the information in a confidential file.



NFAfan said:


> Is the information database so porous that someone not in an official capacity can obtain this information easily?
> 
> Would you be inclined to afford this same level of privacy to individual citizens for their personal security?
> If not, why not?


Outside of the occasional crooked cop, places like the Registry of Motor Vehicles hire many civilians that can have access to registration files.

The last thing you need is a drug dealer with money having a connection to running plates. I've seen first hand computer queries of vehicle registrations in drug dealers homes.


----------



## spd722 (Aug 6, 2004)

Also, there are many third party companies that are allowed to buy registry information.


----------

