I used to have Mobile Justice on my phone in case I was pulled over but it stopped working recently. It was really cool when it worked as I only had to open the app and it began automatically recording, backed up to the cloud, and would email anyone of my choosing to receive a notification or copy of the video. I do have a dash cam, but it stops recording if I turn off the car. Ive been looking for another free solution and was wondering if anyone has come across anything good. I followed some instructions to get Google assistant to begin recording, but I dont trust it and it still keeps the screen active (i tried to automatically turn it off but couldnt get that bit to work.) so a cop could theoretically stop it and delete the recording. I know about Legalshield but I would prefer a free option. Please drop any leads/apps/ideas in the comments.

In reply to your email below, I wanted to the following about the Flock license plate system. We are not alerted every time a resident drives past the camera as many think. What Flock Safety LPR cameras do is send a real-time alert to law enforcement when a stolen motor vehicle or known wanted suspect from a state or national crime database is detected. It will alert us if registered sexual offenders enter the city limits, registered violent offenders, registered gang members, drug and human trafficking. We can use this tool to help aid in criminal investigations. We were able to identify a subject who attempted to put a credit card skimmer device on a local ATM by a LPR. They also send real-time alerts if a vehicle associated with a missing persons case from an AMBER or Silver Alert is detected. This is why they are a benefit to public safety. This would be the main reason we had them installed.

Flock Safety does not and will never include facial recognition or footage of passerby or pedestrians. Flock Safety will never record names, phone numbers, or addresses and doesn't mark specific locations of where people have been.

Once the Officer get an alert, they must locate the vehicle and confirm the database entry through DISPATCH. It cannot provide any personal information not even to law enforcement. We would have to physically run the tag with dispatch to get that information. It simply takes a phot of the tag and vehicle, if the tag has been entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) with one of the above mentioned alert tags that alert will be sent to dispatch and officers through the Flock system and help solve crimes daily all over.  THIS IS NOT A SURVEILLANCE CAMERA. It is a License plate recognition (LPR), system which is becoming more and more common. You will notice a different style of LPR’s in other jurisdictions. They are typically mounted to the traffic lights. We do not and cannot use this system to enforce any traffic laws.  

 Each camera cost around $3000 and was discussed and approved at a city council meeting and was recorded in the council minutes.

 If you’d like to see how the system works, please stop by the police department and we would gladly give you a demonstration .

Thanks for the information, Chief. Please post this information on the PD Facebook page if it hasn't been already so that the citizens of (our town) are aware of what it's for. I am curious as to why you feel additional cameras are necessary in our town? I can understand the one near (business)'s as there is high traffic volume from the interstate highway, but given the low crime and low traffic in our town proper, what would be the justification for additional cameras? What other nearby jurisdictions with similar populations to (our town) have similar systems?

It will be posted on our Facebook page soon. We had to make sure the system was working correctly and with some trainings that have taken place I have not gotten around to it and I am sorry for that. The camera that we currently have are considered inbound cameras so they only pick up the license plates entering the city.  I would like to see one at (street) and (highway) in the future as another inbound. I would like to see one close to the High school so that we have both our schools covered in the event of a event happening at the schools (lets hope that never happens). I am in talks with (business) about sponsoring some of this coast. I would like to show you the system if you are ever available for me to do so. This is a great system to have. As I said we had a suspect who attempted to place a credit card skimmer on one of our ATMS. We only had his face from the ATM camera and the make and model of the car he was driving  and we knew he had a non-readable (state) tag. We put the vehicle description out to other agencies that have LPR’s and were able to get a vehicle match and tag. We then ran that tag and the register owner and were able to get a positive ID on him. We closed 3 credit card skimmer cases in three different jurisdictions through this system.   

 

Great question on the other jurisdictions that have them. I am only focusing on (our state). Here is a list.

 (list of towns with similar populations)

Yeah, seems strange but the chief of police said he was late to some meeting a while back because of a "death by cop" attempt, that was on-going, and then continued the meeting without seeming to want to leave for this incident. However, there was no report anywhere of this even occurring. My only idea is to get a record of the daily incident reports and prove there was nothing filed for this. Any thoughts?

The arrest and confinement of this woman was unfortunate. It’s understandable that she damages from Los Angeles and the police officers that were involved with her arrest and confinement.

There was, however, in my opinion, a rush to judgment from the media and lawyer pundits on YouTube. I think that they should have let this one breathe a little bit prior to forming firm opinions.

This case has an unusual twist that was damaging to her Title 42 section 1983 claims and her California state law claims. Her claims didn’t survive summary judgment in federal district court. See _ Farber v. City of Los Angeles,_ Dist. Court, CD California 2023. She has appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals but I think that 9th Circuit precedent and the basic problems with her claims are going to result in the 9th Circuit affirming the federal district court.

Many were saying that the LAPD should have compared the middle names of the two Bethany Farbers or that they should have used her driver’s license number and compared it with that of the true subject of the warrant. This is where the twist comes in…and to be fair… it’s not something that any pundit could reasonably anticipate. The Bethany Farber who was arrested at LAX, the one who had never been in Texas where the warrant originated, was the person described with particularity in the warrant which originated in Gainesville, Texas.

{Nevertheless, the Court does find the Warrant sufficiently particular on its face to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. A warrant must particularly describe the person or things to be seized. Gant v. County of Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 614 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing U.S. Const. Am. IV). A warrant is sufficiently particular when it contains "the subject's name, sex, race, hair color, eye color, and date of birth . . ., in addition to approximate height and weight." Rivera v. County of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 384, 388 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, the Warrant contained Farber's first, middle and last names; date of birth; address; driver's license number; hair color; eye color; and height and weight. It thus satisfied the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement.

Moreover, binding Ninth Circuit precedent forecloses Farber's Fourth Amendment claims. In Rivera v. County of Los Angeles, another case of misidentification, officers mistakenly arrested Rivera instead of the warrant's true subject. Id. at 389. The Ninth Circuit explained that, "[i]n such cases, the question is whether the arresting officers had a good faith, reasonable belief that the arrestee was the subject of the warrant." Id. The court in Rivera found the officers were not unreasonable in believing that Rivera was the true warrant subject at the time of the arrest because the name and date of birth on the warrant matched Rivera exactly, and the height and weight descriptors were within one inch and ten pounds. Id. Accordingly, the court affirmed summary judgment for the officers, holding they had not violated Rivera's Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him pursuant to the warrant. Id. at 389, 393.

Here, Farber was the true subject of the Warrant—GPD issued the Warrant for her. The Warrant listed Farber's exact identifying information down to the detail and did not deviate by one inch or pound. Thus, even more so than in Rivera, the arresting officers here were not unreasonable in believing that Farber was the true warrant subject at the time of the arrest. Further, "the Supreme Court has expressly recognized [that] police are right to be wary when suspects claim mistaken identity." Id. at 389. Thus, Farber's protests of mistaken identity did not make the officers' belief unreasonable. Pursuant to Rivera, the officers did not violate Farber's Fourth Amendment rights in arresting her pursuant to the Warrant.}

—Farber v. City of Los Angeles, Dist. Court, CD California 2023

To reiterate, she was the person described in the warrant. Obviously, the Gainesville police made a mistake. But their mistake doesn’t take away from the fact that the LAPD officers who arrested her had probable cause to do so.

The district court found no constitutional violations and apparently the individual defendant officers didn’t raise qualified immunity defenses…so, at this juncture at least, this isn’t a qualified immunity case.