Unmarked Police and Photo Enforcement

[SteveG1988]

Friend of mine has a crown vic, i let him take my car for a test drive, to double check some repairs, i was following behind him in the vic. We had the walkie talkie FRS radios. "hey, is it weird seeing your own headlights?" him "yeah, makes me want to drive legal, just seeing the nose of a crown vic"

The crown victoria no matter what will look like a cop car, even if you paint it in wild colors. The lights on the nose are very recgonizable.

[Zeffy]

It's not just the crown vic either - Tahoes and Chargers also cause me to slow down because as of late the unmarked police cars in New Jersey are getting a lot harder to spot.

[DaBigE]

I have no problem with unmarked squads. Really, the markings only make a difference to those passing by - when you're pulled over, unless they have hood/front markings, you're not going to see them anyway. Around here, most of the unmarked have push-bars mounted on the front end, so they're still fairly easy to pick out from a standard sedan. LEDs also make legit ones easier to spot, as they're typically lit up like a Christmas tree.

It's the cameras I have issues with. Luckily, they're illegal in Wisconsin. While red light cameras do usually reduce the number of red-light violators, there also tends to be an increase in rear-end collisions. As mentioned by others, they also tend to be used more as a revenue stream cloaked as a safety improvement. I don't have much issue with speed cameras other than I just find them creepy. I'm not a member of the tinfoil hat club, but there's just something about the being used that makes me feel uneasy. I also enjoy Sheldon's logic on traffic camera usage:

Like a milking stool, my case rests on three legs. I will demonstrate that I was improperly instructed in driving by a woman whose lack of respect for society borders on the sociopathic. I will argue that the emergency met the legal doctrine of quod est necessarium est licitum, that which is necessary is legal. But first, I will raise a Sixth Amendment issue. I'm unable to confront my accuser, a non-human entity, to wit, a camera. So, to sum up, improper instruction, quod est necessarium est licitum, Sixth Amendment. My milk stool is complete.

[1995hoo]

I just drove to Tysons Corner via the I-495 HO/T lanes and I thought of a possible use for cameras to which I wouldn't object: Enforcing things like no-truck restrictions. Vehicles of more than two axles, except buses, are prohibited in those lanes, but I saw four, one of whom who had been pulled over. Camera enforcement seems like it'd be a good way to deal with this particular sort of issue.

I do NOT like the idea of using things like infrared cameras to enforce HOV rules, however, because I can easily the car's exhaust system throwing off more heat than kids in the rear seat or the like.

[hbelkins]

In Kentucky, state police detectives generally drive unmarked Crown Vics. They don't have official plates, either. Most have regular-issue Franklin County plates. And the detectives don't wear uniforms, they usually wear coats and ties.

[oscar]

I do NOT like the idea of using things like infrared cameras to enforce HOV rules, however, because I can easily the car's exhaust system throwing off more heat than kids in the rear seat or the like.

That idea was from someone who wrote into the Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock column, complaining that he got pulled over for an HOV violation because the cop couldn't initially see his two kids in the rear seat, behind tinted windows. The cop did quickly let him go after stopping him and taking a closer look in the back.

I agree infrared cameras are a less than ideal solution to this problem. Heated mannequins, anyone?

[1995hoo]

I do NOT like the idea of using things like infrared cameras to enforce HOV rules, however, because I can easily the car's exhaust system throwing off more heat than kids in the rear seat or the like.

That idea was from someone who wrote into the Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock column, complaining that he got pulled over for an HOV violation because the cop couldn't initially see his two kids in the rear seat, behind tinted windows. The cop did quickly let him go after stopping him and taking a closer look in the back.

I agree infrared cameras are a less than ideal solution to this problem. Heated mannequins, anyone?

I've heard the suggestion kicked around for years long before that column ran, though certainly it was in the back of my mind when I noted it here.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

I'm thinking that speed enforcement should be secondary enforcement only at speeds that are not considered reckless.  This way, the police are forced to actually enforce more traffic laws.  If speed limits went away, they could equal the revenue they currently bring in on speeding tickets by pulling people over for tailgating instead, because so many people do it - be it due to ignorance or whatever.

And there should be a federal law stating that reckless speed must be a fixed amount over the speed limit, not a fixed speed regardless of the speed limit.  I'm glaring at you, Virginia.

[xcellntbuy]

And there should be a federal law stating that reckless speed must be a fixed amount over the speed limit, not a fixed speed regardless of the speed limit.  I'm glaring at you, Virginia.

There is.  The Eighth Amendment.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

[SteveG1988]

And there should be a federal law stating that reckless speed must be a fixed amount over the speed limit, not a fixed speed regardless of the speed limit.  I'm glaring at you, Virginia.

There is.  The Eighth Amendment.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

How i had it explained to me, VA: 20 mph over or 80 mph. Do 81 in a 70, you get wreckless driving. do 70 in a 55, you don't. what one is less safe?

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

There is.  The Eighth Amendment.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Unfortunately, Virginia seems to believe it is exempt from some parts of the Constitution and its amendments.

One thing Virginia is notorious for is enforcing its own vehicle code on all vehicles, whether registered in-state or not.  They will ticket you and try to make you remove things that are legal in the state your car is registered in, but illegal in Virginia.  Tint is the most common target.  This has been said to be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and Virginia has acknowledged that, and basically said "we don't care, we do what we want"

[slorydn1]

In NC its 15 over the limit or 80mph which ever is less. It's not necessarily Careless and Reckless, its a separate offense all of its own.

[1995hoo]

There is.  The Eighth Amendment.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Unfortunately, Virginia seems to believe it is exempt from some parts of the Constitution and its amendments.

One thing Virginia is notorious for is enforcing its own vehicle code on all vehicles, whether registered in-state or not.  They will ticket you and try to make you remove things that are legal in the state your car is registered in, but illegal in Virginia.  Tint is the most common target.  This has been said to be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and Virginia has acknowledged that, and basically said "we don't care, we do what we want"

I believe the way the tint law is written is that it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on any road in the Commonwealth if the tint is darker than the statute provides unless you have a medical waiver. Their argument is that it's been decided it's unsafe to drive with darker tint than that and thus it doesn't matter where you reside–unsafe is unsafe.

I don't know whether there have been any reported court opinions about it. It seems like the US Supreme Court's logic in the Bibb case involving the old Illinois truck mud flap law could apply, but there is one very important difference: In the mud flap case, Illinois's law flat-out conflicted with at least one other state's. It was impossible to comply with both unless the truck driver pulled off to change his mud flaps. That's not the case with tint: Even if your state allows darker tint than Virginia does, you can still easily ensure you won't get a ticket in Virginia by installing tint that complies with the Virginia law, regardless of what your state allows. I don't know whether this would be the deciding aspect if someone challenged the Virginia law, but it's definitely not something you can just pooh-pooh. The better strategy for an out-of-stater is to avoid doing something that would cause a cop to stop you. Most cops in Virginia will not stop an out-of-stater solely to write a tint ticket, but of course there are always some exceptions.

(Note I'm not defending the Virginia law. I've never tinted any of my windows in part because the max tint allowed is darker on the back side windows–35%–than on the front side windows–50%–and I think the "two-tone" look looks stupid and I don't feel it's worth getting 50% tint.)

[cl94]

There is.  The Eighth Amendment.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Unfortunately, Virginia seems to believe it is exempt from some parts of the Constitution and its amendments.

One thing Virginia is notorious for is enforcing its own vehicle code on all vehicles, whether registered in-state or not.  They will ticket you and try to make you remove things that are legal in the state your car is registered in, but illegal in Virginia.  Tint is the most common target.  This has been said to be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and Virginia has acknowledged that, and basically said "we don't care, we do what we want"

I believe the way the tint law is written is that it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on any road in the Commonwealth if the tint is darker than the statute provides unless you have a medical waiver. Their argument is that it's been decided it's unsafe to drive with darker tint than that and thus it doesn't matter where you reside–unsafe is unsafe.

I don't know whether there have been any reported court opinions about it. It seems like the US Supreme Court's logic in the Bibb case involving the old Illinois truck mud flap law could apply, but there is one very important difference: In the mud flap case, Illinois's law flat-out conflicted with at least one other state's. It was impossible to comply with both unless the truck driver pulled off to change his mud flaps. That's not the case with tint: Even if your state allows darker tint than Virginia does, you can still easily ensure you won't get a ticket in Virginia by installing tint that complies with the Virginia law, regardless of what your state allows. I don't know whether this would be the deciding aspect if someone challenged the Virginia law, but it's definitely not something you can just pooh-pooh. The better strategy for an out-of-stater is to avoid doing something that would cause a cop to stop you. Most cops in Virginia will not stop an out-of-stater solely to write a tint ticket, but of course there are always some exceptions.

(Note I'm not defending the Virginia law. I've never tinted any of my windows in part because the max tint allowed is darker on the back side windows–35%–than on the front side windows–50%–and I think the "two-tone" look looks stupid and I don't feel it's worth getting 50% tint.)

New York's tint law is similar. Excessive tints are forbidden regardless of registration location.

[Duke87]

I don't like unmarked vehicles being used for traffic enforcement not only because of the risks of "how do you know it's actually a cop", but also because it violates the basic premise that the purpose of traffic enforcement is safety. Unmarked vehicles turn it from an honest "listen, we're watching, so behave" into a sneak attack designed to issue as many tickets as possible for the purpose of revenue enhancement. The stealth is unnecessary and uncalled for.

As for cameras, they have the same problem in most real world applications in the US because they are similarly designed with stealth in mind in order to catch as many unsuspecting drivers as possible. But if there is a prominently visible sign warning of the location of a camera in advance, then I'm more okay with it since it maintains the integrity of predominantly increasing safety rather than predominantly increasing revenue.

Of course, I'd also tend to agree that speed enforcement in general is overdone because it's easy to be lazy about. Point a radar gun at traffic and wait for someone to trip it above a certain level. Hell, the fact that the process can easily be automated demonstrates how easy it is. It would be nice if the highway patrol actually put more brains into their enforcement. Or, y'know, focused on helping disabled vehicles and responding to emergencies more than harassing drivers who aren't really hurting anyone.

There's a lot of negative attitudes towards police lately and excessive traffic enforcement just feeds it. If I see a police car and feel threatened (because they might pull me over) rather than protected... well, they have a major PR problem.

[GCrites]

What makes unmarked cars a little more troublesome is now the cops drive damn near anything. Used to be every cop car was a Crown Vic, Dodge Diplomat or Caprice and if they were unmarked you still kind of knew what was up. Sure you'd see a few Mustangs or Z28s put there used for very specific purposes and certainly not in every state. Ohio never had those two cars except as D.A.R.E. cars.

Now you see 'em in Chargers, Chevy PPVs, Ford Tauri Turbos, all manner of SUVs and crossovers (Edges, Escapes, Suburbans), even F-250s in the case of Sheriff's departments. I feel it's sneakier. One of the main flaws I feel of the American policing system is the constant sneaking up on everyone instead of being highly visible in neon yellow cars and uniforms like in more peaceful nations.

[cl94]

What makes unmarked cars a little more troublesome is now the cops drive damn near anything. Used to be every cop car was a Crown Vic, Dodge Diplomat or Caprice and if they were unmarked you still kind of knew what was up. Sure you'd see a few Mustangs or Z28s put there used for very specific purposes and certainly not in every state. Ohio never had those two cars except as D.A.R.E. cars.

Now you see 'em in Chargers, Chevy PPVs, Ford Tauri Turbos, all manner of SUVs and crossovers (Edges, Escapes, Suburbans), even F-250s in the case of Sheriff's departments. I feel it's sneakier. One of the main flaws I feel of the American policing system is the constant sneaking up on everyone instead of being highly visible in neon yellow cars and uniforms like in more peaceful nations.

Chargers and Tauruses are the most common sedans and, as a result, I treat those in white, gray, navy blue, or black as cop cars. Around here, at least, SUVs are typically marked. Many New York police agencies also have a very noticeable reflective stripe on the sides that makes them stand out.

[cpzilliacus]

Chargers and Tauruses are the most common sedans and, as a result, I treat those in white, gray, navy blue, or black as cop cars. Around here, at least, SUVs are typically marked. Many New York police agencies also have a very noticeable reflective stripe on the sides that makes them stand out.

Maryland still has a fair number of Crown Vics in service (marked and unmarked).

They also have some Dodge Chargers, Chevy Tahoe and Suburbans, Jeep Libertys and, more-commonly, [LHD] Holden Caprice sedans (badged as Chevys).

[cl94]

Chargers and Tauruses are the most common sedans and, as a result, I treat those in white, gray, navy blue, or black as cop cars. Around here, at least, SUVs are typically marked. Many New York police agencies also have a very noticeable reflective stripe on the sides that makes them stand out.

Maryland still has a fair number of Crown Vics in service (marked and unmarked).

They also have some Dodge Chargers, Chevy Tahoe and Suburbans, Jeep Libertys and, more-commonly, [LHD] Holden Caprice sedans (badged as Chevys).

Bunch of Crown Vics in New York as well, with many agencies still using them. Almost every local agency has Chargers and Tauruses as their new cars. SUVs are typically Tahoes and Explorers. Buffalo PD has only bought Tahoes (no cars) in recent years for the 4WD capability in the snow and Town of Tonawanda uses Caprices. NYPD has a bunch of Priuses for traffic details, while parks police has F-series pickups. State Troopers have Ford and Dodge cars along with Ford and Chevy SUVs.

[noelbotevera]

Pennsylvania's cop cars are always marked. I don't have to worry there, because I hate unmarked police. Red light cameras aren't making people safer and thus should take the wrecking ball.

[TravelingBethelite]

Connecticut state troopers have always been unmarked, or at least as long as I can recall. I've always been a bit wary when I see a new(-ish) Chevy or Ford come up behind us. Another disturbing trend here: Red light cameras have been on the increase.

[PHLBOS]

What makes unmarked cars a little more troublesome is now the cops drive damn near anything. Used to be every cop car was a Crown Vic, Dodge Diplomat or Caprice and if they were unmarked you still kind of knew what was up. Sure you'd see a few Mustangs or Z28s put there used for very specific purposes and certainly not in every state. Ohio never had those two cars except as D.A.R.E. cars.

Simply put, nearly every bare-bones full-size sedan (including 2-door models, such did exist through 1982) on the market had a Police-Packaged version of such.  During the mid-60s & 70s, even mid-size and even compacts (70s-era Chevy Novas) offered Police-Packaged models.

Ford's first police-SUV was its Bronco during the late 60s/early 70s (when it still looked like a Jeep CJ copy); although it was a Police-Packaged offering, it was not pursuit-rated. Ford called such a package a Special Service Pacakge and these vehicles were used by police for non-pursuit-related duties.

The first "Pony" cars used for Police duties was actually the '71 AMC Javelin.  Arkansas State Police had some marked Javelins in their fleet.  Not sure if such was an official Police Package or just a retail model the police just bought.  Police-Packaged Camaros and Mustangs made the scene in the late 70s/early 80s respectively due to the dimished performance (due to the loss of big-block engines due to downsizing & fuel economy laws that were then newly-enacted).

While police-packaged vehicles varied somewhat even back then; the most common vehicles used were still the larger sedans (mainly due to price and utility).

Now you see 'em in Chargers, Chevy PPVs, Ford Tauri Turbos, all manner of SUVs and crossovers (Edges, Escapes, Suburbans), even F-250s in the case of Sheriff's departments

The first 3 vehicles you listed are essentially modern versions of what cops used in the past (i.e. a full-size sedan minus the luxury and comfort features but equipped with the largest & most powerful available engines).  Also, the Caprice PPV is a vehicle that's only sold to law enforcement agencies; there's no retail counterpart available for sale.  If one sees a Caprice PPV on the road (marked or unmarked); it's more likely than not, a police vehicle.  They're still too new to be decommissioned and the similar-engineered Chevy SS sedan is smaller than the Caprice PPV.  Granted, all the current models are narrower than the old-school Crown Vic. Police Interceptor (aka CVPI or P71) and its predecessors, and yes the Taurus-based Police Interceptor (side bar: the Taurus name does not appear anywhere on this model) is FWD-based (even when equipped w/AWD); but they're still considered to be credible candidates for Police-Packaged sedans.

While I've seen Explorers in police use (note: prior to 2011, the Explorer offered to police was a Special Service Package and not a pursuit-rated package); I don't believe I've seen Edges or Escapes used for such.  The Tahoe PPV and current Explorer-based Utility Interceptor (there's no Explorer badge anywhere on this model either) have become popular with police agencies largely because they're actually roomier (including shoulder and hip room) and have more cargo space than today's full-size sedans. 

Right after production of the CVPI was discontinued; the California Highway Patrol (CHP) beefed up their minimum payload standards in their Enforcement Class vehicles specs so that only pursuit-rated, police-packaged SUVs would be considered in the bidding process.  Their reasoning for doing such was clear; they're not moving down to smaller vehicles.

In the past I've seen some single-cab Ford F-250s in Police colors (including one in Mass State Police livery); but again, those aren't used for pursuit duties.  Using them for such would void the warranties. 

OTOH, what I have seen is more F-150-sized trucks being used for patrol duties.  About a week or two ago, I saw a fully-marked Ram 1500 crew-cab in Ridley Township (Delaware County, PA) Police colors (Ridley Police vehicles are all-red) that pulled over a motorist along MacDade Blvd.

NYPD actually had a bunch of Nissan Altima Hybrids in their fleet (not sure if they still do); no doubt for experimental purposes.

What you're actually seeing today is police agencies trying out other types of vehicles in the wake of the CVPI's passing.  Such was not unlike (mostly) state police agencies trying out Mustangs and Camaros some 30 to 35 years ago when they really needed acceleration (it would take some 10 to 15 years for full-size sedans' performance levels to improve).  The only difference today, is that the vehicle of choice for cops (especially state troopers) may no longer be a sedan. 

If one knows which vehicles have genuine police packages and which do not; spotting an unmarked model used for partol duties gets a little bit easier.

[cl94]

...Ford's first police-SUV was its Bronco during the late 60s/early 70s...

I can't see Ford Bronco without thinking of OJ Simpson

[Duke87]

Connecticut state troopers have always been unmarked, or at least as long as I can recall.

But they still have the most obvious distinguishing feature of a cop car: light bars on top. I wouldn't even count them as unmarked, the light bar is more of a marking than any paint design.

A truly unmarked cop car has all of its flashing lights mounted internally so that at a quick glance the car is indistinguishable from any other.

Another disturbing trend here: Red light cameras have been on the increase.

Since when does Connecticut have red light cameras? Last I checked the state had no statute permitting photo enforcement.

[PHLBOS]

...Ford's first police-SUV was its Bronco during the late 60s/early 70s...

I can't see Ford Bronco without thinking of OJ Simpson

I believe Ford offered a Special Service Packaged Bronco to law enforcement agencies before OJ was doing Hertz commercials never mind the infamous low-speed chase of 1994.

Side bar: according to one Motor Trend article covering the then-new 1996 models, they commented that 1994-1995 Ford Bronco sales had an uptick.  They half-jokingly commented that many of those Broncos sold were white.