429
Flock Camera Tells Cop New Car Didn’t Have Insurance When It Did, Cop Writes Ticket Anyway (deltiasgaming.com)
submitted 17 hours ago* by to c/technology@lemmy.world
56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Georgia college student reportedly received a ticket from a cop after a Flock camera flagged her newly purchased vehicle as having no insurance when it did. According to a WSB-TV report, posted by podcast host Kacee Allen, the car has a temporary license plate, but the student presented a valid insurance card. Despite this, the officer reportedly still issued a citation. The incident reportedly happened twice, and the student now has to defend herself in court

According to the news report, the database that Flock cameras rely on was yet to be updated. This caused the system to falsely flag the newly purchased vehicle.

Renee Jones, the student’s mother, said her daughter was doing everything required of her. This included maintaining insurance and carrying proof of coverage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

That adds up to 30%. Maybe you meant 25/50/25.

I'd have to know more before breaking it down. If Flock told police departments that these alerts are up to date and reliable, I might assign them up to half the blame. If there were clear that the information could be a few days old, then I'd set it smaller, but not to zero because I think offering an "alert" product to law enforcement for minor administrative offenses based on stale data is irresponsible.

Similarly for the department and the officer, I have to ask whether there's a policy about how to handle this sort of thing. If there's a bad policy, the department gets most of the blame. If the officer decided to ignore a valid insurance card and trust a third-party database, the the officer gets most of the blame.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 child)

    Oops, I wasn't really doing the math as I went

    Originally I was adding up to your 10x + a adding in bunch extra for flock, but somepoint my brain switch that 10x to 10%. Oh well, the specific numbers dont really matter.

    I think greater responsibility should be placed on the department to encourage firing. If the burden is mostly on the officer, than the department bean counters won't care as long the officer can write more "valid" tickets to offset the bogus ones.

    Its also like if a waiter drops a tray of food on someone causing injury. Who is financially responsible to the injured person, the business or waiter? I think most of would agree that the business is. The business is fully within their rights to fire that waiter, but they can't withhold pay for the damages. If the business can prove the tray was intentionally thrown, then they can sue the waiter. But, the injured party should never have to talk to the waiter.

    Should the be the same for an officer, if they make a mistake it's on the department to make it right with the affected parties. If the department proves the officer maliciously broke protocol or law, then they can sue them separately. The victim of the officer's actions should be made "whole" by the department, then the department and officer can figure it out on their own.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 hours ago

    This is how it works now, but who pays the department's legal bill? Municipal tax payers. It's zero accountability. Each cop should be insured like doctors and engineers. That's the only way to make it work that isn't just wasting taxpayer dollars.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent