Blacklisted by Dealership

[Duane Pipes]

This is interesting though because OP was not in the conversation. He basically set a trap, then left, so no one in the conversation gave consent. Also when your car is on their property and in their hands, I'm not sure if it would be considered your private property while they service it, and are inside it.

That said I always remove any valuables when dropping off any vehicle for service, and when I had wheel locks put the key in a cup holder and told them.

Scooter and tap1234 both of y'all play the hairy bagpipes

 

[Duane Pipes]

I'm not sticking up for the dealer in any way Deuwayne, just letting you know you may have committed a crime. You choice, no hair off my back.

We'll come on down to Charleston SC and slap the cuffs on me t1234 since I committed a crime

 

[TomB 1269]

I would suspect there is a simple fix for future issues such as this......... "This Vehicle is protected by Audio and Video Surveillance at all times" Printed out and clearly displayed on the dashboard. We have the right to protect our property (passively), and there is no state or federal law that can remove that right. A clear advisement that the vehicle has been so equipped should cover all bases. Now there is the fact that the dealership could request and or require removal of said equipment as a stipulation to completing the work, and therefore the owner of said vehicle would need to make a decision as to whether or not to proceed.

However, I would suspect that no dealer in their right mind would make such a request as that would open them up to additional liability, as well as public scrutiny, i.e. said owner making public that they were required to remove or disable video/audio security in order to obtain work on their vehicle.

I would tend to lean toward the OPs position, as there was no attempt to conceal the device in any way shape or form. And just as with the law, not knowing is not a defense. Just because the dealership did not inquire as to how the system operated, or whether it was an active security surveillance system does not provide them a defense. These systems are readily available to the public and their operational capacity is clearly stated in their advertising.

As for me, I do not have video surveillance in my cars, but I have done my due diligence as to their capabilities. I can tell you that if you approach my house or the front of my closest neighbors houses you are and will be under surveillance. Should someone have an altercation or attempted an illegal action in which my cameras pick up, that video footage will be turned over to the police regardless.

It also sounds as if the dealer's or FCA's lawyers have reviewed and advised them to proceed with repairs. I would assume their lawyer may not feel that there was any "intentional surveillance", and that the OP could actually have possible recourse against one or both for the actions and manner in which this issue was handled as a whole.

I just happen to be reading this:
https://reolink.com/can-neighbor-have-security-cameras-pointed-your-house/
And found the following with regards to California Law:

"There are no restrictions, for a private person to have video surveillance cameras around their property for the purposes of security."

"If your cameras are located on your property in plain view, are not in a private place, and do not violate any state or federal laws, it would appear they would be lawful.""

For the person that was quoting CA law. It is not clear that this would be for vehicles as well, but if it is not already, one legal challenge utilizing this statue I would suspect would be hard to beat. As the premiss is the same... To protect ones property...the back ground being incidental to the primary focus of protecting ones property.

 

[Duane Pipes]

1st mistake: If you had an issue with the dealership, why didn't you take the video directly to management and allow them to respond, before going public with it to meet your inner desire for clickbait?

Hate me if you wish, but **** like this is a problem in our society right now. People would rather be a Youtube star than solve their problem with personal communication and fairness.

Okay now I hate you Scooter stupid ass

 

[FRED Pirelli]

Hey guys you all have your points which are valid. Can we just tone it down a little? No need to go after each other . We are trying to help each other.

 

[tap4154]

We'll come on down to Charleston SC and slap the cuffs on me t1234 since I committed a crime

I'm not a cop and I don't hang out with criminals, or a holes. Have a nice day duwayne.

 

[Duane Pipes]

I'm not a cop and I don't hang out with criminals, or a holes. Have a nice day duwayne.

You and Scooter are ********** each other right now. You prob drive a Dakota anyway

 

[tap4154]

OP must liked being blacklisted. He's going on my ignore list.

Moving on.

 

[Nystagmus]

You and Scooter are ********** each other right now. You prob drive a Dakota anyway

 

[tap4154]

I would suspect there is a simple fix for future issues such as this......... "This Vehicle is protected by Audio and Video Surveillance at all times" Printed out and clearly displayed on the dashboard. We have the right to protect our property (passively), and there is no state or federal law that can remove that right. A clear advisement that the vehicle has been so equipped should cover all bases. Now there is the fact that the dealership could request and or require removal of said equipment as a stipulation to completing the work, and therefore the owner of said vehicle would need to make a decision as to whether or not to proceed.

However, I would suspect that no dealer in their right mind would make such a request as that would open them up to additional liability, as well as public scrutiny, i.e. said owner making public that they were required to remove or disable video/audio security in order to obtain work on their vehicle.

I would tend to lean toward the OPs position, as there was no attempt to conceal the device in any way shape or form. And just as with the law, not knowing is not a defense. Just because the dealership did not inquire as to how the system operated, or whether it was an active security surveillance system does not provide them a defense. These systems are readily available to the public and their operational capacity is clearly stated in their advertising.

As for me, I do not have video surveillance in my cars, but I have done my due diligence as to their capabilities. I can tell you that if you approach my house or the front of my closest neighbors houses you are and will be under surveillance. Should someone have an altercation or attempted an illegal action in which my cameras pick up, that video footage will be turned over to the police regardless.

It also sounds as if the dealer's or FCA's lawyers have reviewed and advised them to proceed with repairs. I would assume their lawyer may not feel that there was any "intentional surveillance", and that the OP could actually have possible recourse against one or both for the actions and manner in which this issue was handled as a whole.

I just happen to be reading this:
https://reolink.com/can-neighbor-have-security-cameras-pointed-your-house/
And found the following with regards to California Law:

"There are no restrictions, for a private person to have video surveillance cameras around their property for the purposes of security."

"If your cameras are located on your property in plain view, are not in a private place, and do not violate any state or federal laws, it would appear they would be lawful.""

For the person that was quoting CA law. It is not clear that this would be for vehicles as well, but if it is not already, one legal challenge utilizing this statue I would suspect would be hard to beat. As the premiss is the same... To protect ones property...the back ground being incidental to the primary focus of protecting ones property.

Except that a vehicle is not considered private property in the way that your home and land is. A vehicle is just a possession. If your vehicle is on someone else's private property, like a dealership, it's not like an island of private property that you own on their private property. It's just one of your private possessions on their private property.

 

[ScLeCo]

Except that a vehicle is not considered private property in the way that your home and land is. A vehicle is just a possession. If your vehicle is on someone else's private property, like a dealership, it's not like an island of private property that you own on their private property. It's just one of your private possessions on their private property.

I actually think you're wrong on that point. The courts view it as the same as your home that's why cops can't just search your car without a warrant or probable cause.

 

[tap4154]

I actually think you're wrong on that point. The courts view it as the same as your home that's why cops can't just search your car without a warrant or probable cause.

But they can search your car without a warrant, with probable cause which can just be smell of alcohol excetera. They will ask you if they can take a look inside, if not you will be arrested and the car will likely be towed. To search your home is completely different, they do have to have a warrant.

 

[ROADPOP]

In the car business it’s kinda a good ol boy in the service dept and a good Mgr will protect his guys..most local service mgrs know other mgrs in their area because sometimes they share problems and info,so don’t be surprised if your not blacklisted from competing dealers also..nobody wants a troublemaker, even though they make money in service there’s no lack of customers that they can work on other than you.
I worked 45 yrs in auto business and I would have told you to take a hike also..That’s just how it is

 

[TomB 1269]

Tap 4154 I do not believe I used the term "Private". I stated property. Now depending on state statues it may or may not be concerned "private" with respect to actions being taken. As you are correct, the Federal government / legal system does not include automobile as private property with respect to requirements for a search warrant as it is under the automobile exemption, note this can also extend to your boat, motorhome, travel trailer, etc.
There are some states in which smoking in public is prohibited, but with in the confines of your vehicle is another matter, i.e. you smoke standing beside the car you get a fine. You smoke sitting inside the car and you do not.

Again, a clear statement that the vehicle is protected by surveillance equipment will go a long way in most states to putting the owness on the other party, as you made it clear. However, thats not to say you can not be asked / required to turn it off if another party request it in a scenario such as this.

 

[TomB 1269]

But they can search your car without a warrant, with probable cause which can just be smell of alcohol excetera. They will ask you if they can take a look inside, if not you will be arrested and the car will likely be towed. To search your home is completely different, they do have to have a warrant.

Actually, due to this conversation I have located information to the contrary. They DO NOT need a warranty to search your car.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/cars-other-vehicles-and-the-constitution
"The Supreme Court in interpreting the scope of that Amendment has been able to create exceptions to the warrant requirement. There is now, and has been since 1925, an “automobile exception” to the search warrant mandate."

This did not make me very happy, but at least I now know that it can be done regardless, and the Supreme Court will uphold it.

 

[tap4154]

Actually, due to this conversation I have located information to the contrary. They DO NOT need a warranty to search your car.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/cars-other-vehicles-and-the-constitution
"The Supreme Court in interpreting the scope of that Amendment has been able to create exceptions to the warrant requirement. There is now, and has been since 1925, an “automobile exception” to the search warrant mandate."

This did not make me very happy, but at least I now know that it can be done regardless, and the Supreme Court will uphold it.

Thanks for posting that. Anyone that watches Live PD knows that a car can be searched on the flimsiest of probable cause. I'm curious about motorhomes though, I do have one and I have a feeling that they're able to search that as well with probable cause, without a warrant. But I don't do anything illegal so I'm not worried about it

 

[ScLeCo]

Actually, due to this conversation I have located information to the contrary. They DO NOT need a warranty to search your car.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/cars-other-vehicles-and-the-constitution
"The Supreme Court in interpreting the scope of that Amendment has been able to create exceptions to the warrant requirement. There is now, and has been since 1925, an “automobile exception” to the search warrant mandate."

This did not make me very happy, but at least I now know that it can be done regardless, and the Supreme Court will uphold it.

That's some ******** right there.

 

[tidefan1967]

Hey props for ya what stealership was it

Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk

He wouldn’t say......my guess would be Rick Hendrick CDJR on Savannah HWY if I had to guess.

 

[Kukailimoku]

How can they hide behind private property? The persons in the video are employees, not owners of that property.

So every time we see you tube or 6:00 oclock news of some cell phone video of the airplane engine on fire, that person is illegal because the airplane is private property?

Nah, there is no private property protection for the stealership.

 

[Duane Pipes]

Just wanted to bring attention to dash cams through my experience and to help everyone avoid this sequence of failures.

I don't see how this is wiretapping. Scooter and tap4321 troubling themselves by googling the code of laws. Safe to say both of y'all are gonna be Paralegals for Halloween.