Law Enforcement: Tracking A Vehicle in US

If it's a newer vehicle, it may have an onboard communications/tracking system like OnStar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar

Ehrm. If this is a present day setting, why would the military be tracking it?

Otherwise, they may refer to the vehicle by a code name if it's been a long chase, but otherwise it's kept pretty basic, far as I know. Also, visual tracking is the most used method of tracking a vehicle, including cameras and tips from helpful citizens. If they can't find the plates, they'll start stopping any vehicle of the same make and year that looks suspicious. 'Course, I don't know any FBI, just cops, so take that for what it's worth. xD

Things like this need be dealt with: http://www.lojack.ca/home.html

-cb

MariaL said:

I have the military and FBI tracking a kidnap vehicle and I just want to check I am using the correct terminology.

I don't want the vehicle to be trackable so have given it fake plates so any onboard trackable systems related to the license will also be useless.
"We ran the plates and tracked it to a vehicle currently in Chicago. Air Support is not detecting any onboard computer systems or cell phones. We’re visual only."

I mention the fake plates later.

Any advice on terminology used? Apart from visual / traffic camera surveillance is there anything else I need to eliminate as a means of tracking the vehicle?

My thanks for any help!

Click to expand...

I too am confused as to why the military is involved in a kidnapping.

However, I'm also way confused by what I bolded.

I don't know what you mean by they've 'tracked' the plates to a vehicle currently in Chicago. How so? Do you mean the plates are associated with a lojack or Onstar-type system or that your characters are 'tracking' it by finding it in a local ez-pass-type log or what?

I also don't know what you mean by the second sentence - it sounds like you somehow - though I don't know how if there isn't a computer or tracking device or cell phone in or on the car - have sent some airborne thing to follow it. Then say it has no computer or cell on board, which somehow that airborne thing knows? See how I'm confused?

MariaL said:

I have the military and FBI tracking a kidnap vehicle and I just want to check I am using the correct terminology. The military WILL NOT be tracking a kidnap vehicle in the US.

I don't want the vehicle to be trackable so have given it fake plates so any onboard trackable systems related to the license will also be useless. Your license plates have nothing to do with onboard tracking systems such as Lo-Jack or On-Star. License plates matter for recording in systems such as at toll plazas. If the vehicle is legal, you do not put on false plates to avoid cameras. Preferable in states that only use a rear plate is to bend the plate up from the bottom. Put a 45 degree bend in the sucker and the cameras can't pick it up. A cop can stop you for this, but it's unlikely and will not be a felony stop such as fake plates.

"We ran the plates and tracked it to a vehicle currently in Chicago. Air Support is not detecting any onboard computer systems or cell phones. We’re visual only." Radio is used to a minimum. Police officer would request the plates be run, and dispatch would come back with that information. Air support is either a helicopter or plane with an id number. Something like, "Air-3 reports vehicle turning onto I-80 East at exit 74." Cell phones are detected by computer checks on cell towers in an area. Unless the police have a cell number, there's no way of telling what phones are in the car. Lo-Jack and On-Star are detected through their dispatch center.

I mention the fake plates later.

Any advice on terminology used? Apart from visual / traffic camera surveillance is there anything else I need to eliminate as a means of tracking the vehicle? Simple English, unless number codes are used. Radio is big on K*I*S*S -- Keep it simple, stupid. But you would more likely use cell phones tracking a kidnapper. No way of the bad guy tracing it. Other then On-Star or Lo-Jack, unless the police stick a GPS tracker on the vehicle, or the person leaves a known cell phone on, the only way of tracking is through visual observation.

My thanks for any help!

Click to expand...

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

MariaL said:

I have the military and FBI tracking a kidnap vehicle and I just want to check I am using the correct terminology.

I don't want the vehicle to be trackable so have given it fake plates so any onboard trackable systems related to the license will also be useless.

"We ran the plates and tracked it to a vehicle currently in Chicago. Air Support is not detecting any onboard computer systems or cell phones. We’re visual only."

I mention the fake plates later.

Any advice on terminology used? Apart from visual / traffic camera surveillance is there anything else I need to eliminate as a means of tracking the vehicle?

My thanks for any help!

Click to expand...

I've seen lots of cop shows with helicopters tracking vehicles, there are some UK ones that are really good. And there's chase videos up on YouTube from the US, though I think those are mostly filmed from news choppers.
I can't actually remember ever seeing in the UK shows that the helicopter spotter (, the one doing the observing through a camera,) has seen the plate number when they started following the vehicle. If they have actually been able to see the number on the plate during the chase, it's usually because the vehicle is standing still in traffic, and the occupants aren't aware the helicopter is there. Or in cases where the vehicle is travelling on an open road, like a motorway, at a constant rate of speed. -In the UK police use Automatic Number Plate Recognition software in connection with traffic/surveilance cameras. The police helicopters do not use this.

I haven't heard of any cases where a helicopter has lost visual on a car during a chase either, except if they have to land to refuel ( ,and in an operation at the scale you mention there would highly likely be more than one helicopter available, so that would not happen), or the vehicle goes into/under a building.
The helicopter's objective would be to guide the people on the ground, so they would concentrate on updating everyone on where the vehicle is going. If they have a chance at zooming in on the vehicle, they would also give number of occupants and descriptions (if possible).
The cameras on helicopters typically can get a close-up even if the helicopter is a mile away. I've seen them indentify, and describe to police on the ground, people who are not in any way aware the helicopter is tracking them.

Any onboard tracking system in the vehicle would not be in any way connected to the plate. Changing number plates is one of the first things a car thief would do, so if there's a transmitter anywhere on the car it would not be in the number plate.
Also, I'm not sure there exists any system for detecting if there is a cellphone or computer on board a car, even if they are in use. Finding the location of a cellphone is usually done by triangulating several base-stations that the phone can reach, and gives an approximate location, and that only works if the phone is turned on.

In short, if you want the kidnappers to get away, you'll probably have to scrap them being detected in the first place. Or have them switch vehicles before the first vehicle used is located.

MariaL said:

Very helpful, all, thank you.


So (assuming I understood this correctly): On-Star/Lo-Jack aren't linked to license plates. The only way to track vehicle due to some transmitted signal would be by the vehicle owner reporting it stolen with their On-Star/Lo-Jack id or the authorities having a cellphone number that they could then triangulate.


That makes life easier. I imagined that there would be a database link between the plate number and the Lo-Jack/On-Star systems that law enforcement could tap into, messing up my plan for evading the visual surveillance.


Thank you again!

Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly (, and sorry if I'm misunderstanding), you need the kidnappers to evade the surveillance and get away.
I'd suggest you forget about any onboard tracking system (,Lo-Jack/On-Star,) in the car. Far from all cars have them, so the vehicle could easily not have it, and there's no real way to evade it if there's one onboard.
Like I said above, evading a helicopter led "chase" is extremely difficult. For instance, if the car drove into an underground car park the cops/FBI on the ground would seal all exits from the building, making it impossible to escape.
My suggestion is you add weather conditions that make it impossible to fly a helicopter, like wind/fog. -I'm not an expert on helicopters, but it should be possible to find online what kind of weather conditions ground them.

I hope I've been helpful, and good luck with the story.

Absent a GPS enabled device (either integrated into the vehicle's systems or carried by an occupant, like an onboard cell phone) or an applied transponder, any further surveillance would have to be visual (actual/real time). It can be anything from a citizen noticing and reporting to tasking satellite surveillance (of course, that would take some serious justification - like national security issues).

Don't underestimate the potential for citizen observations. Everybody seems to have a cell phone with camera capability these days - that's one reason why Amber Alerts work so well.

MariaL said:

Very helpful, all, thank you.


So (assuming I understood this correctly): On-Star/Lo-Jack aren't linked to license plates. The only way to track vehicle due to some transmitted signal would be by the vehicle owner reporting it stolen with their On-Star/Lo-Jack id or the authorities having a cellphone number that they could then triangulate.


That makes life easier. I imagined that there would be a database link between the plate number and the Lo-Jack/On-Star systems that law enforcement could tap into, messing up my plan for evading the visual surveillance.


Thank you again!

Click to expand...

No, they're linked to the VIN. Lojack stays with the vehicle if you buy it, same as OnStar basically. So if you sell the car, or you just get new plates, or if it's stolen and the thief ditches the plates, it matters not.

Also, I think pretty much all mobile phones now have GPS - no one is triangulating signals anymore.

Weirdmage said:

I'd suggest you forget about any onboard tracking system (,Lo-Jack/On-Star,) in the car. Far from all cars have them, so the vehicle could easily not have it, and there's no real way to evade it if there's one onboard.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Just put them in a car with no Lojack or Onstar.

Some cars, especially in areas where there are a lot of tolls, have EZpass or some other transponder for registering when a car (linked to a license plate) goes through a toll booth. But the transponder is actually on the car, so if they change plates, the police end up either figuring that out right away (because the new plates aren't associated with a car that has EZpass) or tracking some other transponder (on a car with no plates, presumably so they'd figure that out quick, too, if the other car was going through toll booths).

Assuming your story is taking place in contemporary USA, it's dead easy to have a car with no tracking ability whatsoever. Turn off all phones or toss them and they're untrackable.

The police would have to get lucky with a citizen sighting them or actual visual contact.

You don't have to give the car fake plates unless the perp is pretty sure the police have the plate number of the car.

If the police DO have the license number of the car, red light cameras *might* help in tracking them. But only if they run a red light and of the police have some idea where they are.

ULTRAGOTHA said:

If the police DO have the license number of the car, red light cameras *might* help in tracking them. But only if they run a red light and of the police have some idea where they are.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't count on this. Some time ago, a nearby city made a big deal out of contracting out their red light cameras... point being, they'd have another company to go through in order to get red light camera info. And I'm not even sure if this company had red light camera info in real time. If you WANTED to use this to be able to track your fictional bad guy, you could probably pull it off, but it would be just as believable for it to not happen.

My dad used to work for a statewide agency that ran traffic cameras in major metropolitan areas. The cameras were very good, and they *could* conceivably zoom in on a particular car/license plate and read the plate. However, this was rarely done, for several reasons:
1)Local television news stations contracted with them to use live camera images on the air, so there was always a risk that the particular camera was on TV somewhere.
2)Even with the cameras, the cars are moving pretty quickly, so if they're looking for a certain make/model, they have to be VERY quick.
3)There were a LOT of cameras. Several dozen. So that's a lot of cameras to check out and a lot of possible cars to sort through.
4)Thus it really only works if they have a pretty good idea of where the car/bad guy are going - such as if that car is being chased by a bunch of police cars with lights and sirens.