MVTRAC Spearheads Victory Over California SB1330

Press Release

Palatine, Il – June 7, 2012 – MVTRAC is proud to formally announce today the successful defeat of California SB1330, a legislation originally initiated to prohibit the use and storage of License Plate Recognition (LPR) data for legitimate business and public safety purposes.


MVTRAC executives flew to Sacramento on three occasions, testifying before the California State Senate Committees and meeting with Senators and Committee Members. MVTRAC executives worked with Senator Simitian directly, the author of the bill. MVTRAC was the only LPR Company to file a formal opposition of record¹ and testify before the Senate to defeat the bill. By rallying as many organizations and people close to the issue as possible, Scott Jackson specifically was issued a letter of authorization from distinguished organizations to speak on their behalf that included the American Financial Services Association², Time Finance Adjusters Conference³ and National Finance Adjusters⁴. He was asked to speak on their behalf during sessions of testimony.

MVTRAC executives Scott Jackson and Luke Smith worked diligently in communicating and rallying law enforcement agencies and groups such as the International Chief’s of Police (IACP), Association for Los Angeles Police Deputy Sheriffs, California District Attorneys Association, California Narcotics Officers’ Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California State Sheriffs’ Association, Chief Probation Officers of California, U.S. Homeland Security and organizations that support companies like GEICO, Progressive Insurance, Allstate, State Farm and more.

The widespread support that Jackson and MVTRAC received was in their belief, due in part to the dire consequences that would have occurred if the bill became a law. States Jackson, “At its core, LPR technology represents the use of video technology in a public forum, which is a fundamental right as dictated by the Constitution. A bill or law suggesting its prohibition or limitation essentially infringes on our freedoms and would have sparked a debate at the Supreme Court level at an inevitable point down the road.”

After months of working front-and-center and behind the scenes, Senator Simitian found enough pressure from other Senators and everyone MVTRAC worked with to decide not to bring the bill before the Senate floor. After a long career as a legislator, Senator Simitian is “termed-out” and will be leaving office at the end of this year. California SB 1330 was officially terminated on June 1, 2012 on the floor of the California Senate, due to Senator Simitian decision not to bring it to the next vote, which would not have enough votes to pass.

According to Scott A. Jackson, Chief Executive Officer of MVTRAC, “The key behind our success was taking immediate action and establishing a strong rapport with the legislators in California, open discussions with Speaker Newt Gingrich and his amazing understanding of our patented emerging technology and its impact to national security and private small businesses, law enforcement agencies and associations, and recovery and auto finance organizations supporting their industries.

MVTRAC CEO Scott Jackson hosted Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich for a rally in Chicago⁵, followed by a dinner reception.

Stated Jackson, “I became aware of the bill around the same time that MVTRAC decided to sponsor Ex-Speaker Gingrich’s event. We need to extend a huge thanks to Mr. Gingrich for understanding the significant importance of ALPR in both the private sector and Homeland Security and having the foresight to speak openly about its use at public events and to legislators. He’s an amazing intellectual, as he understood the size and scope of everything only after minutes of discussion and he immediately became passionate about it.”

Expanding on the details of their efforts, Jackson stated, “We flew to California to testify in front of multiple committees in opposition of the bill. We drafted many revisions of the bill and we had conference calls and meetings with so many people, including Senator Simitian and his team. We would be remiss to take all the credit for defeating the bill simply due to the significant financial investment, the investment of time and travel and working with all parties involved, including our communication with Speaker Gingrich and law enforcement organizations. Yes it’s true, we were the only ALPR company on record for opposition and we did spearhead the most significant campaign against the bill and coordinated the most efforts of joint action, but because we put forth a joint effort between the recovery industry, the auto finance industry, law enforcement and the various associations, nurtured our communications and relationships with Speaker Newt Gingrich and legislators, it was the overall pressure from everyone and everywhere that allowed Senator Simitian to determine there wouldn’t be enough votes to pass the bill. It would be both abrasive and corrosive to our relationships for us to take all the credit and I must thank everyone involved in the effort. We also need and want to extend our thanks to Senator Simitian himself, for working hand-in-hand with us during the process, and for serving the State of California over a long and very distinguished career.”

“We understand the sensitive nature of our data and so we work closely with representatives from both state and federal governments to implement the most cautious and thorough processes regarding the use of our data,” stated Luke Smith, MVTRAC Executive Vice President of Business Development, adding, “Prior to the bill being dropped, we had already drafted numerous revisions [to California SB1330] in order to maintain the positive impact that our data and business model influences on society as a whole. We were determined to preserve the utility of our patent, data and technology, one way or another.”

During the passage of California SB1330 through the California Legislature, MVTRAC served as the only documented LPR Company in opposition to the bill¹.

Adds Jackson, “Overall we are very proud of what we accomplished and believe that our success in this forum demonstrates our undying commitment and passion to all parties directly and indirectly related to the industries that rely on our data technology.”

Supporting Documentation/Footnotes




About MVTRAC — Home of The Intelligent Data Network™, MVTRAC is now the leading provider of on-demand data solutions for auto finance, government and law enforcement organizations. Utilizing a national network of digital recognition technology devices, MVTRAC receives real-time data capture from these systems and stores the intelligence in a centralized database. Recognized now as the largest data capture network in the nation, MVTRAC continues to grow through partnerships with government agencies and third-party camera owners at traffic lights, tollbooths, airports, major transportation hubs, security centers and retail/commercial parking lots.  With a national network of hundreds of Subscribers in all the major metropolitan areas, MVTRAC is capturing millions of plates per week and increasing the recovery dollars lift to Auto Finance and the revenue for the Subscribers exponentially. For more information, visit

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

12 thoughts on “MVTRAC Spearheads Victory Over California SB1330

  1. “Dan” and “RepoInd” –

    First, I’m not sure who “they” are that “allow” me to do anything.

    Secondly, you won’t find anyone to quote me “bragging” about having affairs, but your reference to it has a clear motive and anyone intelligent can see it. I started my agency 23 years ago and several of my girlfriends and my ex-wife have been employees of my company, but I’m quite certain people don’t really care about my private life even if you do.

    Lastly, since your comments have nothing to do with the topic and rest squarely on Scott Jackson, it doesn’t take long to come to the conclusion you are either inept at making any valid point of your own as a response to the topic or you’re just and solely ruminating about Scott Jackson for which many conclusions can be drawn.

    In any event, you’re both ruminating about me for a reason so I’ll step up and apologize for whatever it is I may have done to cause you to intentionally seek to defame my character. Feel free to call me and speak directly to me, I certainly would like and appreciate the opportunity to determine how I may change anything about myself that might prevent hard feelings in the future.

    Again, Respectfully

  2. Mr. Frank Deer,
    Your post starts by stating DRN and Vigilant Video are “nothing but thieves anyway”, followed by a statement it was “alleged” in court documents. You’re seemingly well spoken, but seem to walk both sides of the fence. On one side of the fence you attempt objectivity and possibility, and on the other side your post makes definitive statements and references.

    MVTRAC was also sued by the Ioli Trust for patent infringement along side many defendants, and the case was settled. The patent was not being used by the patent owner, which is often referred to as a “patent troll”, a reference to those that invent or purchase patents with the sole intent of filing suits for settlement. ( Shield Act HR 2886)

    42 USC section 1983 requires an exercise of power, which would require the conveyance of some State or governmental authority and and use of that conveyed authority. ALPR companies are not conveyed any authority and don’t actually perform a function based upon a conveyed authority. Your reference to the United States vs Jones case has no relationship, the Supreme Court Justices made their ruling based upon the belief that every citizen has a “reasonable expectation to privacy” Even Justice Alito stated himself, “predicted that the narrow grounds used for deciding the case may not apply to many of the future Fourth Amendment cases, where the police need not commit a physical trespass to use electronic surveillance to gather information.” Whereas the United States vs Jones case was predicated on the actual placement of a GPS device that literally tracked every movement of that specific vehicle, Automated License Plate recognition does not and will not fall within the “narrow grounds” used to decide that particular case. A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy when he or she exits the private domain and enters the public domain, which further complicates your argument but add that a license plates is not NPPI and it further complicates and dilutes your argument.

    Scott A. Jackson,

  3. We can put MVTRAC right up there with DRN!
    Funny thing they allow Scott Jackson to have affairs with board members and employees.
    Companies with real ethics and policies have HR depts that enforce the rules. Look what happened at bestbuy!

  4. Let me say that Digital Recognition Network, Inc. and Vigilant Video, Inc. are nothing but thieves anyway. It is alleged in court documents that they stole the LBR patent from Edward D. Ioli Trust and General Traffic Controls, Inc. Look up the patent infringement complaint at united states district court for the eastern district of texas marshall division.

    Now that we know that we are dealing with thieves, let me get into the civil rights and constitutional violations. There is no doubt that each of these companies claim that they are performing a public function, public safety, which is traditionally the exclusive function of the states thus making them state actors for purposes of 42 USC section 1983. As private corporations they are bound to the privacy requirements which restrain governmental entities since it became a state actor by performing a public function, public safety. See Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 102 S. Ct. 2764, 73 L. Ed. 2d 418, 4 Ed. Law Rep. 999 (1982).

    Now that we know that they are state actors under Rendell-Baker v. Kohnand and thus bound to the privacy requirements which restrain governmental entities, on January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court in United States v. Jones unanimously held that “the Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.”

    Now that we know that they are conducting searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, do the thieves have a warrant or consent to conduct these searches? No. I never gave them my consent and I know that they do not have a warrant against me so the constant searches and databases are illegal.

  5. I think all of us would like Scott Jackson to sit down and shut up!
    We are all tired of attending functions and listen to him brag about sleeping with his employees and board members.

  6. Allow me to begin by stating I as a real man have used my real name on here and all posts regardless if I am pro or con on any issue. It has been my observation that were there are hateful posts, they are always under some cowardly anonymous handle or name.

    For those of us who are in the real repossession industry, we need more people like Scott Jackson and MVTRAC. They stand and speak up for all of us. This fact is present by the letters of endorsement by 2 large professional recovery associations, one of which I am a member of.

    We have enough factions trying to take down our industry, either by T.V. shows that are NOT reality, or by forwarders who take more from the pie than the agent who risks his life to secure the asset.

    Scott Jackson spent his own money to fly back and forth to speak up for us. Not just once, but many times. While I do not believe “he was threatened to be escorted from the hearing if he didnt shut up”. If by any stretch of the truth that statement is correct, then GOOD! We need more Scott Jackson’s out there NOT willing to “shut up” to help save our industry. We have been silent for too long and it has cost us too much.

    Thank you Mr. Jackson and all the fine people at MVTRAC, who continue to help those that many of them they will never meet.

  7. I’m an absolute fan and believer in the MVTrac product, and the services they provide. By far the most passionate group of professionals I have ever had the pleasure of working with. No matter how you look at it, debate it, hate it, it was a huge win for all of us!!

    Great work boys!!

  8. Thanks Scott and MVTRAC for spending your time, resources, and talents to protect our Industry and LPR Technology which is one of the bright lights in our business. For those that didn’t show up then or are throwing rocks after the fact you should ignore them.

    All of us should be embracing the technology and even the competitors who we may not agree with because our enemies are stronger and we are much weaker as an Industry. Scott Jackson should be applauded for devoting his life to build a strong business model that give us a “chance” to survive this storm.

    If you are truly an LPR Fan you should be grateful that Scott was fighting for you to. Agree with him or not he just saved your butt if your run cameras. It’s not just California that Scott was fighting for. California leads the way in many areas of regulation and taxation. If you lose there plan on fighting in other states to change what you could have fixed by killing the legislation early.

  9. How much “twisting to sound better” did Scott Jackson do when the end result is…(wait for it)…he WON a huge victory with resonating impact on the ENTIRE industry!.
    Congratulations Scott Jackson and the MVTrac Team! A heartfelt thank you for watching out for the industry and all who depend on it.

  10. LPR_Fan –

    “If I recall” eludes to you being there, but based on your statements you clearly were not there.

    I was actually already sitting down when Senator Mark DeSaulnier (Chair) stated to me he had heard enough of my speech to understand it and he wanted to move the hearing along. (I was actually sitting next to the Attorney General’s Association on my left, and the Chief of Police Association on my right – which turned out in our favor for reasons described below)

    Senator DeSaulnier was respectful, not threatening or abrasive and is a very good chairman in controlling the flow of the procedures. I was of course respectful to him by immediately cutting my speech short, it was his floor to run. You just never know what small piece of information is going to be helpful, and anyone that knows me knows I can be long-winded, but the one piece of information that came from that speech was that law enforcement need private companies like MVTRAC and repossession agencies because there is not enough in their budgets to do what we’re getting done in the private sector regarding data aggregation.

    As it turns out, albeit it wordy, the speech went on only for a few minutes and the one small piece of factual information toward the end of my speech became a major force in our favor. Whereas law enforcement previously tries to disassociate themselves from the private sector in public hearings like this one, and especially the repossession industry, the fact they are reliant on us caused them to rally behind making sure we were included and the changes to the bill were inclusive of the repossession industry.

    Respectful dialogue in adverse situations is something I think we should all strive for in our daily interactions, whereas my interactions in my first appearance at the first hearing led to very good things, maybe you will unmask yourself from just being an LPR_Fan and interact respectfully for the greater good of everyone.

    The hearing was a public hearing, it was video tapped by the State of California and is available for anyone wanting to view the interaction. I’m responding to your post in an effort to be respectful to you, despite feeling disrespected by you.

    I’m a straight shooter, there’s no twisting for my favor, only the facts and the truth and even when I make a mistake. LPR_Fan, you referenced me as “Jackson” and stated “always” so it seems you’re not a fan of mine and maybe in the past I’ve done something to cause an issue with you. I’d welcome an opportunity to discuss that with you.

    Please, feel free to call me and challenge me on anything you’d like to debate, or discuss anything at all. My office number is 847-485-2300 and we can keep our conversation confidential if that’s what you decide.

  11. If I recall, during these so called visits to the senate hearings when Mr Jackson spoke up and put his two cents in, he was told to be quite and sit down. The committee chair did not want to hear anything Jackson had to say. He was threatened to be escorted from the hearing if he didnt shut up. It’s so amazing how Jackson always twist things to sound better. Good job Jackson.

Leave a Comment

Skip to toolbar