Must be a misunderstanding here. You said:

> How about if your license plate were stolen without your knowledge, placed on another vehicle of the same make and model, then photographed leaving the scene of a crime?

> You would have to drop tens-of-thousands of dollars in defense of your not being one of the "real criminals." Because the police are not going to sit there and say, "gee wiz, veec_cas_tant could not possibly be a 'real criminal' because they said they are being framed!"

But are claiming:

> A car is not a crime scene. Neither is "video evidence of a car" a crime scene... When did I raise the question about license plates being investigated or off-limits?

It might be easier if you just stated your actual view instead of playing twenty questions, because I have tried to read your posts from multiple angles and can't find any way to reconcile them. If you aren't arguing against the use of camera footage of cars in police investigations, why bring up the stolen plate scenario, along with the legal costs of defending against it, in the first place?

Just to be clear: I would be absolutely fine with law enforcement investigating the appearance of my stolen plates at a crime scene using video footage obtained from private or public cameras. Police using camera footage to investigate a crime scene is not at all a misuse, and I think everybody would be happy that there was footage of the crime.