On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:24:07 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

They could have seized it as part of the "evidence" for an investigation
though. It would take them only a few hours (if that) to get the
appropriate warrant.

No, Dee, the FCC cannot "seize" equipment under any circumstance.
The seizure would have to be done by the U S Marshal Service in
compliance with a court order.

Even in a situation like this, the probability of getting a warrant
- and the Marshal to serve it - within a few hours is rather nil
especially when the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District
of California is involved. In years past there was a warrant
paralegal there who speeded our cases through on a one-to-one
personal basis because our paperwork was always complete,
understandable, and error-free, but she is long retired and her
successors are not so inspired.

Too many people in the U S Attorney's office, the Marshals, and the
courts are involved in examining and approving the procedure, and
getting them out of bed in the middle of the night is not
realistic for situations like this where the culprit has been
identified and interviewed and, most important, the interference
abated.

This isn't Lennie Briscoe and "Law and Order" where warrants appear
out of thin air. Our usual lead time on an equipment seizure
warrant was three days and that was considered "fast".

If you haven't figured it out by now, applying for and getting
warrants was one of my major specialties at the FCC and I've been told
the procedures and the roadblocks haven't changed.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon