New York Court Kicks Out charges against ham!
* Court kicks New York ham's "police radio" case: A New York court has
dismissed a misdemeanor charge against ARRL member Richard C. "Dick" Lalone, KC5GAX, for violating §397 of that state's Vehicle and Traffic Law. That section prohibits individuals other than law officers from equipping their vehicles with radios "capable of receiving signals on the frequencies allocated for police use" without first securing a permit. The section, which also prohibits knowingly interfering with police transmissions, contains an explicit exemption for "any person who holds a valid amateur radio operator's license . . . and who operates a duly licensed portable mobile transmitter and in connection therewith a receiver or receiving set on frequencies exclusively allocated . . . to duly licensed radio amateurs." In a nearly 1300-word decision, Judge John J. Hallet said it was clear the legislature never intended the provisions of §397 from applying to licensed Amateur Radio operators, and he dismissed the charge August 5. Susan Terry, KF4SUE, a former New York assistant attorney general, represented Lalone. ARRL President Jim Haynie, W5JBP, ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, and ARRL Regulatory Information Specialist John Hennessee, N1KB, provided advice or assistance to Lalone. I like THIS one. AW, poor cop, no donut. LOL!!! Jerry |
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:28:56 -0400, Jerry wrote:
I like THIS one. AW, poor cop, no donut. LOL!!! That's what happens when you put radio-based enforcement in the hands of unclued-in officers. It should have never gotten past the initial field stop. Of course, if the amateur op doesn't have his license with him, the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the pre-emption does not cover him even though it still does, and if the rig has been modified so that it is capable of TRANSMITTING on the police frequency, the pre-emption is not valid even if the operator is a licensed amateur (per the FCC Public Notice on this matter many years ago). -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message et... On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:28:56 -0400, Jerry wrote: I like THIS one. AW, poor cop, no donut. LOL!!! That's what happens when you put radio-based enforcement in the hands of unclued-in officers. It should have never gotten past the initial field stop. It doesn't say much about the inteligence level of the prosecutor's office either. Of course, if the amateur op doesn't have his license with him, the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the pre-emption does not cover him even though it still does, But surly such an oversight would have been "cleared up" before any actual trial. and if the rig has been modified so that it is capable of TRANSMITTING on the police frequency, the pre-emption is not valid even if the operator is a licensed amateur (per the FCC Public Notice on this matter many years ago). I didn't see that as the case with the federal preemption as I read it. What happens now that most radios will need to be modified to operate on the 5MHz band? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in
link.net: "Phil Kane" wrote in message et... On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:28:56 -0400, Jerry wrote: I like THIS one. AW, poor cop, no donut. LOL!!! That's what happens when you put radio-based enforcement in the hands of unclued-in officers. It should have never gotten past the initial field stop. It doesn't say much about the inteligence level of the prosecutor's office either. Of course, if the amateur op doesn't have his license with him, the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the pre-emption does not cover him even though it still does, But surly such an oversight would have been "cleared up" before any actual trial. and if the rig has been modified so that it is capable of TRANSMITTING on the police frequency, the pre-emption is not valid even if the operator is a licensed amateur (per the FCC Public Notice on this matter many years ago). I didn't see that as the case with the federal preemption as I read it. What happens now that most radios will need to be modified to operate on the 5MHz band? Cheers, Bill K2UNK Good point Bill. I use my FT-817 in my car. If I modified it to transmit on 5 MHz it would be able to transmit on police frequencies too. |
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:28:56 -0400, Jerry wrote: I like THIS one. AW, poor cop, no donut. LOL!!! That's what happens when you put radio-based enforcement in the hands of unclued-in officers. It should have never gotten past the initial field stop. I wouldn't be surprised if that's not the last event in this story. I smell a 42 USC 1983 issue coming over the horizon (especially for "failure to train" - cf. Monell vs. Social Services of NYC).... He should sue. Of course, if the amateur op doesn't have his license with him, the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the pre-emption does not cover him even though it still does, and if the rig has been modified so that it is capable of TRANSMITTING on the police frequency, the pre-emption is not valid even if the operator is a licensed amateur (per the FCC Public Notice on this matter many years ago). I disagree. Identity can be established with the driver's license, and a radio license lookup is no more complicated than radioing in a wants/warrant check on either a person or a registration check on a vehicle. With the data available, "knowledge is in hand." |
Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:28:56 -0400, Jerry wrote: I like THIS one. AW, poor cop, no donut. LOL!!! That's what happens when you put radio-based enforcement in the hands of unclued-in officers. It should have never gotten past the initial field stop. I wonder how many thousands of special exceptions to the various laws cops deal with, the cops need to know about. The more obscure stuff is not likely to get remembered by your average cop. Still a pain in the butt for that ham... |
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 01:03:16 GMT, Keith wrote:
Of course, if the amateur op doesn't have his license with him, the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the pre-emption does not cover him even though it still does, and if the rig has been modified so that it is capable of TRANSMITTING on the police frequency, the pre-emption is not valid even if the operator is a licensed amateur (per the FCC Public Notice on this matter many years ago). Please cite case law that supports your position that modified ham radios do not have the same exemption as all ham radios? That was the deal that the League worked out with the FCC - if the radio did not transmit "out of band" then the preemption covered. The intent was to exclude VHF/UHF transceivers which have been "opened up". I'll dig out the Public Notice if I can find it. It was many years ago. If I add 5 MHz capability to a radio do I now lose all protection of Federal laws? Does your HF transceivertransmit on public safety VHF/UHF frequencies? Does your VHF/UHF amateur transceiver transmit on 5 MHz ?? What about if I build a kit or use a land mobile radio in the ham bands? If you have the installed capability of transmitting on a non-amateur frequency and do not have a license for such operation, it is not covered under the preemption and it's your job to talk yourself out of the jam. You're on your own..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
Just to muddy the water, if I modify my 706 so I can use it on 5 MHz, it
would transmit on public safety VHF/UHF frequencies. 73, David K5DEL Does your HF transceivertransmit on public safety VHF/UHF frequencies? Does your VHF/UHF amateur transceiver transmit on 5 MHz ?? |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message et... On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 01:03:16 GMT, Keith wrote: Of course, if the amateur op doesn't have his license with him, the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the pre-emption does not cover him even though it still does, and if the rig has been modified so that it is capable of TRANSMITTING on the police frequency, the pre-emption is not valid even if the operator is a licensed amateur (per the FCC Public Notice on this matter many years ago). Please cite case law that supports your position that modified ham radios do not have the same exemption as all ham radios? That was the deal that the League worked out with the FCC - if the radio did not transmit "out of band" then the preemption covered. The intent was to exclude VHF/UHF transceivers which have been "opened up". I'll dig out the Public Notice if I can find it. It was many years ago. I read that when it was initially out and have no recollection of the "out-of-band" transmit aspect. The issue always was focused on amteur rigs that could also recieve (i.e. listen to) police broadcasts from an automobile. If I add 5 MHz capability to a radio do I now lose all protection of Federal laws? Does your HF transceivertransmit on public safety VHF/UHF frequencies? Does your VHF/UHF amateur transceiver transmit on 5 MHz ?? Today there are several HF/VHF rigs that can do so. IC-706 has 6m and 2m, several other HF rigs now cover HF plus 6, 2 and 440. In all the cases of harrased hams (harassed by police) in states with laws forbidding listening to police transmissions, the issue was always listening to..not transmitting on, police frequencies. Here in NJ we finally changed the old state law around 1994. What about if I build a kit or use a land mobile radio in the ham bands? If you have the installed capability of transmitting on a non-amateur frequency and do not have a license for such operation, it is not covered under the preemption and it's your job to talk yourself out of the jam. You're on your own..... I truly don't recall that to be the case at all...for kits and or commercial ham transcievers modified to allow non-ham frequencies (e.g. MARS) or modified to do so because there is a NEW ham set of frequencies (e.g. 5MHz) .. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 01:03:16 GMT, Keith wrote: Of course, if the amateur op doesn't have his license with him, the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the pre-emption does not cover him even though it still does, and if the rig has been modified so that it is capable of TRANSMITTING on the police frequency, the pre-emption is not valid even if the operator is a licensed amateur (per the FCC Public Notice on this matter many years ago). Please cite case law that supports your position that modified ham radios do not have the same exemption as all ham radios? That was the deal that the League worked out with the FCC - if the radio did not transmit "out of band" then the preemption covered. The intent was to exclude VHF/UHF transceivers which have been "opened up". I'll dig out the Public Notice if I can find it. It was many years ago. If I add 5 MHz capability to a radio do I now lose all protection of Federal laws? Does your HF transceivertransmit on public safety VHF/UHF frequencies? Does your VHF/UHF amateur transceiver transmit on 5 MHz ?? Yup, my FT-847 can recieve & transmit 160M thru 2m except 60M plus 440 all modes out of the box and it'll fit under the dash. Ditto a number of other current-tech xcvrs like the very popular IC-706, etc. If I mod it to operate on 60M which is clearly a legal maneuver I'll also be able to operate all over the VHF and lower UHF spectrum which is clearly illegal. What about if I build a kit or use a land mobile radio in the ham bands? If you have the installed capability of transmitting on a non-amateur frequency and do not have a license for such operation, it is not covered under the preemption and it's your job to talk yourself out of the jam. You're on your own..... That old Public Notice is the problem, it is not the solution. w3rv |
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 01:03:16 GMT, Keith wrote:
Of course, if the amateur op doesn't have his license with him, the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the pre-emption does not cover him even though it still does, and if the rig has been modified so that it is capable of TRANSMITTING on the police frequency, the pre-emption is not valid even if the operator is a licensed amateur (per the FCC Public Notice on this matter many years ago). Please cite case law that supports your position that modified ham radios do not have the same exemption as all ham radios? And on Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:09:22 -0700 (PDT), Phil Kane wrote: That was the deal that the League worked out with the FCC - if the radio did not transmit "out of band" then the preemption covered. The intent was to exclude VHF/UHF transceivers which have been "opened up". I'll dig out the Public Notice if I can find it. It was many years ago. FCC PR Docket No. 91-36 MO&O Released September 3, 1993. V. CONCLUSION [Emphasis added] 13. We hold that state and local laws that preclude the possession in vehicles or elsewhere of amateur radio service transceivers by amateur operators merely on the basis that the transceivers are capable of the RECEPTION of public safety, special emergency, or other radio service frequencies, the RECEPTION of which is not prohibited by federal law, are inconsistent with the federal objectives of facilitating and promoting the amateur radio service and, more fundamentally, with the federal interest in amateur operators' being able to transmit and receive on authorized amateur service frequencies. We therefore hold that such state and local laws are preempted by federal law. Footnotes 33. The rules, however, do prohibit amateur service transmissions outside of the allocated amateur service bands. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 97.307(b); Public Notice, Extended Coverage Transceivers in the Amateur Radio Service, mimeo no. 4114 (July 21, 1987)(noting that "[i]t is a violation of the Commission's regulations to . . . transmit on a frequency allocated to a licensed service without the appropriate Commission-issued station license."). The above proceedings are very clear that it covers only "out of band" reception and does not cover equipment that has "out of band" transmit capability. Not being a real lawyer, although you try to play one, you may not accept the fact that in FCC practice, situations which are not specifically mentioned for preemption are not preempted. Adminsitrative Practice 101. There has not been any challenge to this ruling, therefore it stands as effective law until overturned. Administrative Practice 102. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel |
On 17 Sep 2003 22:17:01 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:
If you have the installed capability of transmitting on a non-amateur frequency and do not have a license for such operation, it is not covered under the preemption and it's your job to talk yourself out of the jam. You're on your own..... That old Public Notice is the problem, it is not the solution. Perhaps someone will take it up with the Five Gnomes and see if they can get it right this time. As if they will know what we are talking about. ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:14:03 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:
I read that when it was initially out and have no recollection of the "out-of-band" transmit aspect. The issue always was focused on amteur rigs that could also recieve (i.e. listen to) police broadcasts from an automobile. See my posting on that. The preemption only covered receive capability. Gotta read the footnotes, too. Don't get me wrong.....I, too, feel that if it is not -used- to transmit, it's no one's business, but until and unless the situation is clarified, it is what it is. If you were to ask me if an automobile proceeding down Main Street needs a rider on a horse to proceed it with a blue lantern, the answer might be "yes" if the old ordinance has never been removed. That doesn't mean that I agree with it, or that the ordinance is not stupid - it means that that's what it still says. Today there are several HF/VHF rigs that can do so. IC-706 has 6m and 2m, several other HF rigs now cover HF plus 6, 2 and 440. In all the cases of harrased hams (harassed by police) in states with laws forbidding listening to police transmissions, the issue was always listening to..not transmitting on, police frequencies. It's time for the Five Gnomes to revisit the situation - as if they know what we are talking about. We all know that ham radio issues are not high on the Totem Pole at the FCC any more. Here in NJ we finally changed the old state law around 1994. My rock-bottom stance is that such statutes should clearly indicate that what is prohibited is radio equipment used in connection with illegal activity - nothing more. That is a legitimate law enforcement objective, and does not involve the law enforcement officers (who are not qualified technicians) in determining if the equipment has been modified or whether it has the capability of transmitting and if so on what frequencies. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:43:57 -0400, Richard J Hasbro wrote:
Perhaps someone will take it up with the Five Gnomes and see if they can get it right this time. As if they will know what we are talking about. ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon Will you please check & correct your posting headers? You are posting to this forum using incorrect headers. What is there in the headers that you object to? Thank you, You're welcome. Rich Detroit, MI Hasbro Tronics LTD -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message et... On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:14:03 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote: I read that when it was initially out and have no recollection of the "out-of-band" transmit aspect. The issue always was focused on amteur rigs that could also recieve (i.e. listen to) police broadcasts from an automobile. See my posting on that. The preemption only covered receive capability. Gotta read the footnotes, too. OK, that being the case, the few actual state laws I know about don't question transmit, but rather only make it illegal to be able to listen ... usually only in a vehicle...except (I think) in either FL or KY. Don't get me wrong.....I, too, feel that if it is not -used- to transmit, it's no one's business, but until and unless the situation is clarified, it is what it is. If you were to ask me if an automobile proceeding down Main Street needs a rider on a horse to proceed it with a blue lantern, the answer might be "yes" if the old ordinance has never been removed. That doesn't mean that I agree with it, or that the ordinance is not stupid - it means that that's what it still says. Today there are several HF/VHF rigs that can do so. IC-706 has 6m and 2m, several other HF rigs now cover HF plus 6, 2 and 440. In all the cases of harrased hams (harassed by police) in states with laws forbidding listening to police transmissions, the issue was always listening to..not transmitting on, police frequencies. It's time for the Five Gnomes to revisit the situation - as if they know what we are talking about. We all know that ham radio issues are not high on the Totem Pole at the FCC any more. Here in NJ we finally changed the old state law around 1994. My rock-bottom stance is that such statutes should clearly indicate that what is prohibited is radio equipment used in connection with illegal activity - nothing more. That is exactly how we changed the NJ law. Today, anyone can have a scanner anywhere in NJ (home, car, etc) and unless they are using the scanner in connection with illegal criminal activity, there's no violation. That is a legitimate law enforcement objective, and does not involve the law enforcement officers (who are not qualified technicians) in determining if the equipment has been modified or whether it has the capability of transmitting and if so on what frequencies. Agreed. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 01:28:33 GMT, Keith wrote:
Several years ago a cop issued a three year old child a ticket for trespassing. Of course, rational minds stopped that insanity. Send said cop back to training....... If you had been the DA I think you would have attempted to get the three year old charged as a adult and probably thrown in a stalking charge to seal his fate. You thunk wrong. I would have attempted to get said cop examined by a shrink. Stop playing the fool about what I would think or not think, especially about the law and how I would apply it. By your own declaration you have no qualifications as an attorney and are therefore unqualified to debate with me as an equal or better in that regard. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:52:35 -0400, Richard J Hasbro wrote:
Your postings are reading out garbled and/or incomplete on some news readers, due to incorrect headers. Excuse me for bothering you...sheeeesh! What in the header is incorrect? My outgoing character set is ISO 8859-1 (Latin 1). If it is something that can be "fixed" at this end, I'll look ito it. If it's something that my ISP is adding, well, that's beyond my control. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 00:32:50 -0400, Troll Patrol wrote:
Stop playing the fool about what I would think or not think, especially about the law and how I would apply it. By your own declaration you have no qualifications as an attorney and are therefore unqualified to debate with me as an equal or better in that regard. Kane hits another perfect "Ten" on the troll-o-meter TROLL-O-METER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 / / / / / / / Troll-O-Meter Reading Troll Patrol HQ Mission Accomplished. Over and Out. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com