Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 ?? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Felon N8WWM has a court ordered shrink | General | |||
N8WWM COURT DOCUMENTS | General | |||
GAY PRIDE WEEK VICTORY | General | |||
War Criminal Bush suspends Military Aid to Countries that Support World Court | General | |||
Gays proud in New York | General |