"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:18:18 -0600, "FeMaster" FeMaster @ hotmail . com
wrote:


Being in Michigan, a person needs a permit to possess a scanner in their
vehicle. Local "enforcement" doesn't want you to listen in on their
activities. Of the three people in my family that applied for and
received
those permits, I'm the only one that still has one. The other two have
had
them revoked due to these "criminals in uniform". I'm thinking that the
only reason I still have mine is that I work 3rd shift and am not out
much
during the day, thus not being as "visible" or "accessible" as the other
two
are...

Oh, I think there must be some details you are leaving out as to WHY the
others had their permit revoked.

Fight it in court if you feel you have been wronged. Surely if they have
done
nothing wrong, there will be no problem getting the permits back.


Nothing has been left out... It is told as it was.

You can't fight something in court if you can't afford it. One of the
individuals is unemployed, collecting Social Security for a disability, and
can hardly live on what he gets as it is. The other works fast food, as he
is not of the "career" age yet. Are you going to provide the funding for
the hearings and/or trials? Didn't think so...

Around here they actually make up stories and send them to the
Communications Director in charge of issuing the permits.

And it's up to them to actually prove these stories when you drag it
through
court.


See above... They know the individuals can't afford it, so they don't have
any worries about it...

1: One was "following emergency calls and showing up at the scene".
Funny,
he was in the area, fishing, before the call ever even came in, but it
was a
good excuse to pull his license...

Just showing up at calls is not illegal, so long as you don't interfere
with
their job.


Well, maybe where you are, but in Michigan it IS illegal if you posses the
permit (possibly even without it). The very section just above where you
sign the permit application, states:

"I agree not to use the vehicle equipped with a short wave radio receiving
set in the commission of a crime or to assist anyone in doing so. **I agree
not to answer police calls or pursue police vehicles answering radio
dispatches** if a permit is approved for any police frequencies. I have read
and understand Section 605 of the Federal Communication Act of 1934
concerning unauthorized publication of communications. I certify the
foregoing statements are true"

2: One was "convicted" of "publishing" because he was found to possess a
notebook with a list of frequencies in it that he had programmed into his
scanner. Another good reason to pull a license...

I don't know what "convicted of publishing" means, but if someone has been
arrested and found guilty of a certain crime, perhaps Michigan's scanner
law
details this as a reason to no longer have a mobile permit. Do the
research
and if they're in the wrong, oh well......


Neither were arrested, or ticketed, or anything of the such. With incident
#1, only a "verbal warning" was issued, even though there was no reason for
it. With incident #2, the notebook was confiscated, never to be returned...
Nothing was said about revoking the permits, or anything even remotely close
to it, yet about 2 months later, letters from the Communications Division
were received, in both cases, stating that the permits were revoked.
Neither of the parties were in the wrong, and, I have done the research.

Below is Section 605 Subsection "a" of the Federal Communication Act of
1934, which is found on the back of the permit application. This will give
you an idea of what is meant by "publishing". As you can see by the text,
making a list of frequencies is not illegal, only the writing down
(publishing) of the content which has been "heard" from the scanner is
illegal, yet they made claim, regardless, that he was "publishing" police
activities...

*_ [text] _* - Areas that are underlined within the text on the permit
** [text] ** - Areas that are relevant to what I am saying

Sec. 605. Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications.

(a) Practices Prohibited.

Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, **no person receiving,
assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any
interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or
publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning
thereof**, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception,
(1) to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or attorney, (2) to a
person employed or authorized to forward such communication to its
destination, (3) to proper accounting or distributing officers of the
various communicating centers over which the communication may be passed,
(4) to the master of a ship under whom he is serving, (5) in response to a
subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (6) on demand of
other lawful authority. *_No person not being authorized by the sender shall
intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish_* the existence,
contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of *_such intercepted
communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall_*
receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by
radio and *_use such communication (or any information therein contained)
for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto._* No
person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become
acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such
communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any
information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of
another not entitled thereto. This section shall also apply to the
receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio
communication which is transmitted by any station for the use of the general
public, which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or person in distress,
or which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a
citizens band radio operator.


If you're in the right, fight it. Either that, or don't complain about
it.

I do what I can with regards to such things, unfortunately, the two that
have been treated unjustly are unable to do so for reasons like those stated
above.