* 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...