eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a Ham Radio):

from Joe, W2JLH on December 8, 2005
Website: http://www.wb2hww.com/viewtopic.php?p=131&sid=7177ab750e453915e417f44c8ae440b7#131
View comments about this article!

Guilty Guilty!

Back on May 12 2005 I received a "cell phone in use" ticket on 23rd Street and FDR Drive Manhattan. The Hearing was today and the judge found me guilty.

How it unfolded:

I am so angry I feel violated and I feel every Amateur Radio Operator recieved a ticket today.

The officer swore in and explained that "he saw me using a cell phone, pulled me over and explained that I cannot use a cell phone while driving". The judge asked If I wanted to speak I said "Your honor, after the officer stopped and explained that he was going to give me a ticket for "cell phone in use" I told the officer that this was not a cell phone it is an amateur radio" I explained to the judge that I was a licensed amateur radio operator and handed him my original license and also pointed out that my license plate was an amateur radio license plate. I also presented a written letter from KC2CBA Tom Golero which was notorized and explained that at the time of the incident I was talking to him on amateur radio like we do every morning.

The judge did not buy it and I told him, "your honor with all do respect NYC TRAFFIC LAW TITLE 7 ARTICLE 33 1225C (B) DEFINES A "MOBILE TELEPHONE AS ONE CONNECTED TO A PUBLIC SWITCH". Amateur radio is not connected to a public switch its Radio to Radio.

Then he opened his law book read it but still was in doubt. He asked me to describe the radio and how I was using it. I described the Mobile radio and made it clear that it was a microphone with a cord held in front of my mouth. THAT WAS ENOUGH FOR HIM TO HEAR AND HE SAID I WAS GUILTY because I held it in close proximaty to my ear.

We all got a ticket today.

I will appeal. I contacted George Tranos ARRL Section Manager NYC/LI and informed him. Unfortunately he was not there so I left a message and my number.

I might need all the help I can get for this guys.

Lets Make Noise!
Joe W2JLH

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by N1VVD on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Keep Appealing this.
This is "Bull".
There is a big difference between using a cell phone and talking on HAM radio.
Let them know that its hands free listening...
Just like it is in all their public service vehicles.

My fear is once it starts in 1 state,.........
Best of luck.....
 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KO4NX on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Hello:

Have you considered speaking with the ARRL legal department? In Washington DC they have implemented a similar law about using cell phones while driving. I would hate to think one could be ticketed under that law.

If this becomes the standard I see no reason to keep a mobile transceiver in my car. This would be a shame since I spent good money for the radio and installation.


73

Rich, AJ3G
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by AC2RC on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Was the judge made aware of the fact that in an emergency like 9/11 hundreds of hams went to NYC to help and every year many hams help at the big NYC Marathon ? Maybe next time they won't go !
 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by K0RFD on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Sounds like you didn't have an attorney.

Hard to argue legal technicalities without one.
 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by W9GDH on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
This is a good example to insure that ANY law banning
the use of cell phones while driving has an exemption for ham radio.
 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KG6THM on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
While I would certainly agree that using an amateur radio does not violate the letter of the law, I do think it honors the intent. As a motorcyclist, the greatest threat to me on the road is distracted drivers; in todays world, that usually means people on cell phones. I appreciate operating mobile as much as the next ham, but I value my life more.

73,
Brett / KG6THM
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by SFD301 on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
>>>>>>While I would certainly agree that using an amateur radio does not violate the letter of the law, I do think it honors the intent. As a motorcyclist, the greatest threat to me on the road is distracted drivers; in todays world, that usually means people on cell phones. I appreciate operating mobile as much as the next ham, but I value my life more.<<<<<<<

Can't argue here with the principle, however, there is very little evidence that suggests there are more accidents using cell phones than any other thing...that is ham radio, application of makeup, eatting, drinking, and so on. We all need to take responsibility for our actions and stop having the gov't make legislation to "protect" us when common sense will do. If you ban cells, than ban EVERYTHING else, or at least start ticketing for it!
 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KC9IHY on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I'm not sure what concerns me most about this: the absurd argument itself or the hierarchy everyone seems in such a hurry to establish.

As far as the argument goes, we've all heard it before, though it used to go "I'm a parent and I like to keep tabs on my children. I only occasionally use my cellular phone while driving, I have a spotless driving record, and I shouldn't be punished just because a group of vapid sorority girls who can't get off their phones have caused a couple of wrecks." No one takes such an argument seriously, and yet the moment "cellular phone" is replaced with "ham radio," so many in the Amateur Radio community are up in arms. I imagine I'll be one of very few Amateurs who believe the ticket was deserved, but even those who disagree in principle should ask themselves whether they truly believe there is a difference. Isn't it just a matter of semantics?

And if there is a difference, maybe we should ask ourselves why we see one.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KC4GMY on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Regardless of whether Joe was safe or unsafe in his actions is not the point here. The law is the law:

NYC TRAFFIC LAW TITLE 7 ARTICLE 33 1225C (B) DEFINES A "MOBILE TELEPHONE AS ONE CONNECTED TO A PUBLIC SWITCH".

He got convicted for using a mobile telephone when in fact he was not using a mobile telephone.

If the city or state wants to convict people of using amateur radios while mobile in the future, they will need to revise current laws.

Joe is not guilty!

Which brings to mind a few more questions:
Are public servants breaking the law when using a mobile phone or radio? How do we know they are not phoning home for a milk or bread pick-up check?

How about commercial radios in vehicles? How about CB radios for truckers? Should the law only apply to handhelds?

Charles - KC4GMY
 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KZ1X on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
The people who stand to lose most in situations like this are the radio manufacturers.

What make radio do you own?

I would bet that Icom, Vertex Standard, Kenwood, and other makers of mobile and portable VHF type rigs would not be pleased to hear that laws were being enforced capriciously -- and in ways that directly, negatively affect the marketability of their wares.

If I were you:

1. I'd _never_ go into court without a lawyer. Judges are lawyers, and the 1st rule of lawyers is to make sure that more work keeps coming their way. Call me a cynic; it's the truth. Proof? This judge virtually guaranteed that at least several lawyers will end up making a few thousand bucks, for no good reason at all.

2. Get hold of the boss at the US HQ of the company that made your radio, and tell him what happened. Their corporate attorney will be VERY interested !!
 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by N7YV on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
The judge is an idiot.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by WI7B on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

After reading Title 7 Article 33-1225C, I do not believe Joe was in violation of this traffic law for conducting communication on a mobile amateur radio.

This law was obviously written with amateur radio (and other commerical services) in mind. I've reprint it below, so we're all on the same page.

73,

---* Ken

------------------------------------------

New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law - Title 7 Article 33 - 1225C

§ 1225-c. Use of mobile telephones. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms shall mean:
(a) "Mobile telephone" shall mean the device used by subscribers and other users of wireless telephone service to access such service.
(b) "Wireless telephone service" shall mean two-way real time voice telecommunications service that is interconnected to a public switched telephone network and is provided by a commercial mobile radio service, as such term is defined by 47 C.F.R. § 20.3.
(c) "Using" shall mean holding a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, the user's ear.
(d) "Hand-held mobile telephone" shall mean a mobile telephone with which a user engages in a call using at least one hand.
(e) "Hands-free mobile telephone" shall mean a mobile telephone that has an internal feature or function, or that is equipped with an attachment or addition, whether or not permanently part of such mobile telephone, by which a user engages in a call without the use of either hand, whether or not the use of either hand is necessary to activate, deactivate or initiate a function of such telephone.
(f) "Engage in a call" shall mean talking into or listening on a hand-held mobile telephone, but shall not include holding a mobile telephone to activate, deactivate or initiate a function of such telephone.
(g) "Immediate proximity" shall mean that distance as permits the operator of a mobile telephone to hear telecommunications transmitted over such mobile telephone, but shall not require physical contact with such operator's ear.
2. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway while using a mobile telephone to engage in a call while such vehicle is in motion.
(b) An operator of a motor vehicle who holds a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section. The presumption established by this subdivision is rebuttable by evidence tending to show that the operator was not engaged in a call.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not be construed as authorizing the seizure or forfeiture of a mobile telephone, unless otherwise provided by law.
3. Subdivision two of this section shall not apply to (a) the use of a mobile telephone for the sole purpose of communicating with any of the following regarding an emergency situation:
an emergency response operator; a hospital, physician's office or health clinic; an ambulance company or corps; a fire department, district or company; or a police department, (b) any of the following persons while in the performance of their official duties: a police officer or peace officer; a member of a fire department, district or company; or the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle as defined in section one hundred one of this chapter, or (c) the use of a hands-free mobile telephone.
4. A violation of subdivision two of this section shall be a traffic infraction and shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by AA2LD on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
In the meantime, while this all sorts out, I'll use the simple little earphone bud/microphone combo with my THF6A. Suggest everyone do the same.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by N3UJX on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Can't you present your phone bill to prove that the phone was not in use at the time of the ticket?
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by WA4MJF on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Your Guv is a former ham. It might
just be a lot cheaper and easier to
ask hom for a pardon and then it
will be as if you were never convicted.

Don't know that George will, but it'll only
cost a stamp or phone call to find out.
It would probably help if you're a card
carrying member of the NY GOP.

Happy Holidaze!

73 de Ronnie
 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by AB2NM on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Therefore every police officer, fireman, and ambulance driver is also in violation every time a mic is keyed in a moving vehicle. This'll slow things down a bit.

Did the good officer also write himself a ticket? Perhaps the mic was not in 'close proximity to his ear'.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by WX3ROB on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
It's a shame that in this day and age, a police officer does not know the difference between a cellphone and a two-way radio. I'm sure he uses his two-way radio while driving and I bet he also talks on his cellphone as well. BUT did he give himself a ticket???
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by K7BAL on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
>>>While I would certainly agree that using an amateur >>>radio does not violate the letter of the law, I do >>>think it honors the intent. As a motorcyclist, the >>>greatest threat to me on the road is distracted >>>drivers; in todays world, that usually means people >>>on cell phones. I appreciate operating mobile as >>>much as the next ham, but I value my life more.

>>>73,
>>>Brett / KG6THM

If you really value your life so much you might think about another mode of transportation. Remember, your safety is ultimately your responsibility...

20 years on Goldwings...

Brian
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by K7AAT on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

"Therefore every police officer, fireman, and ambulance driver is also in violation every time a mic is keyed in a moving vehicle. This'll slow things down a bit."

If you want to talk about "slowing things down a bit", think about the effect this would have on the NYC cab drivers. They use 2-way radios, too!


Ed
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by AA4PB on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
As I read it, the law does NOT say anything about cell phones. It says "mobile telephone". It defines a "mobile telephone" as being connected to a switched telephone network. That would be a loop hole for amateur radio provided you were not using an autopatch. I suspect the judge knew the difference but decided not to intertain the loop hole. He probably decided that there was little difference between holding a mobile telephone mike and holding an amateur radio mike.

If you take the time to read the law you will see that it makes specific exceptions for police and other official emergency communications or for anyone communicating with one of these. I read that to mean that you can use a cell phone to place a 911 call while in motion (I suspect you better be able to prove it was a 911 call you were making). The law specifically exempts police and other puplic service people while performing official duties.

Section 3(c) makes an allowance for hands free devices. The simplist solution then is to use a head mounted boom mike with vox or some type of PTT button.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by W9PMZ on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
While I sympathize with your plight, in the long run it's probably cheaper to pay the fine. Unless of course you get someone else to foot the legal bills.

I find it interesting that we will argue that we need to talk to Aunt Mary to bring home a loaf of bread on a 2M radio (assuming Aunt Mary is a ham) while a cell phone user cannot do the same. I suspect that since the law doesn't specifically exclude hams the judge concluded that the activity was the same and adjudicated the case accordingly.

If I were a NY ham I would be writing my congressman, to set the law straight. But be careful of what you with for. They could allow ham usage so long as it's in the interest of public service at the time of communication (like the fire, police, etc).

73,

Carl - W9PMZ
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by AG4RQ on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
New York’s Finest has truly gone nuts! I can’t believe that this actually happened. As a native New Yorker, I am appalled.

The fact that the judge found you guilty sets a dangerous precedent for hams and users of other radio services while mobile in New York. This is a matter of principle. Make sure you get this asinine decision overturned.

Milk the media. This will put the judge and the police officer in a bad light and get public opinion on your side. Make sure you play this up big. Cite examples of hams providing emergency communications during the 9/11 attacks, the 2003 blackout and other disasters, such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. The Daily News thrives on sensationalism. So do the TV stations. Go for it! You have the law on your side. According to the NY statutes, what you were using was not a mobile telephone. And by all means, GET AN ATTORNEY!
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by K7AAT on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

" It defines a "mobile telephone" as being connected to a switched telephone network. That would be a loop hole for amateur radio provided you were not using an autopatch."

A ham using an autopatch still doesn't meet the law's definition of a mobile telephone service.

Re-read the very first part of the law. It clearly states mobile telephone service as a service used by SUBSCRIBERS and other users of wireless services.

It furthe defines a wireless service as being provided by a COMMERCIAL RADIO-TELEPHONE company.

Ham radio and autopatch don't even come close to meeting this description.


Ed
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by AE6IP on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
One would think that US hams, who, at least, have to understand enough about how law works to interpret parts of the CFR, would understand that you can't figure out what a law covers merely by doing a lay person's non-legal interpretation of the text of a single section.

On the surface, the text of the law appears to be aimed specifically at cell phones. But the judge gets to take legislative intent and judicial precedents into accounts when interpretting it. The intent is clearly to increase public safety by reducing use of distracting devices while driving. It would take a search of cases to determine precedents.

If you're going to fight this in court, get a competent lawyer. And don't be surprised if the conviction is upheld and you get to set a precedent that won't make you happy.


 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KU4UV on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I feel for you, but have you ever known of a judge to go against any of the boys in blue? Not too many out there that will do that I bet. Good luck.

73,
KU4UV
 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KB9WSL on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I am glad you will file an appeal. I would get an attorney and find out if there are exemptions for tow trucks, fire trucks, ambulances, police vehicles, taxi cabs and limos. The way I see it, you are federally licensed and that should over-ride some local ordinance. I wonder if the judge has ever used his cellphone while driving to or from work.
Good Luck!!!!!!
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KA2UUP on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Why don't you take this to governor Pataki, WB2AQC? He might have something to say about it.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KA2UUP on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Oooooops! I forgot to ask the BIG question:

Was this a city cop or a state trooper? Was the case tried in NYC court, county or state court? I am not a lawyer, but that mat make a difference. Here in Massachusetts there is no prohibition for talking on cell phones while driving. However, Brookline, where all the hospitals are, has a law prohibiting cell phone use while driving.

There may be a difference on where the jurisdiction is. You may want to check that out.

Good night, and good luck!

73 de Bert at KA2UUP
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by AC7DX on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
read the law.....ALL of it. Under this law as it stands
You ARE guilty. Sorry, its the law
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by AG4RQ on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"He asked me to describe the radio and how I was using it. I described the Mobile radio and made it clear that it was a microphone with a cord held in front of my mouth. THAT WAS ENOUGH FOR HIM TO HEAR AND HE SAID I WAS GUILTY because I held it in close proximaty to my ear."

He was "guilty" because he held the microphone in close proximity to his ear? When you hold a cell phone to your ear, you hear audible sound from the device in your ear. You hear nothing when you hold a microphone to your ear. When you scratch your cheek, you're holding your hand in close proximity to your ear. If you do this while driving, should you be ticketed? I can see some argument for being ticketed while using an HT. You're holding it in close proximity to your ear, and you're hearing audible sound from the HT in your ear. This ham was using a mobile radio with a microphone, not an HT. I say he has an excellent argument in an appellate court.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by KB2CPW on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

The ticket you received is 1225.C2(A) of the VTL, if you read it, thats how the judge decided your fate.

As someone who writes these in NYC consistantly, the only thing you were guilty of was a NY law known as driving without both hands on wheel.

I would appeal the decision, you have 30 days to do so. Present notorized statements to the DMV in Albany, your ham license, your cell phone bill in your name showing on that date you didnt make a call from that phone.. Take pics of the radio you were using and submit them as evidence..

You should have came here before you got hammered, I would have walked you thru it..

To K7AAT, the law also states that Public entities are excluded from this law, nice try though!!

Richy N2ZD
 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KC2MMI on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Joe, I would suggest contacting your City Councilman and State Assemblyman as well. The hearing officer was wrong, the ticket agent was wrong, and the law calls for both of them to be disciplined for illegal prosecution. I would suggest that you ask the local pols for aid, and specifically tell them that these people are dangerously incompetent and the law does not allow that to be ignored.

You might also want to contact ARRL for a "lawyer's letter" from them, and Riley Hollingsworth at the FCC for a similar letter "TO Whom It May Concern" explaining how a ham radio is not a cell phone, and how New York (city and state) are not allowed to make any regulations concerning the use of them.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by K3AN on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
You can look for a loophole as long as you like, but the fact remains that two-way communication is a big distraction, whether it's cell phone or ham radio.

I'm retired now, but I remember more than once yakking on 2M during my daily commute, and having to tell the other(s) on frequency, "Oops, I missed my turn." I thank God that I never had to say, "Oops, I just hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk."

A bumper sticker I saw recently says it best, "Hang Up and Drive!"

 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by KC0USQ on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
that judge is just an idiot, lets hope that not all judges are that way
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by AD5TD on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
(QUOTE)While I sympathize with your plight, in the long run it's probably cheaper to pay the fine. Unless of course you get someone else to foot the legal bills.(QUOTE)

I't thinking like this that keeps laws and judges like that on the books.

Wear em' down and step on them...
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by KC0RCQ on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Liberal Activist Judges are ruining the country...
 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by N1HLE on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
no one else has said this so i will. you should have brought your radio to court and show them what it is.
 
NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KC2MMI on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Joe, was that actually a JUDGE?

IIRC the Parking Violations Bureau only uses "hearing officers", not real judges, for tickets. And these guys are in some ways worse, because they want to PRETEND that they're a judge and they can make laws.

Some are hard working stiffs...others are not.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by W9PMZ on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"(QUOTE)While I sympathize with your plight, in the long run it's probably cheaper to pay the fine. Unless of course you get someone else to foot the legal bills.(QUOTE)

I't thinking like this that keeps laws and judges like that on the books.

Wear em' down and step on them..."

Missing a few days work, $1000
Paying a lawyer, $1000
Appeal Filing Fees ???
Paying the eventual fine and court costs, $250
Pepto Bismal, $25

Making the point, sheer bull headedness...........

You obviously didn't read my whole post. I said at the end I'd be writing my congressman making sure the law is explicitly changed.

As AE6IP said, you maybe setting the precident. The activity of talking to a buddy on 2M is really no different than making a cell call. The laws intent is to make the roads safer by requiring keeping focus on driving and not communicating. Is there any real difference between non-emergency Amateur Radio Communication and a call on a cell phone? I think that this is the basis in the conviction. As AE6IP indicated the judge has the power to use the intent of the law.

But its your time and money, by all means go fight city hall. I've learned when it's time to change the battle tactics.............

73,

Carl - W9PMZ
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone':  
by AI2IA on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
VHF and UHF mobile transceivers (I don't mean H/Ts) are the essential tools of emergency radio service. It does not matter if this ham was rag chewing or engaged in a more serious communication. This situation has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with cell phone use - nothing! If we don't have New York City approval of mobile hams lawful engagement in communication, a essential source of backup communication is thrown away. It is noteworthy that some commentators can't see this.

If W2JLH does not get the support of the ARRL on this one, and if New York City lets this "guilty" decision stand, I expect some major changes in the way our local area hams will respond to the future needs of city government and to the ARRL as well.
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by KZ1O on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
It's interesting that cops are allowed to use their cell phones while driving.

Have those cops ever received training about how to use a cell phone while driving? If not, the law seems to favor someone because of their job status, and therefore seemingly patently illegal.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
While I disagree that we all got a ticket, I do hope you get all the help you need from The League.

I remember a ham getting a ticket, in NY state, for having a scanner in his car. It posted was many months ago in the article section.

May be what he did to get his ticket over turned would help you.

Bob
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by K2FRD on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
All - Be advised that we formed an action group several years ago to change New York's VTL-397 (the infamous "scanner law") http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Modify_NYSVTL397/ and we have been involved with Joe W2JLH's situation although we did not know he had not hired a League-affiliated attorney. We plan to work with him much more closely on his appeal and now have a ham-attorney working on the case. The whole situation is ridiculous, an affront to all hams, a travesty of the NYC judicial system, and cannot be left to rest to set a dangerous precedent.

BTW, in NYS, ham radio operators are considered emergency service personnel for purposes of obtaining vanity license plates at very favorable rates ($5/yr), so in no small sense, we are in the same category as police officers and fire department officials. Nevertheless, it would now be desirable for the cell phone Vehicle and Traffic Law in addition to VTL-397 be amended to categorically exempt ham operators vis a vis other emergency personnel since this case now is in the books.

BTW #2, while it would be easier for Joe to just pay the fine, this would create far too many potential problems for the 30,500 other hams in NY State. Our group will not let this matter rest.

73 de Fred K2FRD
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by WB6RXG on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"You can look for a loophole as long as you like, but the fact remains that two-way communication is a big distraction, whether it's cell phone or ham radio. "

So tell me, what's the difference between two-way communication on a radio or cellphone versus a conversation with a passenger in a vehicle? If you were to have your way there wouldn't be a AM/FM Radio/CD player in a car nor would there be any conversation with passengers allowed.

It's only a distraction if you let it become one.

Stuart
WB6RXG
25 1/2 years of two-way communication and zero accidents!
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by WB2LCW on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Very well then every Policeman,Fireman and EMT should be Ticketing themselves on a daily basis for violating the law according to this judge.
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by W9PMZ on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
W2JLH,

Look, I am no lawyer. But in my few dealings with lawyers and the law, what appears on the surface doesn't always mean explicitly what it says. Our legal system is precedant based, you need to research precedant before you can confidently claim being falsly convicted. Tread carefully.

I hope it turns out the way you want.

73,

Carl - W9PMZ

ps - keep us posted!
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by AC2RC on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
NYS lisence plates - you can get a vanity plate with your call sign and you can also get an 'emergency services plate' such as mine .The esp is available to lisenced hams , firefighters, emts.Two different plates .
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by W9PMZ on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"This situation has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with cell phone use - nothing! If we don't have New York City approval of mobile hams lawful engagement in communication, a essential source of backup communication is thrown away. It is noteworthy that some commentators can't see this. "

I don't understand why you do not see that talking to Aunt Mary on the 2M box to pick up a load of bread is the same as making a call on the cell to do the same. Why is it more equal via ham radio than a cell to get that loaf of bread? Speaking of hams are we more equal than others?

 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by W2NH on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I brought this up to Frank Fallon when Suffolk County first passed the cell phone law. Based upon ham phone patches it could be arguied that that might be construed as "connected to the switched network." As I recall his response was that the law is clear and Hams are exempt. That stupid judge will get his head handed to him. I would recommend filing a notice of claim against the city for false arrest even before the appeal. You have only 90 days in NYC. I came in just under the wire in that law when a piece of the #7 subway teack fell on me under Queens Plaza while I was riding a moped to work.

RAISE HELL
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by W2NH on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I brought this up to Frank Fallon when Suffolk County first passed the cell phone law. Based upon ham phone patches it could be arguied that that might be construed as "connected to the switched network." As I recall his response was that the law is clear and Hams are exempt. That stupid judge will get his head handed to him. I would recommend filing a notice of claim against the city for false arrest even before the appeal. You have only 90 days in NYC. I came in just under the wire in that law when a piece of the #7 subway teack fell on me under Queens Plaza while I was riding a moped to work.

RAISE HELL
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by K7AAT on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

It never ceases to amaze me how so many supposedly intelligent people can not read plain english. So many here have made reference to how amateur phone patches could be construed as following under this NYC law by referring to the "interconnected to a public switched telephone network. Why do you guys keep leaving off the rest of the sentence? It reads as follows:

"Wireless telephone service" shall mean two-way real time voice telecommunications service that is interconnected to a public switched telephone network and is provided by a commercial mobile radio service"

While an amateur autopatch might be considered connected to the public switched telephone system, on the other hand, an amateur radio autopatch sure as hell isn't provided by a commercial mobile radio service.

Ed
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by WB4QNG on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I think you might be stuck with paying the fine. I think it is going to be pretty hard to explain the difference to a lay man. You need to get the law change to spell out that ham radio's are exempt. I might be wrong but if I remember the scanner case the law excempted ham radio operators. They have a bill in Kentucky that would ban cell phone usage but it excempts the use of CB's there was a letter campaign to exempt ham radio but I think the bill had little or no chance on passing.
Terry
WB4QNG
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by WI7B on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

Joe,

We're with you! Don't listen to these folks who say you are guilty "under the law as it stands (AC7DX), aren't lawyers but want you not to waste your time ( W9PMZ), or want to interpet the "legislative intent and judicial precendents," (AE6IP).

YOU are the precendent, Joe!

Listen to Richy, N2ZD, and others in NYC. This law was written to EXEMPT the Amateur Radio Service, among others services.

For example, The U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary in non-emergency situations, utilize mobile, land-based radio to co-ordinate on-water drills and operations, as part of the Maritime Radio Service using mobile VHF radios. They are not a specified exempt service under the NYC law (they're not police, fire, or health workers, etc.), nor are they utilizing the radio service in an emergency. Yet, I will guarantee - although I am NO lawyer, nor live in NYC - that as members of the Department of Homeland Security, they will not be ticketed in NYC.

What do think, Joe?

73,

---* Ken
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by K4RAF on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
All I can say is, if you'd had a headset on, you wouldn't have got the ticket...
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by K3AN on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
The other day I was driving on the interstate when this woman driving a big SUV passed me on the left, talking on her cell phone. She was only going a little faster than I was, and she apparently started drifting toward my lane before she was even fully ahead of me. She was almost against my front fender before I realized it. I hit the brakes and swerved to the right. This caused me to drop my electric razor into the cup of coffee I had between my legs, which spilled with painful effect. This resulted in further swerving before I regained control, causing my laptop to slide off the seat and onto the floor, crashing the hard drive and wiping out the spreadsheet I had been working on. In complete anger and frustration, I mashed the horn button, realizing too late that I was crushing the LCD screen of the portable DVD player I had installed there.

Dang cell phone drivers!
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by KD7YVV on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Is this judge an idiot or what?
If it looks like a mobile radio, sounds like a mobile
radio, and is sold as a mobile radio, then what in
God's green earth gave the judge the idea that
it was a cellphone?
Did it say "Brand new Icom IC-7000 cellphone?"
Because ham radio operators are licensed under a
federal agency, aren't they supposed to be exempt
from state and local laws?
I think Joe should appeal, and once he wins, he should
sue to get his name cleared.
I'm no lawyer and don't pretend to be one, but I think
that the judge really needs his head handed to him on
this one.

--KD7YVV, Kirkland, Washington
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by KD7YVV on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
http://www.monitoringtimes.com/html/mtlaws_feb04.html
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by W4DON on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
You should have asked the Judge to find the Officer guilty also because he more than likely used his microphone and ears to communicate with his dispatcher.

You (We) are dealing with a bunch of dumbass judges and law-inforcement people that have more degrees than a thermometer but no common sense. Common sense being that which one was born with.

I assume you didn't have an attorney present? Judges frown upon that. Lawyers stick together like tar and feathers because they're in the same racket. Money.

W4DON



 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by KL7IPV on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Quote,"While I sympathize with your plight, in the long run it's probably cheaper to pay the fine. Unless of course you get someone else to foot the legal bills."

Now THAT is really a stupid thing to say. Once a ticket like that is allowed to remain then the law becomes one of precedent and other courts can cite that as case law to issue tickets in other jurisdictions. Fight that sucker! Do NOT let it rest. If it does not get reversed, then the legislative bodies will have made exemptive law and they are slow to do that. Good luck.
73,
Frank
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by KC2MMI on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Please folks, those of you who have not read the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Laws (online or in print), restrain yourselves!

This is not a "court" matter. There is no "judge" involved. There are no "crimes" here.

In NYS, a "traffic infraction" is dealt with by an "administrative tribunal" in populous areas, including NYC. Administrative Law is neither Civil Law nor Criminal Law. A "Hearing Officer" sits behind the desk.

And, also under our VTL, "the people" (meaning the man who wrote the infraction and the hearing officer) have an express and specific burden to prove the exact offense. They are not allowed any room or leeway as to what the Legislature might or might not have meant. They are only allowed to write tickets, and enforce them, according to the specifics of the VTL.

And since the VTL specifically does not cover ham radios, this case is another example of two people who need to be dismissed from their jobs. (The hearing officer and whoever wrote the ticket, cop or brownie whatever it was.) Unforunately, the burden falls on JOe but once his appeal goes up to someone who understands how to READ, his ticket will be dismissed.

Yes, it is that simple. A couple of wanna-bes (wanna-be a cop, wanna-be a judge) overstepped themselves and if Joe can afford to make some calls and send out some letters, they will both get slammed for this.
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by CHADRT on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I just received my license and I know from experience driving my wrecker and using my two way radio was a complete difference from using my cell phone. We are not straining to hear our phones with our hands attached to our ear or our heads cocked to the side while holding the phone between our ears and shoulder. this is a big difference. I hope that this gets overturned and if a ham radio operator had pulled that judge out of the wreckage at the twin towers and had radioed his buddy that let his loved ones know he was ok, maybe he would have a different outlook on the situation.
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by KC8VWM on December 8, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

There is going to be some serious hell to pay over this in NYC!

Screw the fine.

Who do I write! Who want's my signature on a petition?

Let's get the ARRL involved!

I'm NOT going to sit back and take this abuse of the legal system lightly, neither should any of you.

It's time for action!


73

Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by W9PMZ on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Look at the law's intent.

The perception is that people do not pay attention to the road using a cell phone. Perhaps a well intended law.

Obviously in this case the outcome is not what the defendant, or the ham community wants.

Since we provide emergency communications every now and then when called upon we should have the right to rag chew on the radio when a cell phone user cannot.

If I were a cell phone user and I received a ticket I for one would be appealing that if hams can, why can't I? After all, I as a cell phone user can provide emergency communication when possible.

With regard to the issue of public service employees, I believe that permission here is that the employee is acting in the public's interest, and that the presumption is that the employee has been trained to operate the cell in an emergency situation; that the benefit to the public outweighs the enforcement of the law.

I hope that the ham community can prevail in this case but I do would not hold out hope. Traffic in large cities is a testing situation and government officials are going to pass laws to try to keep drivers focused on the task at hand. And right now the order of the day is to prevent accidents in large cities due to inattentive drivers. An individual maybe able to drive for 24 years without an accident, rag chewing, talking on the cell, talking to a passenger, etc.; but laws are made to protect the many from the few.

Of course I will now get the all or nothing argument, if you don't let us rag chew you won't get emergency communication. But, as in the scanner law, you can install it, but don't use it until there is an emergency and it's in the public's interest that you use it because the greater good of usage outweighs the intent of the law.

73,

Carl - W9PMZ
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by WR8D on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Kentucky has a "scanner" law which is in a way an example of this. They don't want anyone listening in on emergency freq's especially police freq's. This law does not apply to amateur radio here even though some of our mobile rigs look just like scanners and some of us have been ask by cops if they are scanners when being pulled over by them. Your finding that your arrl rep is out is also typicial. Mine never came back ten years ago. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by W2JLH on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Hello everyone. I am Joe W2JLH the HAM who recieved the ticket and was found guilty at the hearing. I want to thank you all for your comments. There are so many mixed opinions on what I should do its a bit confusing. I was found guilty on 12/07/05 and have 30 days to apeal ........ well 28 now. I have lots of support from my friends at the WB2HWW repeater system here in New York. I know that on apeal the transcript of the hearing will shout out loud "NOT GUILTY". You see when I pointed out the Law to the judge he was baffled he opened his law book, read my quote ........paused for a good 6 seconds and at that point asked me describe the radio and how you were using it. At that point THATS WHEN HE BASICALLY ACCEPTED THAT IT WAS A RADIO..................ALSO THE OFFICER NEVER NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO THE JUDGE TO CONTRADICT WHEATHER IT WAS A Amateur Radio or NOT. The judge clearly could not interpret the law.

The officer was smiling with a sarcastic smile once the judged ruled. I want to make a BIG DEAL OUT OF THIS. I want to apeal and be found not guilty and have it posted in some NEWSPAPER so that the whole city can be aware. Specifically the Precint where the officer works.
However, having said this, I also have to do things right and that would be getting a Good AMATEUR RADIO OPERATOR LAWYER.

For those who said that you did not agree that we all recieved a Ticket and were found guity. Shame on you for not standing up to a clear cut and dry INJUSTICE.

For those who said that you did not agree that we all recieved a Ticket and were found guity I advise you not to come to New York and drive by 23rd street and FDR drive at 7:45 AM on a weekday if you plan to talk on your MOBILE AMATEUR RADIO because YOU WILL GET PULLED OVER AND ................WE WILL SEE IF YOUR OPINION CHANGES.

Thanks for reading, thanks to all who are suporting me and, I will keep everyone posted.

73 DE Joe W2JLH
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by K2FP on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I agree that there is a big difference between using a cell phone and talking on HAM radio.

Both require some concentration to communicate with the other party. That's where the similarity ends. Typical mobile Ham Radio communication also requires detailed searching, in some case using a two inch bandscope, tuning in the station, possible adjustment of the bandwidth, IF shift, and noise reduction controls, preamp, attenuator, and of one or more of 90 menu items as required.

It's probably too dangerous to log your contact on a laptop while driving. For safety's sake, just jot down the info on a pad while driving, and wait until you get home to log it into your PC. If you must operate mobile CW, please be extra careful.

Can't wait to install my new IC-7800 in the Bonneville.

73, and Happy Holidays. Drive safely.
Lou
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by W9PMZ on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"paused for a good 6 seconds and at that point asked me describe the radio and how you were using it. At that point THATS WHEN HE BASICALLY ACCEPTED THAT IT WAS A RADIO"

Emphasize "and how you were using it" The judge interperted your action as a violation of the intent of the law. The intent is to keep drivers attentive to their driving.

I truly wish you well.

73,

Carl - W9PMZ
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by KC8VWM on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

Look at the law's intent.

-----

Ok, like the idea that the laws intent isn't to completely disregard exemption clauses that are specific to operating Amateur Radio equipment while in a vehicle in the state of New York?

It's not a cell phone. The law does not state, "While operating Amateur Radio equipment in a vehicle."

What's next? A cell phone ticket for operating your car radio?

Public officials are twisting the intent of the cell phone law beyond it's original intent. Period.

The cell phone law is serving their own blasphemous agendas with a complete disregard for any exemption clauses that are clearly stated.

Pretty soon you will be arrested for wearing a cell phone while in a vehicle. That's the direction this law seems to be going.

Stand up and fight this circus charade!
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by W9PMZ on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"It's not a cell phone. The law does not state, "While operating Amateur Radio equipment in a vehicle." "

Charles - you got the point, but the wrong conclusion. While the law addresses cell phones it does not in the definitions address Amateur Radio. Because the law does not address Amateur Radio specifically the judge was left to interpert the intent law based on the existing definitions. The judge found that Amateur Radio was akin to cell phone usage. Again, because Amateur Radio is not specifically addressed in the definitions.

The law needs changed to address Amateur Radio in the definitions.

73,

Carl - W9PMZ


 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by KC8VWM on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

Well Carl perhaps you should read this definition for clarity:

-------------

§ 7-806. New York City Administrative Code

(b.) In any civil enforcement action, all essential elements of the cause of action, including damages, shall be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

--------------

The city of New York has an obligation to prove he was in fact using a cell phone or mobile telephone device under that stated definition of the law at the time of the offense.

Simply stated, there are no laws stating you cannot operate Amateur Radio equipment while driving. Similarly, there are no laws that indicate a Taxi driver cannot operate his radio equipment while driving.

The law he was charged with violates any burden of proof on behalf of the city. The law is strictly related to operating cell phones ONLY while driving. That means there is no "Amateur Radio" equipment specifically mentioned in this law.

This cell phone law cannot extend this to mean or be interpreted as related to ANY and ALL other electronic devices while driving.

You can't stretch the definition of any given law to fit into an offense.

Being charged for operating an amateur radio may be a driving distraction however it isn't any more applicable to this cell phone law any differently than operating your IPOD or MP3 player while driving.

Electronic devices including amateur radio communication equipment, Ipods or MP3 players are not defined as cell phones under the law. Otherwise if it were, it would be stated in that law.

Clearly, it is not defined as such.

73 Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by W9PMZ on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
No mountain of evidence needed here, I believe he admitted to using a ham radio.

The judge then applied "the law", and since no mention of ham radio was in the definitions, he judged the activity within the scope of the cell phone law.

That is why there are appeals.

I hope the appeals court sees it the "ham" way. But it seems that unless there has been a real miscarrigage of justice, an appeals court probably wouldn't over turn the conviction.

By the way I really do hope that a court sees it JLH's way!

73,

Carl - W9PMZ
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by W9PMZ on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
One last comment, it's not what you or I believe what is the right thing, it's what the courts believe.......


73,

Carl - W9PMZ
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by KB2CPW on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!


Joe, did you go to 19 Rector St? Who presided over your case?.. Too bad you didnt get Ms. Fink, she would release Charles Manson and Satan onto the street if she could :-)
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by W9WHE-II on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Law and medicine are two places where "do it yourselfers" can get badly burned. Sure, you saved a few bucks up front, but now you may spend TEN TIMES that much and still not get your conviction overturned.

If you had an attorney, you likely would have had ADMISSIBLE evidence and witnesses that would likely have defeated the state's case.

Sometimes hams DON'T know everything.
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by SWANMAN on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
The ironic part is, had this been a CB radio, he would have never even gotten a ticket.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by AG4HY on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
unfortunately 99.999999% of judges are idiots.
what do you call a lawyer, that can't pass the bar exam? answer: your honor.
as for as myself, if i lived in ny, and they got their tail in a crack, they could get it out as best they could. help out in anyway, h*** no, my answer to them in an emergency would be an emphatic, "i don't do that anymore....
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KC8VWM on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

For once (and this time only) I respectfully agree with W9WHE.

An attorney is going to be required for the appeal process.

With all due respect we can all sit here all day long and interpret the scanner /cellphone/ taxi radio/ CB radio /IPOD / AM car radio laws in our own way of thinking all day long.

Our primary mission in the grand scope of things is to raise due hell over this decision and to make as much noise as possible.

Our brother has asked for our help and either your in or your out. ...Plain and simple.

Mark my words when I say you will soon be hearing about this story on the national level.

This freight train is just getting started.

...All aboard!

Let's give Joe our full support!

73

Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by AG4HY on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
unfortunately 99.999999% of judges are idiots.
what do you call a lawyer, that can't pass the bar exam? answer: your honor.
as for as myself, if i lived in ny, and they got their tail in a crack, they could get it out as best they could. help out in anyway, h*** no, my answer to them in an emergency would be an emphatic, "i don't do that anymore....
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by KO4NX on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
All:

I have made this situation known to the appropriate parties at the ARRL. Others might want to consider doing the same.

I think bickering over the law here on eham is counterproductive. This man needs our help and support to insure a positive out come for all of us. Instead of writing here why not write someone at the ARRL, that can provide assistance in this matter.

If needed I would be willing to donate money for legal defense in this case. The impact of a guilty verdict could have significant impact on the amateur radio community as a whole.


73

Rich, AJ3G
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by W9WHE-II on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
One internet lawyer writes:

"That stupid judge will get his head handed to him. I would recommend filing a notice of claim against the city for false arrest even before the appeal. You have only 90 days in NYC"

NOT hiring a lawyer is what got you into this situation in the first place. Following advice of a non-lawyer may only compound your probems and the mounting expense of extricating yourself from this mess.

TIME TO STOP FOOLING AROUND. HIRE A COMPETENT CRIMINAL LAWYER, NOW!

W9WHE
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by KC8VWM on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

..Good News Joe!

...Just to help kick start this hell raising frieght train rolling down the track, here's a heaping helping of meat and potatoes served up ham radio style just for you with my compliments!

As you can see in the response indicated below, you are now going to in fact have national ARRL backing on your side!

I am going to talk with some people about the prospect of setting up a trust fund of some kind so we can all donate money to this cause and get you a damn good lawyer to fight these idiots!

The gloves are off and there's going to be some hell to pay in NYC!

73 - Your Fellow Brother in Action,

Charles - KC8VWM


----------------------

To: KC8VWM + (Others)
Cc: Weaver, Jim K8JE (DIR, GL); Butler, Frank (Dir, SE)
Subject: RE: A Call For Action


Hi Charles (+ Others),

ARRL is well aware of this and the New York State statute isn't the problem. The problem is the officer and judge. The ARRL General
Counsel is aware of this and will offer ARRL assistance. At this time, it just looks like an error and doesn't seem to set an effective
precedent. W2JLH spoke to me shortly after it happened last June, but had to wait for the court date. It should be noted that I am not a
lawyer and can't give legal advice or aid.

73,

John, N1KB

John C. Hennessee, N1KB
Regulatory Information Specialist


ARRL--the national association for AMATEUR RADIO
225 Main St. Newington, CT 06111

Encourage a non-member to join ARRL today at www.arrl.org/join.html

Through its Newington, Connecticut and
Washington, DC offices, ARRL provides extensive services to Amateur Radio operators.

----------

!!!Joe still needs your support!!!
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by KC2MMI on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
<W9PMZ asks:

If I were a cell phone user and I received a ticket I for one would be appealing that if hams can, why can't I? After all, I as a cell phone user can provide emergency communication when possible.>

And the answer is, RTFM, in NYS a cell phone user can legally make an emergency call or any 911 call while driving their car. And, we can take our eyes off the road, squint at the cell phone, and dial it (all while ignoring the road) legally under the terms of the law. It is just *talking* on it that is banned.

Incidentally, Florida passed a similar ban on cell phone use while driving about five years ago. Governor Bush vetoed it.

The real question is whether all "cell phone driving" bans should be thrown out as arbitray and capricious, since there are no numbers really proving this is dangerous behavior, and there is no reason to ban this behavior as opposed to all dangerous behavior, or other more dangerous behavior. These laws are like a cop saying "Well your honor, I ticket all little red sports cars, I figure fast drivers like them." Yeah, maybe so. But that doesn't make it legal to single them out. And a much harder fight.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KB9YGD on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Hello Joe & tnx fer the good article. This is happening all to often and belive me the dealings i have had over tvi caused to my neighbor with rabbit ears is equally frustrating.I have found that most of the police officers dont know or care about these issues!Most of them suffer from a much to much inflated ego and complete ignorance on these subjects and then you have the kangaroo courts, more BULLYS with only one thing in mind COURT COSTS.I do a moderate amount of contesting and have had the police over here 3 times in one day and have had all the coax cut by the neighbor.I called the fcc and they are to busy to get involved. I was threatned by the police department on several occations.So i doesnt seem that the average law abideing citizen has any rights anymore when this stuff can go and its also a sad day for America.73,Norm.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by KC2MMI on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Carl-
<The law needs changed to address Amateur Radio in the definitions.>
You folks don't get it. The NYS VTL *does* address amateur radio. Under sec.227 of the VTL, which says that the people have an express burden to prove a specific violation--they do NOT have any liberty to "interpret" and extend violations.
Again, this is not civil law, this is not criminal law, there are no "precedents" and "interpretations" like you see on Perry Mason. This is an administrative tribunal and a hearing officer, who is allowed to convict only, and specifically, for an express violation of the VTL AS WRITTEN.
And what Joe did, and all "radios" that are not cell phones, already ARE EXCLUDED from section 1225.
Can a lawyer help Joe? Sure. But a little old-fashioned ward-style politics, political pressure on the Parking Violation Bureau (that's not a court) here in NYC, will get him more, faster. The laws are clear, for anyone who bothers to read them. Unfair, illogical, but clear.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by W9PMZ on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
OK,

I give in, I am wrong. But we'll see how the appeal, if there is one, turns out.

73,

Carl - W9PMZ
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by N7NRA on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
There is no apparent need for a specific exemption for Amateur Radio, considering the definitions used in the law. The law says:

§ 1225-c. Use of mobile telephones. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms shall mean:
(a) "Mobile telephone" shall mean the device used by subscribers and other users of wireless telephone service to access such service.
(b) "Wireless telephone service" shall mean two-way real time voice telecommunications service that is interconnected to a public switched telephone network and is provided by a commercial mobile radio service, as such term is defined by 47 C.F.R. § 20.3.
(c) "Using" shall mean holding a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, the user's ear.

Paragraph (a) mentions "subscribers and other users of wireless telephone service". Amateur Radio operators are not subscribers. They are volunteer operators. They are not "other users of wireless telephone service", since paragraph (b) defines "wireless telephone service" as requiring a "commercial mobile radio service" and that it be "interconnected to a public switched telephone network". See next paragraph.

Paragraph (b) mentions "commercial mobile radio service", and as anyone who has passed even a no-code Tech license exam knows, Amateur Radio is, very explicitly, a non-commercial service.

Paragraph (c), "Using", under which Joe was cited, applies to "a mobile telephone", which was defined in paragraph (a), and clearly does not apply to Amateur Operators.

By these paragraphs alone, Amateur Radio operators are already exempt from this law.

I haven't worried about this type of over-zealous law enforcement for years. I moved away from the cesspool of over-populated cities along both coasts over 20 years ago. I don't even like to visit most of them, and there are some I wouldn't go to for any amount of money, New York and Boston being two of them. Too many people, too many laws, too many idiots "enforcing" them.

Thank God for Red State "fly-over country"!

Good luck, Joe. I hope you beat them and get some compensation for your troubles.

Regards,

Stew
N7NRA
Mesa, AZ
 
A CALL FOR ACTION  
by KC8VWM on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

Fellow Radio Amateurs,

Joe is pleading for our support and only with your help can we make a difference!

Start raising hell, start informing people, contact the media, QRZ, call Newsline, write letters, *Be creative* Call Alex Jones! - let's work together to show our support for our brother Joe.

Remember, you may very well be the next victim pulled over and given this erroneous traffic ticket offense.

We need to send a very clear message across the nation about this erroneous injustice that surely affects us all.

So get out there and let's make a LOT of noise over this kangaroo court decision!

Start raising hell on every level!

Don't stop until someone starts listening and remember, "There's going to be hell to pay in NYC!"

Your brother in action,

Charles - KC8VWM
 
NYC Ham Ticketed -Questions Answered  
by K2FIX on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I am a lawyer. I often appear in Traffic Violations Bureau.

Here's what happened. The NYCPD wrote a ticket. One cannot expect a cop to know all the nuances of law. This is not an insult, but there's so much there that a course in the Academy is not a substitute for law school (3 yrs) and actual practice.

The ticket ended up in Traffic Violations Bureau. This is NOT a Court of Law, rather, it is an adminstrative agency run by DMV. If you get a traffic ticket in NYC, you end up heard by DMV, before a DMV Hearing Officer (not a "judge" as same is normally understood). There is no plea bargaining, and all cases are innocent or guilty. (bogus for a basic speeding ticket, but I digress). The cop prosecutes the ticket, normally by going through a rote recital of a direct case which may or may not have anything to do with what happended on the road that day. The Hearing Officer is held to a lower standard of proof, that of "clear and convincing" evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Based on the day to day reality, our ham came in, and tried to argue a reality based defense, upon the definition that the ham radio is not attached to the switching network of the phone company. The Hearing Officer, seeing 15 more cases to get to (and almost automatic guilty verdicts) prior to escaping TVB for the day, probably didn't want to hear it. I have my personal observations as to why someone with a law licence would do this, but they are not relevant to this board.

There is a mandatory 65% guilty rate at New York City Traffic Violations Bureau. This is not from my imagining, rather, a memo got out, and the New York Law Journal ran an article on it a few years ago. TVB is also an unequal application of justice, as the same ticket is dealt with in a far better fashion outside NYC, where your are heard in a Justice Court before an elected Judge.

The good news is that there is zero precedential value for a TVB decision, and that TVB cannot throw you in jail.

The end result is that this must be appealed, but within the rules of Traffic Violations. I have emailed the ham involved for further discussion.

Again, this one act by a bored or lazy TVB hearing officer is NOT tantamount to banning ham radio. Take a deep breath everyone.

Casey
K2FIX
 
RE: A CALL FOR ACTION  
by AE6IP on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Looks to me like time for everyone to slow down, take a deep breath, and get their sense of proportion back.

What we have here, all cynicism aside, now appears to be a simple case of a police officer misinterpreting a statute and an administrative law judge backing him up.

To Joe, this is a BigThing (tm) -- and I wish him luck on appeal.

But it's hardly something that demands national action; especially before the fine is appealed.

Try, hard, to see this from a non-ham perspective:

* There's a perception that distractions contribute to accidents

* There's a perception that cell phones are a major distraction

* Laws get written to discourage cell phone use as a result

* Joe gets a ticket for behavior that's very much like cell phone use, but isn't, technically, because of the definition in the regulations.

* Joe tries to get the ticket overturned on what, to anyone who isn't a ham, is going to look like a "technicality".

* Probable end result:

- no publicity attempted: Joe gets off and nothing else happens

- big publicity campaign: Joe gets off, there's a big backlash against hams because it looks like they're trying for special preference, and the law gets amended to include any non-emergency private two way communication.

Me, I'm all for the no publicity approach. If hams want to make a big stink about something, it should probably be something other than trying to get around a law that is preceived to be addressing a significant safety problem. (Whether it *is* or not is a different question, in politics, perception rules.)
 
RE: A CALL FOR ACTION  
by KC8VWM on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

New York City is just the starting point and should set an example for all of us.

These new cell phone laws need to specifically exempt public safety and amateur radio equipped vehicles that clearly provide an ongoing service for the community.

Otherwise, I strongly suspect we are going to see a lot more of this sort of thing happening in the near future.

Law enforcement officers right up to the very people passing down final judgment continue to demonstrate ongoing confusion and cannot make informed decisions even when specific information is presented to them right in front of their noses.

Why is that exactly? Because the law isn't clear enough for them to understand.

Solution? Make it clear enough for them to understand.

This isn't going to happen by doing nothing. It happens by doing something.

It's a matter of time before this is going to set a precedence in every state.

How is changing these laws going to be accomplished exactly?

Well, you can just wait until you get your own citation for the very same offense while driving around, or you can take action and do something about it. Plain and simple.

You can decide now how you want to start changing this law in the first place, or you can pay the fine every time you are pulled over.

That's right. You have a choice!

You get to decide which ticket is more important to you for example,

Your radio ticket which grants you the right to operate your radio equipment while mobile, or your police issued ticket that seems to state otherwise.

Either way you choose, It's your ticket. You can either pay cash at the courthouse or you can pay with your operating privileges. I consider both of these choices to be offenses myself.

So, how do you want to pay? ...You decide.
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by N0MUD on December 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Well as a retired Police Officer from CA now living in CO and as I read that law that WI7B provided I saw the words "Mobile Telephone" used repeatedly. At no time did I see the words "Two Way Radio" or "Amateur Radio". Everything quoted the words "mobile telephone". So the way I read the law I would not be writing the operator of the vehicle a ticket for using a "Mobile Telephone", unless of course he was but it doesn't sound like it. I also agree with everyone, NEVER, EVER, NEVER go to court, EVER, on a citation that is written for one law but used for another law. Unless there is a law that stands alone for "Two Way Radio" or Amateur Radio" then the ticket should have been thrown out by the judge. Trust me I have seen judges in CA courts throw out citations written by Officers and it was proven the officer was right but the violator showed the judge that the officer was Wrong and the citation was thrown out. Yes it does happen. Now the only thing you can do is get yourself a ARRL Attorney, don't get yourself an attorney that has no idea what a Amateur Radio looks like because he will make you look like a FLAMING IDIOT in court. That's why ARRL has attornies to help us HAMS in need. Hopefully you can appeal the judgement from the Judge.

Again this is a ticket that I wouldn't have written but then I am prejudice because I am a HAM, but also because the Law as it is shown as being written doesn't say anything about Two Way Radio.

73' Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to all.....

Mike, NØmud
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by N1YRK on December 10, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
This is such an outrageous act, that perhaps the judge should be removed. What are the proceedures for such a thing in new york?
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by AD5KL on December 11, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
One word. Quota.

This ignorant judge probably thought it was in his best interest to add a few bucks to the kitty at the ham's expense.

Kind of like Roscoe P. Coltrane's speed traps, and Boss Hogg's "justice."
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by WL7SR on December 12, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
How about taxi drivers, delivery services, cops and firemen who all use radios while driving? If a female were talking on an actual cell phone, the cops whould let it slid. That's just a fact of life.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cellphone'  
by KA2UUP on December 12, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"Public officials are twisting the intent of the cell phone law beyond it's original intent. Period."

Not to get into an argument, but isn't going beyong the original intent of the law the very essence of liberalism???

Ham radio is not a cell phone, period. Anybody that does not inderstand the difference, whether a judge or administrative officer, should not be deciding this type of case.
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by K4JF on December 12, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"This is a good example to insure that ANY law banning the use of cell phones while driving has an exemption for ham radio."

WRONG!! We should NOT be carving out exceptions for ourselves to ridiculous and intrusive laws. We should be leading the fight to repeal existing ones and defeat proposed ones. Scanner laws are a prime example, their only purpose being to establish a secret police. The laws against USING scanners to break the law or interfere with public service are entirely adequate for any legitimate purpose. As for cellphones while driving, make the laws punish inattention and dangerous driving, not the little toy.
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by KE4ZHN on December 12, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Its pretty sad when a cop and a judge dont even know the difference between a cellphone and a two way radio. Id bet that the honorable judge and the same cop use their cellphones while driving though. Typical do as I say but dont do as I do system of "justice". Just one more reason NOT to live in NYC.
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by AB0TA on December 12, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Certainly there needs to be an exemption for two-way radios. Think of how many mobile radios out there have effectively been silenced by this precedent. And not only hams, but CB'ers too. If two way radios are dangerous, then let's keep the cops and ambulance drivers off of they're radios and laptops.

There has got to be an interest in this case by just about every mobile radio manufacturer and provider...
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by K4JF on December 12, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"Its pretty sad when a cop and a judge dont even know the difference between a cellphone and a two way radio."

Oh, but they DID know the difference. The law clearly spelled out the difference. They just chose to ignore the law.
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by N2YTF on December 14, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
JOE!

Next time you get ticketed for hamming why not contact the ham lawyers in your own club....
Im licensed in NJ and pending in NY, Mitch is licensed in NY, Art's wife just passed the NY bar (but is she a ham?), and there is another guy (I forget his name) who is licensed in NY.

Also there is a volunteer counsel program at the ARRL you should look into. The volunteer program consists of lawyers who will give you some free advice. Although from what I understand they will charge for the bulk of their services, I wouldnt be surprised if a few would take this up for free. Also I think this is an excellent case for the ARRL to hire a lawyer on and go to bat for you as if this judicial activism is not fought now, eventually mobile hamming in all of New York State and some other states could be forbidden. Dont be shy about emailing and calling ARRL for help on this, I would directly email the ARRL president if I were you. Also email FCC Special Counsel Riley Hollingsworth, rholling@fcc.gov . It could be that you could convince him to help (not to represent you but in other ways, amicus briefs or something of the sort perhaps) as this could be seen as stepping on federal preemption on radio communications. In any event, the FCC should be made aware of this. Cities and states (local government) are very limited in how they can restrict licensed radio services (but civil contracts like the dreaded resrtictive covenants are another matter).

Some advice for all types of tickets..check out the mundane stuff on the ticket. I have fought a ticket before, and despite having video footage and over 22 photos in my case, the deciding factor for my appeals judge was a small typo on the ticket (had to go to appeal to get this as the still photos were not enough for the first judge). For me it was a bit of an empty victory as I wanted to have the ticket dismissed on the merits and not just for some typo by the PO. There are several typos a PO can make on a ticket in NYC that will result in an automatic dismissal of the ticket..you can research this online. And one more thing, a lot of tickets in NYC wind up before an Adminstrative Law Judge...and they dont exactly have the best reputation for being stellar scholars so dont sweat it if you had difficulty with one.

This whole adventure should be another reason for people to join and support the ARRL, whatever people think of them in general. The ARRL may be the only institutional defense for those of us who get harrassed by government or any other entity, esp. when it is difficult or impossible for us to help ourselves.

Drop me an email and let me know how things are going for you. We are all behind you!
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by N2YTF on December 14, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Just to almost echo and add to KC2IJI's comments (who probably has much more experience then I do with like matters and I dont mean to step on his toes at all), I wouldnt say these judgements have zero precedential value, but I would say in my opinion they have quite nearly zero precendential value. Let me explain.

Technically decisions outside of the US on european law by european courts have zero precedential value as well but the US Supreme Court occassionally takes cues from foreign courts and foreign legislatures on norms and standards that the US should use in interperting its law and actually refers to these "zero precedential value decisions" and general trends in foreign countries' laws in US Supreme Court decisions and court proccedings. Of course this is an isolated example of our higest court interperting much vaguer laws, but similar things can take place at lower levels.

The fact is that in the US judges have a lot of leeway in interperting the law and can look to almost anything for inspiration if they so choose (at least in practice)...and even when they flagrantly use something they should technically not use or come to a decision that is not supported by the law as written, normally the only redress is an appeals system that cannot hear all the cases it should. I would say that low level ALJs can get away with even more bad law than a higher judge could. Sometimes ALJs in a single govt. unit are emboldened by each others decisions, esp. if they are close confidants outside the courtroom. Sometimes ALJs seem to purposuly go against each others deicisions (as they usually have a right to). My experience with such judges was in a much smaller group of ALJs than what Joe is dealing with...all of my ALJs kept tabs on each other to some extent.

Of course in a minor case like Joe's before an ALJ or similar judge, the precedential value is also minimized by how widely publicized and preserved the decision and its reasoning are by legal resources and publications.

The precedential value of the decision in Joe's case may be nearly zero, but certainly a good outcome for Joe holds somewhat less risk for ham radio then an aggressive judgement against him. Having no judgement against your point of view anywhere on earth in any court of any size at all is definately somewhat better than having a judgement against your point of view somewhere, even if that adverse decision is from a court that really should not hold any weight in your case.
Certainly I would feel somwehat more confident hamming mobile in NYC if Joe wins although I would continue hamming mobile if he looses, although I would be sad for Joe as he is a great guy (as all who know him could attest).
73
Tom
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by W2JLH on December 14, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Hello Everyone.
Wow I never thought this issue would spread like wildfire.

Let me just say that I appreciate everyones POSITIVE responses and comments.

I have contacted an attorney and the wheels are turning.
These things take time so the outcome will take a while.

Again thanks.

Joe W2JLH

P.S. The officer that issued the ticket is always in the same area, 23rd street between 1st Ave and FDR drive in Manhattan. I pass by him every morning when I am on my way home from work, (night shift). for those who drive in the city, try to avoid this officer if you are around this area so you don't have to go through this inconvinience.
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by WJ2V on December 14, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I am an attorney. So, I read the statute and then I went and looked up 47 C.F.R. sec. 20.3 referenced in the definitions. You were on the right track when you claimed you weren't covered by the "commercial" definition. The Federal code says the service must be a public, for-profit service. Amateur Radio, of course, is not commercial, according to Part 95. So, you would have needed all three statutes to prove that you aren't subject to this law. Also note that NYC is prohibited from enacting a different version of this law, though it may pass one with the same terms. Having said all that, I can tell you from experience that the NYC adjudication bureau has been criticized by many, including, on occasion, for being arbitrary and wrong.

Appeals from the Adjudication Bureau go to the Appellate Term, a special part of the Appeals court, and you will have to have the transcript of the proceedings prepared from the tape recording made at your hearing--there's no stenographer, as you probably noticed. Your lawyer will have to prepare a brief and you will pay for that, as well as the transcript. Good for you if you take it up. Please let us know how it goes.

Preston Douglas, Esq. WJ2V
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by KC2MMI on December 14, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Preston, help me understand this?

You say "So, you would have needed all three statutes to prove that you aren't subject to this law. "

But the VTL clearly says there is an express burden of proof on the "people". (VTL 225 or 227 offhand.) Not on Joe.

Doesn't that mean, Joe doesn't have to prove anything--but the cop and court need to prove that he was expressly using a cell phone, as defined in VTL 1225, connected to a commercial mobile phone service etcetera?

And, given that both the cop and the hearing officer knew that Joe was not using such a device, doesn't that make both of them guilty of misfeasance and/or malfeasance, and as such liable for all court costs and fees? As well as being open to internal penalty and procedure for things like malicious prosecution?

I agree that he should get legal aid (and political aid, including the biggest flyswatters he can find) but I don't understand why you think Joe needs to prove anything. The law says that's not his burden. Surely, you don't think an appellate court would ignore a failed burden of proof, and conduct unbecoming?
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by WJ2V on December 14, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Ugh! The writers above who said, correctly, a lawyer should have been involved at the bureau "trial" are, of course right. For instance, the issue of burden of proof is a lawyers' issue, as demonstrated by the question about burden here. According to McKinney's (the official statues of NY) and the commentaries which follow the statute, once the officer sees a handheld near your ear, the burden shifts to you to prove you weren't on a call. So, once the trier of fact accepts that such a device was at your ear, he may presume you were on a call. Get it? They've met their burden if they "prove" you had a phone to your ear. Then you have the burden to prove it wasn't a telephone, or you weren't on a call. The commentaries discuss how one guy beat the rap by "proving" he never picked up the call. The concept of burden of proof is just another quagmire for the lawyers to deal with.
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by KC2MMI on December 14, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
<<According to McKinney's (the official statues of NY) and the commentaries which follow the statute, once the officer sees a handheld near your ear, the burden shifts to you to prove you weren't on a call.>>

Preston, are you sure about that? That McKinney's cites it that way, and that the citation is not wrong?

The law doesn't say anything about a handheld device by a motorists ear being illegal. It says, quite specifically, that device must be a CELLPHONE and goes on to define what a cell phone is.

That's not arguing pilpul, that's simply what the law says. It does not ban handheld devices in general, it says only specific qualified devices are illegal. And, that the burden was on the cop and hearing officer to establish full and specific compliance--which would include making sure the "device" was indeed not just an electric shaver or transistor radio. (Both of which are handheld, make noise, and totally legal.)

"I think you were speeding" isn't enough. The officer must prove the speed was measured. Same burden--he must at least verify that a CELL PHONE as defined was involved. He just can't make things up. (Well, he can and did, but that's something else again. I hope for all of us that Joe and some ARRL attorneys press for more than just dismissal.)
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by NT4I on December 15, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I feel that you were victimized since the true spirit of the law was not interpreted properly. I am sure you will win on appeal but it’s expensive, perhaps the ARRL will assist in the cost or a local ham attorney may represent you pro bono.
Going forward, this is New York City so what do you expect?
They keep electing these buffoon judges over and over and you get kangaroo courts.
As one famous founder of the country once said “Throw the bums out!”
 
NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Really a  
by W5ONV on December 16, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Sounds to me that the Cop and the Judge are full
of SHI. ! Have a good day !!
 
RE: NYC Ham Ticketed for Using 'Cell Phone' (Reall  
by K4JF on December 16, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
What is this about burden of proof being on the accused? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? I know it doesn't apply in some cases, such as civil rights cases, but it certainly should in a minor subject such as this.
 
RE: NYC ham ticketed for using 'cell phone'  
by K8XQ on December 17, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
If we are guilty as some would say as to the intent of the law,then so is the police officer who uses his communications mobile,and I certainly as I have communicated mobile several(thousands)of times in an ambulances and other emergency vehicles on VHF and UHF mobile. If you say that the law protects officers of the law and emergency workers,then are we not as well excluded by virtue that we are listed as exempt as hams by Federal Law???
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other News Articles
Boy Scouts Have Weekend Submarine Adventure:
Ham Radio Operators Link on Global Airwaves:
Amateur Radio Operators Get Their Own Day:
Boy Scouts: 'Jamboree On the Air':
Ham Radio Day in Paris: