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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Would you....  (Read 4308 times)
N5LRZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2009, 06:45:44 AM »

Re NDT...

To clear up a misconception you have.  The inspection function would not be a matter of enforcement.  They would only inspect the station and site illegal equipment, overheight antennas and such in the form of a written report.

The accompanying law enforcement officers aka police, sheriff deputy etc would be the actual persons confiscating the equipment (seizure laws allow for law enforcement to seized certain specified personal property used for illgal purposes on the spot).  It would be court judicial system and or the FCC Enforcement System that would be doing the actual enforcemnt with the city and or county getting a part of the financial fine for acting as independant enforcement agents.


So if you want to reconsider your reply feel free.

And thank you for your reply.
Logged
N5LRZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2009, 07:18:37 AM »

Re KA5N...

Thanks for your reply.

LOL and just in case you did not know, dog fighting is illegal--a fact one infamous football player found out recently.  

Its all right with me what a person does do their own pets be it good, bad or indifferent still its illegal.

ALTHOUGH I must admit that even in my little city there is still underground cock fighting and dog fights.  Ya just gotta know the right people to find out where its held.  LOL kind of like the Speak Easy days of Prohibition--Shades of Elliot Ness.
Logged
N5LRZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2009, 08:00:29 AM »

Re NDT comments on traps...

NDT makes a valid comment in his final paragraph.  

If done propery any inspection would be a complete surprise to the station owner.  

BUT at any rate any attempt to trap equipment would be stupid on the part of the owner in that any such action would also put the owner (and possibly their family) at extreme risk to life and health.

JUST a thought to consider.

The count so far by the way, 2 yea the rest nay.  NOT TOO BAD considering that the %age of people willing to become police officers who risk getting shot at and possibly killed on a daily basis or becomming firemen risking becomming krispy fried Krispy Critters every day are an insignificant percentage of the population.

PLEASE keep up the replies, thanks one and all.
Logged
KA5N
Member

Posts: 4380




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2009, 08:38:43 AM »

To N5LRZ

What are you doing living in the South if you don't understand "I don't have a dog in that fight."  Which simply means that matter doesn't concern me and I have no interest in it."
Of course I know that dog fighting and cock fighting are illegal and that neither has anything to do with your cock-a-mammie original posting (which I wish I had ignored).
I hope you go full speed ahead into sticking your nose in others businesses, don't be surprised when it gets bloodied.
As they say on the East coast
"take a hike"
Logged
WB5JEO
Member

Posts: 805




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2009, 10:02:32 AM »

Look. I assume this is something of a brainstorm and hasn't yet happened and that the relevant authorities, first and foremost the chief of police, have not been consulted, not to mention the city attorney. You're going to find that there is more to this than you even imagined. There are practical considerations, even if this were legally possible as you describe it. You're talking about a city ordinance, violations of which are the lowest class of offense, punishable by a fine only. That means that city ordinance cases are quick and dirty and very efficient. One reason is that the liability for the offender is so trivial that they aren't hard fought, especially since defendants in those courts don't get to have attorneys appointed. (They're not hard fought unless there's a constitutional issue and money behind the effort, which there might well be in a deal like this. Note the defense funds for hams fighting antenna legal issues.) If they want a lawyer, they have to pay for it, hardly a cost-effective thing when the fee is more than the fine and the fact that municipal judges frequently dispose of nuisance cases by admonishing first-time offenders not to do that again and case dismissed. Another is that the issues are simple, and the proof is generally simply a photograph or just the testimony of an officer or city inspector who witnessed it. Serious technical evidence doesn't come into any but a very few commercial offenses in which experts, typically something like an engineer, is used. The city goes that expense, not because there a big fine to gain, but because those case are a matter of maintaining enforcement of a major life and safety issue.

This also means that police departments don't have to devote much resources to enforcement of ordinances. When you get into search warrants, it starts sucking up resources. In Texas, for instance, such a warrant would be "evidentiary," which means it's for the purpose of securing evidence, rather than "contraband," something that's unlawful to possess under state law, which nothing you contemplate looking for is. The non-attorney justices of the peace and municipal court judges in courts that are not a "court of record" (which only the larger cities maintain) can't even issue the warrants. So, you end up with a lot of officer time preparing affidavits to show a more sophisticated judge who is going to be picky about the probable cause and who, if he's thinking right, will demand technically credible evidence, which, if you're not an engineer, you can't supply. (Nor could you be admitted to testify to scientific matters without professional credentials. If you don't know what the name "Jason Daubert" signifies in law and never heard of the "Kuhmo Tire Company," you're not even in the game.) They don't need you to identify an overheight antenna or tower. City inspectors can already do that. You're not getting into any houses, because, unless your city is under the sway of a large, vicious gang of CBers presenting an ongoing danger to women, children and small dogs, the police department isn't going to dump resources into a scheme like that. It's a non-problem, unless it involves interference with Joe Sixpack's Saturday football game on TV and likely to start a fight. (See the other poster's comment on being careful what you wish for with regard to legit hams interfering.) Many cities have dealt with that under ordinance without any need for a posse of hams, because a simple ordinance, simply enforced in municipal court, suffices.

Cities, in fact, have limited standing to mess around in radio emission affairs. They can get by with a plain fact issue of someone interfering to the point of inducing a public disturbance (not really tested up the appeals chain, so far as I know, again, because it's a low-liability offense), but they're not going to venture beyond that into technical matters without getting some opinions from the state attorney general, even in the unlikely event that they were inclined to consider it. And I have a pretty good idea what the AG will say, not that I expect any city attorney to ask the question. And, unless you can show a city attorney a copy of another city's ordinance like this and a program like this, they're not likely to experiment.

Additionally, the police department has to devote considerable resources to training any volunteers, no matter what capacity they work with them. They are very, very careful about anyone they make an agent of the City, and they don't do it without need. (Their workers comp ends up on the hook, for one thing.) In fact, about the only non-commissioned volunteers I've seen used in the field are in the area of community service where volunteer victim services people work strictly in non-enforcement roles (it took six months to train ours) and in the very limited authority here to appoint volunteer civilians to write handicap parking violations.

If you want to find out, go ahead and approach the chief or the city attorney. But after spending most of my life in law enforcement, including an investigative command position in a city police department, as well as a stint as a municipal court judge, I have a pretty good idea you'll get one of two responses, polite listening and a promise to think about it, which will be the last you hear, or a polite listen and an explanation why it ain't gonna happen.
Logged
K5END
Member

Posts: 1309




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2009, 11:42:04 AM »

JEO,

What a well-written and informative post!

Your description sounds very credible.

Ham volunteers should stick to what we can do: provide communications and networking in certain or unusual circumstances.

For example, Hams were very effective at locating "lost parents" at a recent large-crowd event here. A network of a few Hams in a crowd of thousands was remarkably effective at this, among other things.

To those who want to "help" the cops, I ask this.

What if your dentist used volunteers to drill cavities or take Xrays? I would not want to go to that dentist for a root canal. Would you? Aside from the fact the patient will be VERY uncomfortable, imagine how the dentist's insurance costs would explode.

Let people who know how to do things for a living do those things.

So, let's leave law enforcement to law enforcement personnel. I don't always agree with the way some of the things are done, but then again I'm in the armchair merely observing. They have an honorable and thankless job, and I don't want it.
Logged
KB2FCV
Member

Posts: 1139


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #36 on: November 05, 2009, 12:32:08 PM »

Leave the law enforcement to the Law enforcement professionals.

There is no guarantee that any person you would go to inspect would be armed or would be prone to physical violence. I could see it now... 'knock knock' "Hi this is Bob Smith K2XYZ, I have a warrant and some test equipment and I am here to inspect your Citizens Band Equipment". CB'er: "Where is your badge and gun? Would you like to meet my 12 guage? Get the #*&$* off my property!"

Let the FCC/Feds/LEO's handle it, it's not our job to engage these people.
Logged
N5LRZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2009, 02:42:43 PM »

Re JEO...

re re "This also means that police departments don't have to devote much resources to enforcement of ordinances. When you get into search warrants, it starts sucking up resources"

This might not be a problem for the simple reason all that one would have to confirm would be that the address is not an amateur station (which is easily proved a monitored amateur call or the simple looking up of the address in the FCC database.

Financially I am taking it for granted that the town or county will be getting a cut/piece of the fine upon FCC finding the station guilty of breaking rules and regs.  The system would in theory be self supporting and perhaps very profitable.

AND IF it were profitable per legal bust, the city or county would have financial incentive to be pro active in enforcement of CB Rules and regs.


Anyway a few things to consider....

Thanks for the reply
Logged
N5LRZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: November 05, 2009, 02:50:42 PM »

5N...

Attacking a law enforcement personel, police or otherwise is not taken lightly by any law enforcement agency to my knoledge.

Any assault and batter of my person I promise you will be promptly reported with an eye of throwing the person into prison as the penalty.

That would of course be extremely stupid on the part of the CB offender because then they would have a Criminal Charge, an FCC Fine with possible loss of home and property, seizure of all illegal equipment and possible garnishment of all current and future wages to pay for any unpaid amoutnts of fines.

But then again I personally knew way back in the day CB people who were not incredibly bright.
Logged
K5END
Member

Posts: 1309




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: November 05, 2009, 04:19:36 PM »

"...CB people who were not incredibly bright."



That is not an exclusively CB trait.
Logged
N5LRZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: November 05, 2009, 06:34:51 PM »

Re END...bright

Quit true in so far as certain Amaateur Radio Ops who live in HOA communities on a voluntary basis.

Such people are truly the dim bulb of the box.

EVEN WORSE are those who living there think I am going to show them any mercy what so ever when I reply to their posts.
Logged
N5LRZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: November 05, 2009, 06:49:36 PM »

Re FCV...

re re "There is no guarantee that any person you would go to inspect would be armed or would be prone to physical violence. I could see it now... 'knock knock' "Hi this is Bob Smith K2XYZ, I have a warrant and some test equipment and I am here to inspect your Citizens Band Equipment". CB'er: "Where is your badge and gun? Would you like to meet my 12 guage? Get the #*&$* off my property!"


ACTUALLY if you read post #1 it clearly states that your description is completely wrong and innacurate.

There would be a search warrant served by a sheriff or police officer allowing the inspection of the radio station and it would be signed by a judge/just like any other criminal search warrant.

The law officers would make sure of the safety of the RIT aka Radio Inspection Team and then and only then would the inspecion team (I envision 3 inspectors in each team) would go to the radio station and document radios, amps, antenna height, etc etc against FCC Rules and Regs for CB.  BUT the team would only enter after the police and or sheriff officers delivered a very official and binding search and inspection warrant.

It  would not be HI Im...  No I do not envision it working that way.  The RIT would in no way be placed in any kind of danger in that they would only inspect and file a report.

Weither or not illegal equipment would be confiscasted would of course be up to the judge, DA or whomever.  

SO if you would like to render another reply please feel free to do so.

And thanks for the comments.
Logged
CHARLIEBAKER
Member

Posts: 99




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: November 05, 2009, 07:25:12 PM »

lol!!! they shold have a new HAM test and call it junior g man class for HAMS who arent smart enogh to work a radio but want a carry a walky and brake down cbers door! lol!!! my buddy jeff say some thing funny he say if you get youre HAM junior g man class lisense you get to were a propeler on top a youre hard hat at the parad!! lol!!!!!!! i want a see a shine on that HAM bage bud!! lol!!!!!!!!!!!
Logged
N5LRZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: November 06, 2009, 07:10:41 AM »

RE Charlie...

If one obeys the Rules and Regulations governing the radio service that they use in re to equipment, power limitations, antennas, modifications, etc etc then one has absolutely nothing to worry about.

If on the other hand one blantantly breaks rules and regulations like common criminals then they deserve what they get, or should I say lose.

The financial penalty for violation of FCC Rules and Regs for Amateur Radio is as high as 10,000 per violation.  I am not aware of the financial penalties for CB but I do know that at least 2 CB people have been sent to Federal Prisons for violations--one in FL and one in CA.

Ever since the cowardly islamic POS attacked the Trade Center the FCC has not been kind to violations.  They have even started to take seriously violations of RFI in power lines sending notices of apparatent liablitly to Power Companies.

The days of the kinder/gentlier FCC are long gone.
Logged
WG7X
Member

Posts: 350




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: November 06, 2009, 07:57:42 AM »

Again:

A local police officer who would be responding to an RFI complaint coming from my station, be it low power or high, would only have one simple, effective solution to the "Problem".

I stop transmitting: Problem solved.

It matters not at that point whether I'm federally licensed or not, all that matters is that the officer has told me (the offender) to cease and desist. If I offer resistance or fail to comply I will be at fault and may see the inside of the gray bar hotel for a night.

Am I right in my assertions? Yes I am a federally licensed Amateur radio operator who will eventually win whenever it goes to court. Will it matter that I will win?

Not at the time that I'm labeled as a perp and spend time setting in jail with the other perps...

Sorry OM, thankfully I guess that the police themselves know that they don't have the ability to get involved in this kind of neighborhood dispute.

... Or do they?

73 Gary
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!