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]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Local Jurisdiction and RF Compliance  (Read 4092 times)
K5END
Member

Posts: 1309




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: November 29, 2009, 10:49:45 AM »

I hope so.

But lawyers I know are usually pretty cautious about putting their interpretation of the law into writing, especially if they are not getting paid for it.
Logged
WB5JEO
Member

Posts: 805




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: November 29, 2009, 04:39:23 PM »

Not a lawyer, but a lifetime as a potential target of such suits. Very briefly, 42 USC Section 1983 speaks of "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." It's very broad language that takes in most government operations, except judicial actions.

It can take a careful review of hundreds of cases to guess the outcome of any particular potential suit. But it basically means that a lawsuit can address a situation in which a government action done in the course of official conduct goes beyond what is reasonable and necessary to carry out the legitimate mission and that violates a protected right. In what we've been talking about, it might, for instance, involve a violation of the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. The issue might turn on whether the government action was specifically authorized by law or was within more generally reasonable governmental acts and the extent of the violation of rights. There are also provisions in most state laws, both criminal and civil, to address this, but 1983 is a common way to go. A great many 1983 suits never come to anything. And the situations are very often not very clear-cut. So long as the action is reasonable and necessary to what we expect police to do, the courts are very careful not to stifle appropriate police conduct. You see a lot of opinions with language like, "This is exactly why we have police."

Larry: It would be entirely reasonable to call on local hams who had appropriate DF equipment as what they used in foxhunts. It's not something local law enforcement maintains. It would probably come to that if it went on long enough and the agency efforts failed.
Logged
K5END
Member

Posts: 1309




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: November 29, 2009, 08:18:54 PM »

Thanks, JEO

But, I fear the 3 or 4 parallel discussions here have lost me and I am not seeing the context.

Logged
WB5JEO
Member

Posts: 805




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: November 30, 2009, 08:26:59 AM »

I hadn't been paying attention to the thread and had missed your comment earlier about whether the local club would be allowed to help run down an offender.

What I get for trying to respond to two posts in one reply.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4]   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!