Batboard

I agree with Mancow. It sounds from most things I see like Canada is the US without so much of the craziness. Of course I'm sure Canada has its own brand of native insanity. Hockey for example. I love hockey though, so that would be ok. Moosehead for another example. Now don't get me wrong, I've seen some grizzly women in my life, but moosehead? Not sure I want to try that.

Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't drink, didn't know Moosehead is a beer, sorry.

Seriously, I retire in three years and my wife and I have been seriously considering moving north of the border. The horror stories told by R0f and NorthYork20 could happen anywhere. I don't think they happened only because they happened in Canada.

Ah well, we'll see. I actually had the chance to go for a job in Edmonton, but I think there's just a tad too much winter for my taste out on the steppe. We'll see what other brainstorm ideas I come up with in the next two years. Decision has to be made with a year to spare. It's somewhere in Canada right now vs Tampa Fl. And I'm not old enough to retire to Fl yet (I'm 41.)

Good luck to all, I hope your Christmas has been a good one if you observe it, and if not, I hope you were able to find something good to do today.

All I know is I refuse to live anywhere where I can't own my Glock and AR-15s. That frightens me worse than the criminals.
As for Tampa, I just came back from there recently. It's a beautiful place but you may want to pick up a couple of the above mentioned items before going. Atleast some areas gave me that impression. I really wouldn't mind living there but I just don't see how people can afford all the tolls. It's a dollar just to head South on 275. I went over to Pass a Grill and that was .50 everytime it turned the corner. I bet the taxes are outrageous.
Every place has it's pitfall I guess. Just the fact you can retire and have the choice is a nice thing.


mancow

Prospect62 wrote:Most of you folks have way too much aggression built up against police officers. Saying things like "most cops barely know the difference between a Krispy Kreme and a Munchkin, let alone anything radio related" is totally inappropriate. The fact, whether radio-types like it or not, is that in some states (most states) it is ILLEGAL to have any type of radio or scanner capable of receiving police transmissions in your vehicle, bottom line. I know that is the law in New York State, one of the most anal states in the union. And should it be the case that the laws in your state are similar (most of you really have no clue what your laws read, although you beleive you do), then it is without a doubt within the authority of the police officer (again, in NYS) to impound your vehicle (if the scanner/radio is installed in same), search it for other violations (incident to arrest) and arrest you (more than likely an appearance ticket, but you could be arraigned) for your violation. It would appear to me that ALL the people here who have gripes about being "harassed" by "nazi" police officers know full well that what they are doing is illegal, but they do it anyway and have the nerve to complain. It sickens me to think that such a trained, professional and usually informed group of people can sink to the level exhibited in this thread. Your ham hobby is one thing, but those of you who are not members of public services need to know where to draw the line. And if you feel you need to monitor the police, keep it out of your vehicle. Even if it isn't illegal where you are, it IS illegal in some places for a good reason. Knowing what the police are up to is not worth getting jammed up. If you know it's illegal in your area, don't do it. If you don't know, find out. Ignorance of the law is not an affirmative defense. I apologize if this sounds angry, but I take it personally when I'm called a "nazi" and I'm accused of "barely knowing the difference between a Krispy Kreme and a Munchkin, let alone anything radio related". Good day to all, and Happy Holidays.

Indeed, when I made my earlier statement about knowing more about firearms and radio laws than most police I deal with, your response is part of what I meant. There is a Federal preemption to NY (and every)states law (in addition to the exemption written into it for hams already) that says I can have a ham transciever with extended recieve on it. Since NY state law does not ban listening, but posession, this preemption effectivly nullifies it and I can listen to whatever I want that is police related, so long as I do so on an amatuer transciever.

It is attitudes like your that get people so upset sometimes. You make the statement that it is illegal to have radios capable of recieving public safety freqs ina vehicle, but don't have enough working knowledge of the law to be aware that federal regulations have preempted state and local laws with regard to hams. You may get upset when someone says that most cops are not up to snuff on radio laws and gear, but you just helped prove the point. you say "most of you really have no clue what your laws read, although you beleive you do" and it would seem you don't either.

BTW, to correct another error in your post, most states do not have laws that ban scanner use in vehicles. Some have ones that prohibit use of a scanner in while commiting another crime, but stay legal and you are A-OK. Only 6 states (NY, FL, KY, IN, MI, MN)prohibit mobile scanner use, not hardly "most' as you say. And only 8 more have laws regarding scanner use in commission of a crime. Where did your info for posting that "most" states have such laws come from, or are you just making it up?


here is the text of the preemption conclusion for you:
V. CONCLUSION
13. We hold that state and local laws that preclude the possession in vehicles or elsewhere of amateur radio service transceivers by amateur operators merely on the basis that the transceivers are capable of the reception of public safety, special emergency, or other radio service frequencies, the reception of which is not prohibited by federal law, are inconsistent with the federal objectives of facilitating and promoting the amateur radio service and, more fundamentally, with the federal interest in amateur operator's being able to transmit and receive on authorized amateur service frequencies. We therefore hold that such state and local laws are preempted by federal law.


The entire ruling is here, I suggest all hams print and carry a copy.
http://www.afn.org/~afn09444/scanlaws/l ... 6-moo.html


edited to add:

Just as you say ignorance of the law is not an affirmative defense, nor is it for you. Impound the vehicle of someone with an amatuer license because his transciever can recieve your dispatch and you will have more lawyers from the ARRL up your rear end quicker than you care to think about, they are hams who volunteer thier services as lawyers just for cases such as that, and they have a field day with those who abuse the law. Then the FCC may pay a visit...... and they love to levy fines for violations. I am sure your department would love to write the feds a $10,000 check because you were not as up on the law as you thought you were.

If you can't take it, move to Iraq...

I got a GTX 800 Type II monitoring everything around known to man (that is 800 analog trunked) yet I do/can use it for my FD's talkgroup on the same county system. Is it legal for me to monitor the county sheriff if the FD I work for utilizes the same county system? I did program the radio myself...

chipjumper wrote:If you can't take it, move to Iraq...

I got a GTX 800 Type II monitoring everything around known to man (that is 800 analog trunked) yet I do/can use it for my FD's talkgroup on the same county system. Is it legal for me to monitor the county sheriff if the FD I work for utilizes the same county system? I did program the radio myself...

what state are you in?

I don't think he'll be telling, if it's any of the 6 you referred to earlier.

Todd

well if you want to be critical. Law enforcement is only liscenced to use the channels they have on the station liscence. I know for a fact that police have alot more channels in their radios they are so not liscenced for. want to hear a good story. As i am reprogramming the police departments radios because the moron who programmed them had no idea what they were doing, one of the patrol officers walked in. i had my radio sitting on the desk. Know im a captain in charge of the police cadets. but i was just a cadet then. he goes you can have this. at first i thought he was joking, and i laughed and he goes im serious. know hes telling me this as im programming the chiefs radio. another officer walked in and then he tells me again its illeagel for you to have this. So i told him he doesnt know what hes talking about. that i am i liscened ham and im covered under the god dam police deparments liscence. so the officer that walked in informed him that i could have it and that the police cant touch ham radio operaters. an if you do your asking for trouble. well know everyone in the department is my best friend becuase i fix and maintain all the radios. and program extra features they didnt have. that was a great one that i will never forget. im sitting their programming the chiefs radio and some officer is telling me icant have it. Got to love them. Truthfully i still work with cops and unless their really high ranking and have been around for a while. they dont know :o when it comes to law in paticular just traffic stops and warrents. lol

I'm in the good old state of Michigan (Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam circumspice). I think they were the first state to use radios for their State Police??? I can't remember. I do know that the ASTRO statewide system is a little goofy per some blue-bellied buds of mine.

Ok, I still can't figure out why someone would:
A) Brag about the fact that they have police/fire channels in a radio that they are not licensed to use.
B) Walk around with said radio blaring audio from the local police right in front of a PO?

Keep it to yourself. Be discrete and enjoy your hobby. Honestly, there are enough trunktrackers out there that you can do your monitoring and as a bonus, not be able to transmit.

In the pre-trunktracker days, I could understand someone going through the trouble of buying/building a RIB, program cable and software. But now there's no reason for it other than wanting to "look" like a cop and "feel" like a cop.

If you have a legit need to have police/fire channels in your radio, then have it done the right way and save everyone some grief. Let that cop chase down some true bad guys instead of wasting his time with you.

Could you imagine how good a position you'd be in if your radio was authorized by the sys admin and a cop were to confiscate it? You'd definitely be getting it back (unless you lost it for obvious reasons)

chipjumper wrote:I'm in the good old state of Michigan (Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam circumspice). I think they were the first state to use radios for their State Police??? I can't remember. I do know that the ASTRO statewide system is a little goofy per some blue-bellied buds of mine.

Michigan law as of 2002: Police reciver radios illegal in vehicles unless an amatuer radio operater with a technician or higher level amatuer license ,or with written permission.


Go get your tech license, its a very simple 35 question multiple choice test, and you will be free and clear.

here is the etxt of the law: http://www.afn.org/~afn09444/scanlaws/l ... er/mi.html

KB9SUY brings up a good point...


How many departments in your local area are in full FCC compliance? Hell, look at the Highway Patrol here and you will find almost ever car has a modified ham rig in it so the guys can contact the local departments on hi-band and UHF, because the state low abnd system sucks. And I knwo of several departments that are using way more transmitters than they are licensed for.

If you get hasseled by the local authorities for having your radios, do some digging and see if they are doing anything the FCC may be interested in..... after all, turnabout is fair play, and nobody is above the law.

I wasn't trying to come off as a know-it-all or a nazi. I certainly do not know it all. I do know how to read the law and apply it, I do know where I am justified in making an arrest. I do know what I can do incident to that arrest, and I know what I can and cannot seize and when.
Chances are, if I encountered Joe Hamradio with an "extended receive" radio, not only would I NOT impound his car, but I probably wouldn't even ticket him. Being a radio enthusiast myself, I have an inclination to those federal exemption laws, although I'll tell you I need to do alot more research on them. Basically, unless Joe Hamradio is a total dickhead and becomes Joe "I can be a cop too" Hamradio, I will be more than willing to cut breaks all day long. I try to be more than fair when I am working in that capacity. I will be the first to tell you that I don't have every law regarding this issue memorized, and I appreciate the feedback.
Now take Joe Scannercarrier. As far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't be held in the same regard as Joe Hamradio. Ham operators are enthusiasts, licensed and knowledgeable. Mullies that monitor police frequencies are nosey people who JUST MAY use a scanner to avoid law enforcement, and the reasons they give for breaking the law should be evaluated with that in mind.
Again, I did not mean to come off as a know it all. I respect the hobby, and I respect those who respect law enforcement. The comments I had responded to were inappropriate, plain and simple.

Prospect62 wrote:I wasn't trying to come off as a know-it-all or a nazi. I certainly do not know it all. I do know how to read the law and apply it, I do know where I am justified in making an arrest.

When it comes ot hams and radios, maybe you don't.

I do know what I can do incident to that arrest, and I know what I can and cannot seize and when.
Chances are, if I encountered Joe Hamradio with an "extended receive" radio, not only would I NOT impound his car, but I probably wouldn't even ticket him.

That is good because legally you would have absolutely no standing and authority to do so. You should change that "chances are" to "absolutely" if you wish to avoid a lawsuit against you or your department.

Being a radio enthusiast myself, I have an inclination to those federal exemption laws, although I'll tell you I need to do alot more research on them.

In light of your above statement, I agree that more research is definitly needed on your part.

Basically, unless Joe Hamradio is a total dickhead and becomes Joe "I can be a cop too" Hamradio, I will be more than willing to cut breaks all day long.

Following the law is not "cutting a break". A ham can be a total dickhead, and you would still have absolutley no authority to ticket him or arrest him for possession of the radio. Period.

I try to be more than fair when I am working in that capacity. I will be the first to tell you that I don't have every law regarding this issue memorized, and I appreciate the feedback.

Thats good that you realize you don't know everything about the law, just don't act like you do when you encounter the situation as so amny cops do.
Study the federal preemption I posted and pass the word to your co-workers. It is not something that you should "have an inclination to", it is the law!

Now take Joe Scannercarrier. As far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't be held in the same regard as Joe Hamradio. Ham operators are enthusiasts, licensed and knowledgeable. Mullies that monitor police frequencies are nosey people who JUST MAY use a scanner to avoid law enforcement, and the reasons they give for breaking the law should be evaluated with that in mind.
Again, I did not mean to come off as a know it all. I respect the hobby, and I respect those who respect law enforcement. The comments I had responded to were inappropriate, plain and simple.

I respect LE, heck my fiance is a jailer and dispatcher, but it just gets old having to carry copies of the law around becuase there are so many who enforce it without having a proper working knowledge of it. If you are going to enforce your states scanner law, you should be 100% familiar with the fact that federal law effectivly nullifies it with regard to FCC licensed radio amatuers.

The worst part is not even that many don't know the law, but carry on with a "I have a badge, so what I say goes, I know better than you" attitude. When you provide a LEO with your ham license, a copy of the state law that exempts hams, and the federal preemption and they still harass you.... it gets old.

KF4PEP is 100% correct - on all counts.

Well I tried to be civil and a decent guy, but I guess I'm not gonna win this one. You sir obviously have quite the hardon for cops. You are correct in many of the points you raise, no doubt. But you missed my point. I AM NOT PICKING ON HAMS HERE. I am finished defending myself against someone not willing to sympathize with my viewpoint in the least.
Jailers and dispatchers are not law enforcement, by the way.
Man, all I can say is keep on doing what you're doing, it is clear that you have an excellent knowledge of the legislation that applies to you. You'll be in good shape if you ever are questioned.

Happy New Year everyone! Drive safe.

Prospect62 wrote:Well I tried to be civil and a decent guy, but I guess I'm not gonna win this one.

Not untill you become more familiar with the law, no.

You sir obviously have quite the hardon for cops.

No, I just hate it when people act like because they speak from a position of authority they know more than everyone else, or people who speak as though they are experts even if thier knowledge is lacking. In short, I don't have a hardon for cops, many of my friends are cops, but I can't stand people who act as if they know everything and do not, especially if they are in a position to cause someone a hard time due to thier ignorance.

You are correct in many of the points you raise, no doubt.

That I am

But you missed my point. I AM NOT PICKING ON HAMS HERE.

But you are spreading bad information, and then said yourself that your decision to ticket a ham or not would not be based on the law, since it clearly says you cannot, but by his or her attitude. You took an oath to uphold the law, not arrest people who are exempt from it if you don't like thier attitude.

I am finished defending myself against someone not willing to sympathize with my viewpoint in the least.

I find it very hard to sympathize with someones viewpoint who has stated thier decision to arrest someone would not be based on if they had legal authority to or not, but that persons attitude.

Jailers and dispatchers are not law enforcement, by the way.
Man, all I can say is keep on doing what you're doing, it is clear that you have an excellent knowledge of the legislation that applies to you. You'll be in good shape if you ever are questioned.

Happy New Year everyone! Drive safe.

I wish I could be sure.. in so many documented cases even if the hams coudl articulate and prove the law they were arrested anyway. But the good thing is that if someone chooses to try to arrest or cite me after I provide all my documentation, I have set myself up for a good civil case

KF4PEP wrote:

chipjumper wrote:I'm in the good old state of Michigan (Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam circumspice). I think they were the first state to use radios for their State Police??? I can't remember. I do know that the ASTRO statewide system is a little goofy per some blue-bellied buds of mine.

Michigan law as of 2002: Police reciver radios illegal in vehicles unless an amatuer radio operater with a technician or higher level amatuer license ,or with written permission.


Go get your tech license, its a very simple 35 question multiple choice test, and you will be free and clear.

here is the etxt of the law: http://www.afn.org/~afn09444/scanlaws/l ... er/mi.html

LOL, you don't even need to go that far.

Just go to: http://www.mpscs.com/com-022.pdf .

Fill in the PDF form (you can do it on your computer -- too nice!) and send it in to Lansing.

They'll run a LEIN on your information, and, if you check out, they will send you a card which they call "PERMIT FOR USE OF SHORT WAVE RECIEVER IN VEHICLE." It's signed by the Michigan State Police Director. So, you will have his autograph for your collection. I also think that they also put this data into the state police's database, so any agency can confirm it, if they so desire. But I'm not sure.

They ask why you are requesting this permit. In all honesty, I put down "Railfanning and recreational purposes" and I got my permit back, before I got my ham license.
Here it is:


How do you like the phrasing on that? "[E]xcept those frequencies licensed for police radar." LOL. I guess I'm not allowed to have a radar detector now.

"[T]o operate a vehicle with a short wave radio reciever..." LOL. I thought the law specifically stated POSSESSION was illegal, not simply driving around in a vehicle with a scanner.

That reminds me, my sincere apology to the UPS truck driver, who delivered the package to my door. That package contained my scanner. So, if you think about it, he POSSESSED a scanner capable of reciving police frequencies.

I think our law is MUCH too broadly written.

As far as the permit card goes, I really don't think they seem to give a rat's-behind why you want a permit, they just put it into the computer, and send it back to you.

Some law our state has.

I'd rant and rave about it, but I'm tired now, so I won't.

It's a misdemoner, which means that it really counts. It's not just a parking ticket, or a speeding violation. This is a real law. And I don't think it is right, because it doesn't target what it should -- criminals using radios to listen into the police, to avoid aprehension. Michigan should do what other states should do -- make using a scanner in execution of a crime illegal, or get rid of the law all together.

Prospect62 wrote:Well I tried to be civil and a decent guy, but I guess I'm not gonna win this one. You sir obviously have quite the hardon for cops. You are correct in many of the points you raise, no doubt. But you missed my point. I AM NOT PICKING ON HAMS HERE. I am finished defending myself against someone not willing to sympathize with my viewpoint in the least.
<b>Jailers and dispatchers are not law enforcement, by the way. :D</b>
Man, all I can say is keep on doing what you're doing, it is clear that you have an excellent knowledge of the legislation that applies to you. You'll be in good shape if you ever are questioned.

Happy New Year everyone! Drive safe. :lol:

I happen to agree, you made your points with decency and civility. But that doesn't detract from the fact that KF4PEP is correct in his points. The law is very clear as to the federal preemption for hams, and you've read it. For you to now say you don't mind cutting hams a break is just wrong. I agree, every guy on the job can't know every law, but that's neither here nor there. The law applies, and a friendly hint - if you ticket a ham, you're going to look silly.

As for your comment on jailers and dispatchers, you are out of line. (Emphasis above is mine.) No, dispatchers don't have law enforcement authority, but if you think they're "not law enforcement," you've got a problem. Your dispatcher can save your life, and your dispatcher could very well kill you. Your life literally depends on your dispatcher. If that doesn't mean he/she is ON YOUR TEAM, then I'm missing something important. (And no, I'm not a dispatcher.)

What I am is a correction officer - sort of like a jailer if you will. As it happens, in New Jersey, we ARE sworn law enforcement officers. Just like you. Yep, I went to the academy, I carry off-duty, I can make arrests, etc. But even in juristictions where jailers, correction officers, etc, are not sworn, you think they're NOT law enforcement? Hmmmm . . . where do you think those bad guys go when they get convicted? Suspended animation? Have you ever arrested someone who went to a state prison? You probably had your weapon out, had backup, had handcuffs, and all that. And with absolute justification too. That's your job.

Know what MY job is? I have 132 of those knuckleheads running around all day - I let them in their cells, let them out, send them off to wherever they have to go, deal with them when they decide to duke it out on the tier, etc. And they're not in handcuffs, I don't have a backup with a shotgun watching, and I don't have a weapon of my own. That 132 of them is just on MY block. The jail has almost 2000 of them total.

I'm not looking for sympathy here; this is how I've chosen to earn my living for the last 22 years. I'm simply making a point - we ARE on the same side, whether we have arrest powers or not (which as I said in NJ, we do.) I work a beat where 100% of the residents are criminals (other states call them felons, in NJ the words "felon" and "felony" do not appear in the criminal code.) You won't find those odds ANYWHERE. Not in Bed-Stuy, not the South Bronx, not East LA - noplace.

So watch who you put down. Again, we're all on the same team, that's what should count. And KF4PEPs reference to his fiance was simply to let you know he sympathises with those of us on THIS team.

Sorry to go on and on, but your attitude is common among street cops. The PBA bulletin board in my place actually had a list posted once upon a time of towns where the cops didn't think correction officers were "real cops." My guess is that if a correction officer had seen one of those street cops getting his ass handed to him on the side of the road, he might have thought twice about stopping to help. After all, if the cop doesn't think I'm a "real cop," I would only be in the way. Bad way to be when there are 6000 correction officers riding around - lots of help to be had maybe, huh?

I'm past really caring personally. I get a decent paycheck and I retire in three years. (Three years from today in fact!) But I dislike hearing what I am and what I'm not from those who should know and obviously don't.

Remember we're all on the same team, whether you like it or not.

Good luck,