HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Gary Coffman
>
>This evening, a friend of mine was stopped in his car for carrying a ham radio
>and a scanner. This friend was doing NOTHING illegal, and didn't only have his
>amateur radio license, but also his civil defense license (for MARS) with him.
>The police officier said that he wasn't supposed to be carrying that stuff. My
>friend tried to claim that this was incorrect, but after the officier started
>looking like he would take the equiptment, my friend stated something to the
>effect of "I didn't know that was true." I believe the officier made some sort
>of comment stating that it was against the city ordinance. Arrrgh. Right.
>
[deleted]
>
>One last question... My friend was right and they were wrong...correct?
Maybe, maybe not. There are local and state laws concerning mobile use
of radio equipment. Some, like scanner possession, are, IMHO, unConstitutional,
but would require your friend to go to Federal court to get them overturned.
That's a long and expensive process. Others are clearly legal, such as the
prohibition against using headphones while driving or having an ATV receiver
visible from the driver's position. In many cases, local laws classify
mobile possession of scanners and two way radio equipment as the equivalent
of possession of burglar tools since they might allow you to avoid police
patrols. Possession of burglar tools is a very vague area of law. A tire
iron could be considered a burglar tool, and every car has one. This type
of law is used by police to hassle anyone they consider undesirable.
Gary KE4ZV
Erik Jacobson
post this (rather than .misc).
This evening, a friend of mine was stopped in his car for carrying a ham radio
and a scanner. This friend was doing NOTHING illegal, and didn't only have his
amateur radio license, but also his civil defense license (for MARS) with him.
The police officier said that he wasn't supposed to be carrying that stuff. My
friend tried to claim that this was incorrect, but after the officier started
looking like he would take the equiptment, my friend stated something to the
effect of "I didn't know that was true." I believe the officier made some sort
of comment stating that it was against the city ordinance. Arrrgh. Right.
Because of this, my friend was "printed up." We're not even sure exactly what
that means. But whatever it was, the whole thing seemed very unfair.
I am just looking for people who have had an experience like this. I am also
looking for some suggestions on how to deal with this.
My friend doesn't take things like this lightly. He doesn't have a bad temper
often, but when it comes to things like this, he goes off the handle a bit.
After this happened, he was making statements to the effect of "I am going to
throw all of my radio stuff away.... It's useless!" My friend is the type who
just might want to prosecute. He doesn't have money though :(
I would give out my friend's name/callsign, and the city/county involved, but my
friend doesn't want to deal with further hassels at this time. (He doesn't want
to make the situation worse). But if he says yes, I may be tempted to throw out
the city and county this happened in. (And it isn't my city/county...)
I don't know how the police officer saw the HT/Scanner (both portible) but my
friend may have been talking on the radio or something as the police officer
passed by ??? They were NOT doing anything illegal...unless talking on an
amateur radio/lisening to a scanner is illegal. Humph. (As a side note, my
friend wasn't the driver).
One last question... My friend was right and they were wrong...correct?
Erik
N0SVX
* Origin: Dark Knight's Table - N0SVX - Minnetonka, MN (1:282/31)
Tim Tyler
>and a scanner. This friend was doing NOTHING illegal, and didn't only have his
>amateur radio license, but also his civil defense license (for MARS) with him.
>The police officier said that he wasn't supposed to be carrying that stuff. My
>friend tried to claim that this was incorrect, but after the officier started
>looking like he would take the equiptment, my friend stated something to the
>effect of "I didn't know that was true." I believe the officier made some sort
>of comment stating that it was against the city ordinance. Arrrgh. Right.
>
>Because of this, my friend was "printed up." We're not even sure exactly what
>that means. But whatever it was, the whole thing seemed very unfair.
>
Your friend needs to go to that police department during the day & ask to
speak to a command officer (Sgt., Lt., Captain, etc.) about the incident. If
you provide him with the date & time of the incident, he/she ought to be
able to look at the report or 'dispatch card' & see the officer's version.
Ask the command officer for the # of the city ordinance which prohibits
the use of ham radio (and/or scanners).
Most likely, there isn't one. Tell the command oficer that you think
Officer ________ acted very unprofessionally and in your opinion, discredits
the whole police force in that city. I suppose for good measure you could
briefly mention ham radio public service stuff like ARES, RACES, & Skywarn
at this point.
Tell him/her that you were so irritated that you had planned on going to
the media with this 'ham radio harassment' story, but that since the command
officer seemed so sincere (heh...), you'll hold back on that, & settle for a
note from the officer in question stating that he was made aware of the
legality of amateur radio/scanners in his venue.
Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for civillians, nor should it be for
cops.
Your friend might also want to advise the community's ARES/RACES
officials, including the Emergency Coordinator. They often interact with
some of the public safety commanders, & might be able to 'express their
concern' about the situation to them.
This mostly applies to ham radio, as it is entirely possible that the
community has an ordinance prohibiting vehicular use of scanners.
Of course, there's also the possibility that your friend who claims he
"didn't do anything." Heard an interesting police call go out over his
scanner, & decided to be in the area. Depending on the circumstances, that
can arise suspicion.
Once the cop saw that your pal had a scanner, that is a 'force multiplier'
when it comes to suspicion. Most cops don't like people being able to
listen in on their radio transmissions, & relatively few have actual
knowledge as to whether or not it is legal to have a scanner in the car, but
most think it shouldn't be. That, in their mind, is good grounds to hassle
someone that has one.
*IF* your friend truly was 100% innocent, & isn't wimpy, he should be
willing to go to the PD & have a nice, calm chat with a command officer.
Tim
P.S. Posting the city name isn't going to cause some sort of commotion,
because most of us realize that the problem is endemic with thousands
of individual officers, & not entire communities & police departments.
--
Tim Tyler Internet: t...@ais.org MCI Mail: 442-5735 C$erve: 72571,1005
P.O. Box 443 Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
Ypsilanti MI
48197-0443 PADI, USPA, AFCEA, INEOA, P226, VFR700, etc.
Steve Wolf
When your friend decided not to follow up on his beliefs, he
became as much a part of the problem as the original officer.
In Ohio, I would expect to be charged with the crime of
Possession of Criminal Tools should I use a scanner or
piece of ham radio gear in the commission of a crime. I
would not expect to be stopped for possession of a radio.
73,
Steve, NO8M
--
Nick Sayer
police.
I received shoddy treatment once from the campus rent-a-cops at a college
I attended. I was on my way home and stopped to lean against a post
for a second so I could dial the autopatch. I was accosted by a
pair of campus "police" and asked to identify myself. I gave them
the minimum and refused to give them my phone number or show them
my driver's license (I wasn't driving). I then told them that I
was a licensed Amateur Radio Operator and pointedly told them
that if I was under arrest I wanted to know the charge. If not,
then I was going to be on my way. They folded and I went home.
I then called a meeting of the campus Amateur Radio club (all 5 of
us), and we wrote a letter to the "Public Safety" department with
the strongest possible language, but never heard anything back from
them. But they never pestered us again either.
--
Nick Sayer <mra...@quack.sac.ca.us> | "My friends used to say I was such a nerd
N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA | But I refused to touch that strange bean curd!
37 19 49 N / 121 57 36 W | Ah ee oh! Killer tofu! ee-ah-ee!
+1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' | Ah ee oh! Killer tofu!"
22501-sohl
details of ham being stopped and told he was breaking the law (city law)
by having radio equipment in his car... deleted
>I'd give out my friend's name/callsign, and the city/county involved, but my
>friend doesn't want to deal with further hassels at this time.
> But if he says yes, I may be tempted to throw out
>the city and county this happened in. (And it isn't my city/county...)
Without additional info, how can we eliminate these unfair and probably
incorrect activity by some police officers?
At this time, there is no single state law that imposes any such
restrictions on any ham. The ARRL would be most interested in being
made aware of any local, county or city laws which might be on the
books that make it illegal for a ham to have radio equipment in his/her
car. PLEASE get us more details...at least the specific city, county
involved and the ordinance/law/statute number.
As someone else has suggested in another reply, your friend may
have been the victim of a smartass cop flexing his muscle with no
actual law(s) to back him up.
>One last question... My friend was right and they were wrong...correct?
Most likely, but we need more specific info to be sure.
Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet wh...@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
If automatic email replies to me bounce, then use a manual address
as shown in my sig
Erik Jacobson
GC> of radio equipment. Some, like scanner possession, are,
GC> IMHO, unConstitutional,
In Minnesota (where this happened) it is legal to carry a scanner in your car as
long as you carry an amateur radio license. He did carry this, and showed it to
the peace officer.
Garry, I appreciate your response. I hope to hear from you again.
Erik
N0SVX
* Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
Erik Jacobson
SW> became as much a part of the problem as the original officer.
Ohh. Now I see what you mean. In your e-mail message to me, I didn't quite
understand what you were getting at.
The problem was, he has a totally clean record. He didn't want anything to
smudge it. My friend is following up with it as we speak. I wouldn't say that
he is going to go to court or anything since nothing was taken. But you never
know.
It sounds like a sheriff friend of his is going to personally present the part
of the Minnesota law that says it is okay for Amateurs to carry
scanners/equiptment that can receive emergancy communications to the offending
police department.
This should be interesting. And it should get his name off the record or
whatever. I guess the offending city has a collection of amateur radio
operators on file for things like this ?? I don't quite understand the
processes behind this. I mean, they didn't take the radio... yet his name is on
a list of sorts somewhere. Can someone clear this up for me?
I don't know much about what exactly happens when a person is stopped for
something in the way of getting something on the record.
By the way, Steve, Thanks for your response. I appreciate it.
22501-sohl
>In Minnesota (where this happened) it is legal to carry a scanner in your car as
>long as you carry an amateur radio license. He did carry this, and showed it to
>the peace officer.
It is also a good thing to carry a copy of the state law/statute in
your car since it provides a documented proof to any officer that
may question the ham gear that the state of Minnesota specifically
allows hams to have equipment in their vehicles. This too can be
a plus for your friend since the state law can possibly be viewed
as overriding any individual city or county ordinance/law that might
not have a ham exemption.
The Minnesota statute/law that is applicable is Minn. Stat. 299C.37 (1988).
The law specifically prohibits having radio receiving equipment (ie. scanners,
etc.) in motor vehicles. There is, however, a specific exemption
for a person who "hold(s) an amateur radio license issued by the FCC..."
The ham exemption does not apply to a ham if the ham has been convicted
of a crime of violence as defined by section 624.712, subdivision 5,
within the last 10 years.
Please keep us posted as to the final outcome of your friends encounter
AND if there is any specific city/county ordinance which the local police
may be trying to enforce over that of the state statute. Also, as
someone else suggested, do keep any local ARES/RACES, ham clubs
and the local ARRL folks appraised of the situation.
Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet wh...@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Note: If direct email to me bounces, resend being sure to use one of the
addresses in my sig.
Erik Jacobson
2> It is also a good thing to carry a copy of the state law/statute in
2> your car since it provides a documented proof to any officer that
2> may question the ham gear that the state of Minnesota specifically
This is a good idea. I think I will try to grab the actual law and carry it
myself. This whole story seems to be getting a good ending. I'll update
everyone on it here.
John said it would be fine if I gave his name, callsign, and the city/county
this happened in.
So.. The guy's name is John. His callsign is N0PQK. The city where this fun
stuff happened was Owatonna, MN. This is in Steele county. By the way, John
actually lives in Faribault, MN. Owatonna is fairly close to Faribault.
My friend called the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and discussed this issue
with them. The Bureau claimed that he was totally within his rights, and what
the police did was wrong. Further, the Bureau is going to delivier (fax?) a
copy of the law directly to the Owatonna/Steele county police department.
It should be interesting to hear what sort of response this produces :)
So it looks as if this story has an actual good ending. I'll keep you folks up
to date if anything more should happen. I might just call the Owatonna police
dept and make a little complaint.
Erik
gordon e. banks
> Ask the command officer for the # of the city ordinance which prohibits
>the use of ham radio (and/or scanners).
>
> Most likely, there isn't one. Tell the command oficer that you think
>Officer ________ acted very unprofessionally and in your opinion, discredits
>the whole police force in that city. I suppose for good measure you could
>briefly mention ham radio public service stuff like ARES, RACES, & Skywarn
>at this point.
> Tell him/her that you were so irritated that you had planned on going to
>the media with this 'ham radio harassment' story, but that since the command
>officer seemed so sincere (heh...), you'll hold back on that, & settle for a
>note from the officer in question stating that he was made aware of the
>legality of amateur radio/scanners in his venue.
>
I'd probably skip the part about the media unless the police brass
are real nasty about it. The cop probably was misinformed and not
just a bully, but even if he was a bully, the last thing you need
is to have a bully with a badge and a grudge against you. Probably
if you handle it right, you can get the cop's knowledge corrected
without causing a big stink. In fact, I would say something to
the effect that "I don't want to get the officer in trouble, but..."
He needs to take some action or other hams will get harrassed
by the same cop. Cops are not lawyers and often don't know the
law very well. He may have read something about scanners listening
to cellular phone calls and jumped to conclusions.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks N3JXP | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
g...@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu | it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
edwin.m.schaefer
I believe that most of the advice thus far given on the subject of what to
do in interactions with police may lead to dangerous consequences.
I believe the proper course of action in interactions with police is:
0. Always _obey whatever orders the police give_; submit quietly.
1. Always, no matter how provoked, be calm, respectful and polite.
2. Answer all questions responsively but avoid giving more information than
you have to; don't amplify a response _until_ asked directly.
3. Do not attempt to assert your "rights" to an armed policeman. The Judge and
Jury will determine later what law was violated; the police only bring cases
to the court. The court decides the law - not the police.
5. Do not antagonize police by ostentatiously noting names, badge numbers, etc.
or implying later reprisals.
6. Don't get mad - and forget the idea that you can get even.
Also, the last thing we need is for government to come to view amateur radio
operators as "the enemy" in the same way that they now view general aviation
pilots. We should be _very_ circumspect in asserting any privilege with
respect to interactions with police.
I've appended the original article and several of the followups with my
comments included.
Just another point of view... 73 de Ed K9JMA
=============================================================================
>Because of this, my friend was "printed up." We're not even sure exactly what
>that means. But whatever it was, the whole thing seemed very unfair.
That means your friend is now on the list of "usual suspects" that the police
will consider probably involved in some classes of crimes. He is now a
"known troublemaker". Fair is the event we have once a year at the fairgrounds
and isn't related in any way to police.
>I am just looking for people who have had an experience like this. I am also
>looking for some suggestions on how to deal with this.
Don't get involved - so far they have no interest in _you_.
>One last question... My friend was right and they were wrong...correct?
No, the cop is _always, by law, right_.
=======================================================================
> Your friend needs to go to that police department during the day & ask to
>speak to a command officer (Sgt., Lt., Captain, etc.) about the incident. If
>you provide him with the date & time of the incident, he/she ought to be
>able to look at the report or 'dispatch card' & see the officer's version.
> Ask the command officer for the # of the city ordinance which prohibits
>the use of ham radio (and/or scanners).
>
> Most likely, there isn't one. Tell the command oficer that you think
>Officer ________ acted very unprofessionally and in your opinion, discredits
>the whole police force in that city. I suppose for good measure you could
>briefly mention ham radio public service stuff like ARES, RACES, & Skywarn
>at this point.
> Tell him/her that you were so irritated that you had planned on going to
>the media with this 'ham radio harassment' story, but that since the command
>officer seemed so sincere (heh...), you'll hold back on that, & settle for a
>note from the officer in question stating that he was made aware of the
>legality of amateur radio/scanners in his venue.
Very dangerous advice. Talking to cops in a _threatening manner_ like this
will get you lots more of the treatment you don't like...and _they_ have
clubs and guns as well as radios. "You _can't_ fight city hall."
>when it comes to suspicion. Most cops don't like people being able to
>listen in on their radio transmissions, & relatively few have actual
>knowledge as to whether or not it is legal to have a scanner in the car, but
>most think it shouldn't be. That, in their mind, is good grounds to hassle
Damn right they don't like the idea of public scrutiny; and their mind(?) is
the one that controls the finger on the trigger... If they have good grounds
to hassle, they _will_ do it - in spades, doubled, and redoubled.
> *IF* your friend truly was 100% innocent, & isn't wimpy, he should be
No one can be 100% innocent; they can _always_ pin something on anyone.
All they have to do is keep up surveillance until the victim crosses some
yellow line somewhere, or have the building inspector, or health department,
or .... keep looking.
>willing to go to the PD & have a nice, calm chat with a command officer.
And get his name remembered even as having caused _more trouble_!
Only if he's a real glutton for punishment.
>
> Tim
> Tim Tyler Internet: t...@ais.org MCI Mail: 442-5735 C$erve: 72571,1005
=========================================================================
>The problem was, he has a totally clean record. He didn't want anything to
No, he _had_ a clean record, now he has a record...
>smudge it. My friend is following up with it as we speak. I wouldn't say that
> ..........lines deleted.............
>This should be interesting. And it should get his name off the record or
_No_ way can the "record" be erased ... cops have _long_ memories...
and they share the information nationwide under the auspices of the "feds"
so the record may propagate forever.
>whatever. I guess the offending city has a collection of amateur radio
>operators on file for things like this ?? I don't quite understand the
>processes behind this. I mean, they didn't take the radio... yet his name
>is on a list of sorts somewhere. Can someone clear this up for me?
>
>I don't know much about what exactly happens when a person is stopped for
>something in the way of getting something on the record.
In general, the police organizations maintain records of _everyone_ with whom
they have _any_ contact detailing information believed relevant to the contact.
Whenever a cop interacts with anyone the _fact of the interaction_ is recorded
and becomes probable cause to suspect criminal activity in future.
>
> * Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
===========================================================================
>wh...@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) wrote:
>
> 2> It is also a good thing to carry a copy of the state law/statute in
> 2> your car since it provides a documented proof to any officer that
> 2> may question the ham gear that the state of Minnesota specifically
>
>This is a good idea. I think I will try to grab the actual law and carry it
>myself. This whole story seems to be getting a good ending. I'll update
>everyone on it here.
Be careful. A cop isn't going to be interested in looking at some scrap of
paper while he's trying to keep his attention on a suspect. Save the talk of
laws for the judge; he _may_ be interested, the cop _isn't_ because he is
more concerned with whether _this_ suspect also has a gun and will attack _him_.
>
>It should be interesting to hear what sort of response this produces :)
>
>So it looks as if this story has an actual good ending. I'll keep you folks up
>to date if anything more should happen. I might just call the Owatonna police
>dept and make a little complaint.
But don't call from your _own_ telephone, _don't_ let them know who you are,
and be aware that if they react negatively to your interference they may
direct their reaction against your friend even if they don't know you.
Todd E Wheeler
===
What is this? Meekly back down from a improper police action?
Sounds like k9...@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (edwin.m.schaefer) is rather paranoid
about police.
- don't let them know who you are???
- don't call from your own phone???
Sounds like bad advice to me.
Don't be afraid to find out who is right and who is wrong here.
Good luck.
Todd N0NUM
tewh...@iastate.edu
Tim Tyler
>
>I believe that most of the advice thus far given on the subject of what to
>do in interactions with police may lead to dangerous consequences.
>I believe the proper course of action in interactions with police is:
>
>0. Always _obey whatever orders the police give_; submit quietly.
>1. Always, no matter how provoked, be calm, respectful and polite.
>2. Answer all questions responsively but avoid giving more information than
>you have to; don't amplify a response _until_ asked directly.
>3. Do not attempt to assert your "rights" to an armed policeman. The Judge and
>Jury will determine later what law was violated; the police only bring cases
>to the court. The court decides the law - not the police.
>5. Do not antagonize police by ostentatiously noting names, badge numbers, etc.
>or implying later reprisals.
>6. Don't get mad - and forget the idea that you can get even.
reading any responses which seemed to be anathema to the above. In regards
to #6, I don't recall anyone stating anything that would be the equivalent
of "getting even" with the police.
>I've appended the original article and several of the followups with my
>comments included.
>
>Just another point of view... 73 de Ed K9JMA
>=============================================================================
>>Because of this, my friend was "printed up." We're not even sure exactly what
>>that means. But whatever it was, the whole thing seemed very unfair.
>
>That means your friend is now on the list of "usual suspects" that the police
>will consider probably involved in some classes of crimes. He is now a
>"known troublemaker". Fair is the event we have once a year at the fairgrounds
>and isn't related in any way to police.
>
>
>>One last question... My friend was right and they were wrong...correct?
>
>No, the cop is _always, by law, right_.
>=======================================================================
>> Your friend needs to go to that police department during the day & ask to
>>speak to a command officer (Sgt., Lt., Captain, etc.) about the incident. If
>>you provide him with the date & time of the incident, he/she ought to be
>>able to look at the report or 'dispatch card' & see the officer's version.
>> Ask the command officer for the # of the city ordinance which prohibits
>>the use of ham radio (and/or scanners).
>>
>> Most likely, there isn't one. Tell the command oficer that you think
>>Officer ________ acted very unprofessionally and in your opinion, discredits
>>the whole police force in that city. I suppose for good measure you could
>>briefly mention ham radio public service stuff like ARES, RACES, & Skywarn
>>at this point.
>> Tell him/her that you were so irritated that you had planned on going to
>>the media with this 'ham radio harassment' story, but that since the command
>>officer seemed so sincere (heh...), you'll hold back on that, & settle for a
>>note from the officer in question stating that he was made aware of the
>>legality of amateur radio/scanners in his venue.
>
>Very dangerous advice. Talking to cops in a _threatening manner_ like this
>will get you lots more of the treatment you don't like...and _they_ have
>clubs and guns as well as radios. "You _can't_ fight city hall."
>
OK, I don't think I need to quote you any more. I don't know what sort
of nasty experience you've had with a police officer or department, but I
think you are rather paranoid & have some sort of notion that the police are
gestapo who can & will do as they please without checks & balances, & that
the only escape we civillians have is to stay out of their way.
I'm not a cop, but I have worked alongside them as well as in command
positions above & below them. It is true that they are (naturally) suspect
of people that walk in off the street to talk to them, but that comes with
the job. If you don't act like a jerk or a lawyer, or tell them you pay
their salaries, etc. they'll listen to you. These days of 'community
oriented policing,' they are very receptive to comments & even criticism,
especially since it might avert a lawsuit in the future. They don't have
the time or the resources to try & maintain some sort of database on every
person who disagrees with them, either.
"Printed up" probably just means that the officer ran his name & plate
thru the databases to make sure he wasn't wanted. That's a routine
procedure, once the officer has made the stop. A brief report, perhaps just
a paragraph *might* have been written, which will just state that subject
_____, who was driving ______ was stopped at time/location for _____, & that
he had radio equipment in the vehicle.
This is a routine procedure that is carried out each time an officer is
dispatched to a scene or runs a plate/ID.
If you live in a town with a population of about 3, perhaps the police
will have time to "harass" each person that they've encountered in the past.
In reality, there are too many serious criminals that the police have to
contend with.
--
Tim Tyler Internet: t...@ais.org MCI Mail: 442-5735 C$erve: 72571,1005
Scott C Pettigrew
That's probably true enough...but remember:
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're NOT being followed!
Scott
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Scott 'Scooter' Pettigrew | Email: spet...@engin.umich.edu |
| 2763 Stonebury Court |-----------------------------------------------|
| Rochester Hills, MI 48307 | "You need love like I do, don't you?" DC Drive|
Phil Karn
|> I believe the proper course of action in interactions with police is:
Although some of this advice is good (don't get mad or make threats,
be polite, etc), I think it goes overboard. The best way to protect
any threatened right, be it to encrypt your phone calls, criticize the
government or to possess a radio transceiver, is to EXERCISE IT. In
other words, be polite but also BE FIRM when you know you're in the
right. Far more freedom has been lost in this country by the gradual
nibbling away by our own government than by overt acts of repression.
Phil
Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY)
>of nasty experience you've had with a police officer or department, but I
>think you are rather paranoid & have some sort of notion that the police are
>gestapo who can & will do as they please without checks & balances, & that
>the only escape we civillians have is to stay out of their way.
Well, let me put it this way, Rodney King is paranoid, and the cops are
innocent. Uh Huh. 73
Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY)
article just to put two of your own (plus an 8 line .sig) at the
bottom? I don't care about bandwidth, it's just loopey and annoying.
Erik Jacobson
all of the responses and suggestions. Most of the responses have been very
helpful.
It looks like things turned out well this time. I know that everyone is not so
lucky when it comes to things like this.
Erik
N0SVX
Gregory Lapin
>do in interactions with police may lead to dangerous consequences.
>I believe the proper course of action in interactions with police is:
>
>0. Always _obey whatever orders the police give_; submit quietly.
>1. Always, no matter how provoked, be calm, respectful and polite.
>2. Answer all questions responsively but avoid giving more information than
>you have to; don't amplify a response _until_ asked directly.
>3. Do not attempt to assert your "rights" to an armed policeman. The Judge and
>Jury will determine later what law was violated; the police only bring cases
>to the court. The court decides the law - not the police.
>5. Do not antagonize police by ostentatiously noting names, badge numbers, etc
>6. Don't get mad - and forget the idea that you can get even.
>
>Also, the last thing we need is for government to come to view amateur radio
>operators as "the enemy" in the same way that they now view general aviation
>pilots. We should be _very_ circumspect in asserting any privilege with
>respect to interactions with police.
>
>I've appended the original article and several of the followups with my
>comments included.
>
>Just another point of view... 73 de Ed K9JMA
>=============================================================================
>>Because of this, my friend was "printed up." We're not even sure exactly wha
>and becomes probable cause to suspect criminal activity in future.
>>
>> * Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
>===========================================================================
>>wh...@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) wrote:
>>
>> 2> It is also a good thing to carry a copy of the state law/statute in
>> 2> your car since it provides a documented proof to any officer that
>> 2> may question the ham gear that the state of Minnesota specifically
>>
>>This is a good idea. I think I will try to grab the actual law and carry it
>>myself. This whole story seems to be getting a good ending. I'll update
>>everyone on it here.
>
>Be careful. A cop isn't going to be interested in looking at some scrap of
>paper while he's trying to keep his attention on a suspect. Save the talk of
>laws for the judge; he _may_ be interested, the cop _isn't_ because he is
>more concerned with whether _this_ suspect also has a gun and will attack _him
>>
>>
>>So it looks as if this story has an actual good ending. I'll keep you folks
>
>But don't call from your _own_ telephone, _don't_ let them know who you are,
>and be aware that if they react negatively to your interference they may
>direct their reaction against your friend even if they don't know you.
Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your mind it will creep...
John Smith (an alias - you never know who is reading this!)
Chuck Adams
(Prior material deleted to appease Mr. Gefaell)
>But don't call from your _own_ telephone, _don't_ let them know who you are,
>and be aware that if they react negatively to your interference they may
>direct their reaction against your friend even if they don't know you.
Bet he didn't know *they* even monitor usenet traffic. Now they know *who he
is*.
nudge-nudge
wink-wink
;-) ;-)
Chuck Adams, WB5WRR (The Chuckster)
Not an official document of DOE, SSCL, URA or EG&G
Try Internet brand Tequila - "A worm in every bottle"
Internet: chuck...@qmail.ssc.gov (aka 143.202.130.11)
j...@n5ial.chi.il.us
first off, if you're stopped for some reason for having Amateur Radio
equipment, the simplest thing to do is simply ask the cop if he/she would
like to see the FCC license which permits to to own and operate that
equipment. period.
btw, notice I said *ASK* if they'd like to see it --- by that, I mean to
imply that you are courteous and friendly, as opposed to blabbing on about
how you have a right to have this and that, etc..... just politely ask,
and maybe indicate that you feel that showing them this license, that it
will clear things up. don't say words like confusion, mistake,
misunderstanding, wrong, etc., which point the finger at them and perhaps
breed hostility --- remember, you want them on YOUR side....
In article <1992Sep9.1...@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
k9...@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (edwin.m.schaefer) writes:
>That means your friend is now on the list of "usual suspects" that the police
>will consider probably involved in some classes of crimes. He is now a
>"known troublemaker".
since when? where are you getting your information? this doesn't sound
much like anything I've ever heard...and several members of my family are,
in fact, cops. I think they'd be rather shocked to hear some of the things
you say (yes, I do know that there are bad cops, and that some have this
misguided belief that they are above the law).
let's look at a few (more or less) one-liners, shall we?
1) >Don't get involved - so far they have no interest in _you_.
2) >No, the cop is _always, by law, right_.
3) >"You _can't_ fight city hall."
4) >No one can be 100% innocent; they can _always_ pin something on anyone.
5) >And get his name remembered even as having caused _more trouble_!
6) >In general, the police organizations maintain records of _everyone_ with
>whom they have _any_ contact detailing information believed relevant
>to the contact. Whenever a cop interacts with anyone the _fact of the
>interaction_ is recorded and becomes probable cause to suspect
>criminal activity in future.
7) >But don't call from your _own_ telephone, _don't_ let them know who
>you are, and be aware that if they react negatively to your
>interference they may direct their reaction against your friend even
>if they don't know you.
ok, just one question.... are we talking about the police in the US? or
are we talking about some organization like the KGB?
later....
--jim
\input std_disclaimer % 73 DE N5IAL (/9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[...] the plural of `mongoose' ought to be `polygoose'." [Jargon file 2.9.10]
INTERNET: j...@n5ial.chi.il.us | gr...@gagme.chi.il.us | j.gr...@ieee.org
ICBM: 41.70N 87.63W UUCP: gagme!n5ial!j...@clout.chi.il.us
AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@n9hsi (Chicago.IL.US.Earth)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Freeman
>6) >In general, the police organizations maintain records of _everyone_ with
> >whom they have _any_ contact detailing information believed relevant
> >to the contact. Whenever a cop interacts with anyone the _fact of the
> >interaction_ is recorded and becomes probable cause to suspect
> >criminal activity in future.
>
>are we talking about some organization like the KGB?
I don't know about the KGB, but the above applies to police in the US.
The US criminal justice system doesn't have on-line felony conviction
records, but it does have on-line arrest and contact info. Stale
records are not purged. (It's reasonable to expect them to have
investigation records and warrants, but both should expire, and
don't.)
-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: an...@cs.stanford.edu
William=E.=Newki...@ns14.cca.cr.rockwell.com
>innocent. Uh Huh. 73
sensational =-= not that the cops are anymore guilty or innocent for reporters
biasing the story that way. but that bias sure raised expectations of the
outcome of the trial. obviously there's evidence that 10 seconds of video
tape didn't include that convinced the jury.
the correct answer: get the cops interested in amateur radio and licensed.
that way they are either involved or would know someone who is and then
amateur radio isn't some wacko activity any more.
amateur radio is not a crime. (should i print bumper stickers?)
j...@n5ial.chi.il.us
an...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>I wrote (quoting someone else):
>>6) >In general, the police organizations maintain records of _everyone_ with
>> >whom they have _any_ contact detailing information believed relevant
>> >to the contact. Whenever a cop interacts with anyone the _fact of the
>> >interaction_ is recorded and becomes probable cause to suspect
>> >criminal activity in future.
>>
>>ok, just one question.... are we talking about the police in the US? or
>>are we talking about some organization like the KGB?
>
>I don't know about the KGB, but the above applies to police in the US.
>
>The US criminal justice system doesn't have on-line felony conviction
>records, but it does have on-line arrest and contact info.
yes, but unless I misunderstood what the original person I'd quoted was on
about, he/she (don't recall) was saying that basically anytime you talk to
a cop, you then have a record...meaning, if I go up to a cop and ask a
question of some sort, I suddenly get written up as a trouble-maker....
as far as I know, that sort of tactics doesn't happen here...at least, not
legally.
perhaps I misunderstood the original poster's comments. who knows.
Andy Freeman
>In article <1992Sep10.2...@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> an...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>The US criminal justice system doesn't have on-line felony conviction
>>records, but it does have on-line arrest and contact info.
>
>yes, but unless I misunderstood what the original person I'd quoted was on
>about, he/she (don't recall) was saying that basically anytime you talk to
>a cop, you then have a record...meaning, if I go up to a cop and ask a
>question of some sort, I suddenly get written up as a trouble-maker....
>as far as I know, that sort of tactics doesn't happen here...at least, not
>legally.
Whether or not a record results depends on the officer.
It's quite legal; we expect them to keep records during investigations.
The problem is that they get to define investigations and they're
not required to end them or purge the records.
Patrick D. Buick
>In article <1992Sep11.1...@hou.amoco.com> j...@n5ial.chi.il.us writes:
>>In article <1992Sep10.2...@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> an...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>The US criminal justice system doesn't have on-line felony conviction
>>>records, but it does have on-line arrest and contact info.
>>
>>yes, but unless I misunderstood what the original person I'd quoted was on
>>about, he/she (don't recall) was saying that basically anytime you talk to
>>a cop, you then have a record...meaning, if I go up to a cop and ask a
>>question of some sort, I suddenly get written up as a trouble-maker....
>>as far as I know, that sort of tactics doesn't happen here...at least, not
>>legally.
>
>Whether or not a record results depends on the officer.
>
>It's quite legal; we expect them to keep records during investigations.
>
>The problem is that they get to define investigations and they're
>not required to end them or purge the records.
>
were questioned at a University rally (on another subject) by Canadian
Security Intelligence Service personnel..... they had a complete dossier
even though these fellows hadn't done a thing... before
Another friend.. born in US and raised in CDA... applied for a job with
CSIS... they had records of the two of us trying to walk into the hospital
here to visit a friend of his whom was under police protection. We never
saw a cop, nor the friend, but did talk to the security supervisor of the
hospital.
Yep, scares the )*#)%(* out of me, but they assuredly have records on me..
being Military Reserve (and a Medic at that).. and ex-security.... I'd better
not cross the line in the least... :-(
Patrick
--
===========================| Land Line +1 403 286 9188
Patrick D. Buick EMT, EET | Internet: buick%belay...@uunet.uu.net
Belay Enterprises Inc. | Internet: bui...@cuug.ab.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada | UUCP:...keyword!calgary!pixel!belay!buick
Roger Bly
>The Minnesota statute/law that is applicable is Minn. Stat. 299C.37 (1988).
>The law specifically prohibits having radio receiving equipment (ie. scanners,
>etc.) in motor vehicles. There is, however, a specific exemption
>for a person who "hold(s) an amateur radio license issued by the FCC..."
I was pulled over in Minnesota by a state trooper and a ham for the alleged
offense of "jamming" their repeater - who me jam? ;-).
The trooper and ham wanted to see my license. I told them to
"fuck off, this is a federal matter and you have no jurisdiction; get
a federal marshal here or leave me alone."
This was prior to 1988, but he stated that he could cite me in violation
of a state statute unless I could show a valid ham license.
However, he could not produce any text.
After 30 min of arguing with 4 troopers and 2 hams, no marshal showed.
I did finally show them my paper and went on my way.
Great fun!!
Roger (ka6mwt)
Tim Tyler
>I was pulled over in Minnesota by a state trooper and a ham for the alleged
>offense of "jamming" their repeater - who me jam? ;-).
>The trooper and ham wanted to see my license. I told them to
>"fuck off, this is a federal matter and you have no jurisdiction; get
>a federal marshal here or leave me alone."
>This was prior to 1988, but he stated that he could cite me in violation
>of a state statute unless I could show a valid ham license.
>However, he could not produce any text.
>
>After 30 min of arguing with 4 troopers and 2 hams, no marshal showed.
>I did finally show them my paper and went on my way.
>
>Great fun!!
>Roger (ka6mwt)
>
had no jurisdiction in the matter.
However, he could have --& should have-- cited you for the misdemeanor
infraction which basically boils down to using profanity upon a peace
officer.
--
Tim Tyler Internet: t...@ais.org MCI Mail: 442-5735 C$erve: 72571,1005
Brian Kantor
... But that's what they're there for!
Have you ever visited Boston?
- Brian
"Are you showing contempt for this court, miss?" - Judge
"No, I'm doing my best to hide it." - Mae West
Jay Maynard
>It's illegal to cuss at a cop in your state?
>... But that's what they're there for!
>Have you ever visited Boston?
My most vivid memory of a class in New York City several years ago was along
these lines...I was walking down Fifth Avenue to get to class, and passed a
cop standing on a corner. I wished him a good morning in my best polite Texas
manner, and got one hell of a dirty look from him...
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmay...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Certainly I can comprehend pre-beta. Translations: 1. Alpha
2. Microsoft marketing BS." -- Chris Waters