if federal law supercedes state law, then how are anti-scanner laws legal???
radioguy
how are local state laws prohibiting using scanners to monitor the
police legal???
The federal ECPA law clearly says that monitoring police transmissions
is specifically allowed.
From anywhere in the U.S.
And "anywhere" would inclide from a vehicle.
And if I recall correctly, the ECPA even goes so far as to say that
monitoring of police may not be prohibited.
NightRogue
"radioguy" <radio...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41768c5f-b47c-4fdc...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
Just my .2 worth, as a truck driver we always go by the most stringent law
be it the state,fed, or local, just to be on the safe side.
radioguy
And IF the hams are correct that federal law ALWAYS supercedes anf
trumps local and state laws, then it is legal for cbers and other non-
hams to have scanners in their vehicles no matter what state and local
laws say.
The ECPA clearly says it shall not be unlawful to listen to police
transmissions (as long as they're unencrypred).
And it does not mention any places where you're not allowed to listen
to them.
In other words, it shall not be unlawful period to listen to police
transmissions.
Anywhere within the U.S.
Unless of course the hams are wrong and state and local laws supercede
and trump federal law.
Which is it?
state and local laws superceding and trumping federal law so non-hams
listening to police transmissions in their vehicles is a crime.
or federal law superceding and trumping state and local laws so non-
hams listening to police transmissions in their vehicles is not a
crime.
copy of part of the text of the FEDERAL ecpa law:
"(g)it shall not be unlawful under this
chapter or chapter 121 this title for
Post p. 1860 any person---
"(i)to intercept or access an
electronic communication made through
an electronic communication system
that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily
accessible to the general public;
"(ii) to intercept any radio
communication which is transmitted--
"(I) by any station for the use
of the general public, or that
relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles,
or persons in distress;
"(II)by any governmental, law
enforcement, civil defense, private
land mobile, or public safety
communications system, including
police and fire, readily accessible
to the general public;"
There you have it, folks. It shall NOT be unlawful to intercept any
radio communication which is transmitted by any governmental,LAW
ENFORCEMENT,civil defense,private land mobile, or public
communications system INCLUDING POLICE and fire, readily accessible to
the general public (meaning not encrypted. If you can hear them on a
regular analog scanner, they are definitely unencrypted.)
That is federal law.
"(III) by a station operating on
an authorized frequency within the
bands allocated to the amateur,
citizens band, or general mobile
radio services; or
Interesting because even after the ecpa passed, certain hams around my
area told me that it is against the law to listen to ham radio at all
on any radio reciever unless you have a ham radio license.
"(IV) by any marine or
aeronautical communications system;
I've listened to the airband. Boring.
Mike
The problem with your logic chain starts with the assumption that
federal law supercedes state laws. In some types of statues dealing
with universal rights (freedom to vote, anti-segregation and other
types of statues relating to civil rights) it does. When it comes to
general regulations, deference is given to state and localities.
Conservatives have long trumpeted this division of deference to be the
linchpin of shared federalism between the national gov't and states.
Study constitutional law, it matters!
Mike
Louisville, KY
Brenda Ann
Irregardless of the ecpa, try to listen in on military tactical comms and
let them find out about it.. they tend to call that espionage. Which is why
most scanners don't have the tactical freqs. in them...
Also, it depends upon your USE of the intercepted comms. There is an
enhancement for using a police scanner in furtherance of a crime.
dxAce
You should have studied for that PhD, then you wouldn't have had to lie about
having one.
RHF
D'Oh !
1 - You can own a Gun Legally under Federal Law
2 - You can not use the Gun to Murder someone
under State Law.
Using a Legal Scanner for Criminal Activity is Illegal [.]
~ RHF
.
Dave
You
Dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:
NO ONE, has ever been prosecuted for violation of the Secrecy Clause
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to date....
JB
hikers. Officer Dick Skreshun tells stories about people who lose their
livelihood and all their money while bouncing back and forth until their day
in court. Then he gets to keep all your seized and abandoned property.
Raven
>> Study constitutional law, it matters!
>
> You should have studied for that PhD, then you wouldn't have had to lie about
> having one.
>
>
Yes you should,
Ever hear of the commerce clause?
There are thousands of Federal laws that trump State laws.
The bad part about the issues at hand is
the state can confiscate your stuff.
and you have to spend thousands to prove they were wrong.
JIMMIE
It works both ways there are Federal laws that overule state laws and
stae laws that overule federal laws. Kidnapping is a state crime but
made federal if you cross a state line with the victim. All federal
civil rights laws trump state laws unless the state's is more liberal.
I think most federal laws have a clause stating how they relate to
state laws. As clear as mud isnt it. The American Civil Liberties
Union is the place to contact tfor information on specific laws. I
believe they have already been involved in some cases in Virginia.
Jimmie
Jimmie
maxell
> If Federal law truly supercedes state law as hams claim they do, then
> how are local state laws prohibiting using scanners to monitor the
> police legal???
They're not. Neither are radar detectors or full range *radio receivers* of
any sort (including cell phone coverage). The latter "restriction" bought
and paid for by the same telcos that have been illegally tapping your phone
lines for the past 8+ years. Of course, if never challenged, they'll take as
many of your freedoms as you'll give.
> The federal ECPA law clearly says that monitoring police transmissions
> is specifically allowed.
Federal law and International Treaty clearly state that monitoring *any*
frequency is legal.
> From anywhere in the U.S.
Naturally.
> And "anywhere" would inclide from a vehicle.
Of course.
> And if I recall correctly, the ECPA even goes so far as to say that
> monitoring of police may not be prohibited.
Does anyone care anymore?
radioguy
>
> - Show quoted text -
While what I learned in school agrees with what you say, 99.99 percent
of the hams have said exactly the opposite and have even said that
there
have been SEVERAL federal court rulings which ruled and upheld the
opposite of what you and I were taught.
Mike
I'M not very good at laws but there are several laws like this. One
example is prostitution. There is no federal law banning it. In Nevada
it is legal.
JIMMIE
>
> - Show quoted text -
If there is no federal law on it then its not an example is it?
Jimmie
Dan
In some states there is no law against "listening" to a scanner in a
car.
BUT the state law prohibits HAVING a scanner in a vehicle under the
motor vehicle code. In Michigan the term used was "equipping".
Net effect is the same as banning listening but it would also skirt
the federal issue. You can listen to it, but you can't have it.
Clark Martin
Dan <d...@voyager.net> wrote:
To put it another way, you can listen but you can't drive. They can't
regulate radios but they can regulate driving.
--
Clark Martin
Redwood City, CA, USA Macintosh / Internet Consulting
"I'm a designated driver on the Information Super Highway"
rhf...@gmail.com
RHF
- http://groups.google.moc/group/alt.personals.fetish/browse_thread/thr...
little spineless 'rhf' -aka- AssWideShut,
.
Thank You for Posting the Al Gore
-aka- Liberal Democrat Mantra
"Uncle Sam Goddamn" -by- Brother Ali
{Hey "Ali" ain't that a Muslim Name}
.
the real "RHF" - accept no substitutes ~ RHF
.
FWIW - little spineless 'rhf'
NNTP-Posting-Host : 12.154.10.254
Location : Wausa, Nebraska
.
*REF* Com = NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.154.10.250
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/07bb07110d3ec4a9
-and- NNTP-Posting-Host : 12.154.10.254
.
-aka- AssWideShut @ 138Mail .Com
[ NNTP-Posting-Host : 12.154.10.254 ]
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/dd0dbca9b5f076cf
.
AssWideShut [A.W.S.] -former- President
Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered Shortwave Club
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/dfbe78f2233ed54c
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/81a6cb501836c9e5
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/6f9707647c94d362
.
A.W.S. - You are a clear example of the new
2009 Obama Fairness Doctrine to Silence the
Political Opposition : Through Impersonation,
Lying and Attempted Intimidation.
.
.
rhf...@gmail.com
Homer J
states. If a state or some other agency (i.e. DOT or Public Utility
agencies) wants to make it more stringent then its up to the Court of
Appeals and Supreme Courts (state and/or federal) to rule if it meets
constitutional requirements.
In some case if a person is stopped by the the police during the commission
of a law violation (read this to mean both criminal and traffic) the scanner
can be considered a "criminal tool" to aid in the prevention of apprehension
by the authorities. However most most state laws they state within a motor
vehicle it is illegal to have a scanner because they fear from loss of
revenue do to the scanner cuing the driver as to a radar trap.
Face it people can bitch all they want but it will take an explicit
constitutional amendment stating the possession of a scanner or other type
of communication device in a motor vehicle is a right of the people to give
them what want.
I am not lawyer but am a former law enforcement officer.
Homer
"radioguy" <radio...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41768c5f-b47c-4fdc...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...