Ham off the hook in NY

[KE4MOB]

From the ARRL letter:

* Court kicks New York ham's "police radio" case: A New York court has dismissed a misdemeanor charge against ARRL member Richard C. "Dick" Lalone, KC5GAX, for violating §397 of that state's Vehicle and Traffic Law. That section prohibits individuals other than law officers from equipping their vehicles with radios "capable of receiving signals on the frequencies allocated for police use" without first securing a permit. The section, which also prohibits knowingly interfering with police transmissions, contains an explicit exemption for "any person who holds a valid amateur radio operator's license . . . and who operates a duly licensed portable mobile transmitter and in connection therewith a receiver or receiving set on frequencies exclusively allocated . . . to duly licensed radio amateurs."

In a nearly 1300-word decision, Judge John J. Hallet said it was clear the legislature never intended the provisions of §397 from applying to licensed Amateur Radio operators, and he dismissed the charge August 5. Susan Terry, KF4SUE, a former New York assistant attorney general, represented Lalone. ARRL President Jim Haynie, W5JBP, ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, and ARRL Regulatory Information Specialist John Hennessee, N1KB, provided advice or assistance to Lalone.

NN

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif great !

[N7AAO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KE4MOB @ Sep. 12 2003,19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Susan Terry, KF4SUE, a former New York assistant attorney general, represented Lalone. ARRL President Jim Haynie, W5JBP, ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, and ARRL Regulatory Information Specialist John Hennessee, N1KB, provided advice or assistance to Lalone.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And folks say the ARRL never does anything for them. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[W7WV]

How about that! Common sense, and somebody's ability to read the law, prevails.

[KB2SEO]

Geez, It took all that for Common sense, did Hillary introduce that load of crap?

good job ARRL and the other Hams involved!

If they would only be as dilligent with the illegal Ham Radios in the NYC cabs and 10 meter stuff in the cars/trucks.

[kg6kzp]

well good so the goverment dose somthing right one more point for ham radio yeeeees!!!!!!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #:

[n0zu]

The ham was right and the cop thought he would push a law that he proubly had not read to be able to understand it

NOW I Would go and press charges for hurasment
on the cop that thought that he knew it all

I guess that cop will think before he strikes next time!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KA2MXH]

It's not just New York State. In many states, the police are required to ticket and take scanners, radar detectors and/or other radios that receive police frequencies, and have the courts and/or police authority return them afterwards. A direct form of harassment, with predudice, towards ham's and others authorized to possess and use type equipment. In Tonawanda, NY, there may be a $25.00 fine imposed before the radio will be returned.

[kc2jga]

Don't put your gaurd down yet! This wasn't posted by ARRL, but according to reliable resources, the judge decided to let KC5GAX go, BUT "others" will not be so lucky next time. As to what exactly the judge might do to others I do not know. Frankly, I plan on staying away from that village from now on. HI HI!

[WB8YMV]

Well, good for KC5GAX ! It has long been my opinion that law enforcement is mostly made up of a collection of ignorant high-school dropouts on a power trip. Having said that (and ticked off a bunch of people), I should say this; law makers should not just pass laws like these without also setting up some system to educate the "firestone cowboys" out on the street just what the law means so they don't hassle law abiding citizens. I will say also that here in Michigan in recent years the police have been required to have college educations instead of just being the chief's son-in-law.

Summing it up, as a taxpayer (read: B O S S) I think that police departments and their officers should be kept on a short leash and if they don't like it - tough crap.

[kd5sdi]

I would sue that SOB's ass until he couldn't see straight. I would sue the county, city, state, the man who printed the ticket book, the manufacturer of the ink pen, the engineers and architects who made the road, the legislators who made the law, hell I would even sue the manufacturer of the car the cop was riding in. Shove it so far up their hiney that they can taste it. I HATE cops who work on intimidation and ignorance.
Good for KC5GAX indeed!
Flame proof suit donned!

[KC0NBW]

I CARRY COPIES OF THE MINNESOTA "SCANNER LAW" IN MY WALLET, JUST IN CASE I RUN INTO A SITUATION LIKE THAT !

KCØNBW

[kc2kfw]

I have long awaited the final outcome of this particular case. #I'm pleased to hear that the Judge in this case understood the law and its intent. #He also went as far as to say that it does need to be changed, pointing out how poorly written it is. #This may now have set a legal presedent. #One that (hopefully) can be used in similar cases in the future.

With that said, for those who are unaware, I believe the Trooper was female (if memory serves) and was a rookie. #Hopefully, she attended on the day of judgement and realized her mistake. #But, the question now stands... #How come she could not recognize an FCC Amateur Radio license? #I thought it was part of the training to recognize any type of 'license'. #I understand that it's difficult to know every law in the books, but they should be capable of recognizing a 'Federal' license.

I also find it interesting that the general public cannot use ignorance of the law as a means of defense, but Officers of the law can use ignorance as a defense when enforcing the law. #This, alone, sets a double standard. #Also, this indicates to me how as enforcers of the law, they can make a mistake and sit at a desk for a week or two to make up for it. #Meanwhile, if someone not familiar with a law breaks that law UNKNOWINGLY, they sit in a cell for a week or two, or they are bombarded by fines.

Sorry to go off on a rant... #These are just a few questions that have dwelled in my mind since the beginning of this case.

God bless and 73!

Chris # #KC2KFW

[k5co]

Now, Mr. Lalone should find a mean, disgusting attorney (that was redundant, wasn't it?) and file suite against the state of New York for harassment and duress and stress whic h caused considerable anxious loss of sleep. Sue for ten milliion, settle for a half million; then watch the state exucate those donut eating Firestone Cops.

RC
KD5PSH

[KB9VLP]

:I also find it interesting that the general public cannot use ignorance of the law as a means of defense, but Officers of the law can use ignorance as a defense when enforcing the law. This, alone, sets a double standard.

Let's not forget the folks behind the walnut desks who are ignorant of the law.....District Attorneys!!!
They feed at the same hog trough as the cops, and do their legal fighting for them. Just because an officer "says so", doesn't make it a fact.
Had my share of arguments with a City Attorney regarding RFI problems, and it's ignorance personified! Forget Part 15, forget the FCC, forget jurisdictional boundries....Someone complained that a Ham or CB'er could be heard over their phone or TV, and the cops HAD TO DO SOMETHING!!!! Then their excuse is that, "Well, the FCC abdicated this to the local authorities." Fear and bluff are their main helpers.
Thank God that someone stood up to them and WON!!!

WHEW!!! Feel better now...... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kc9esf]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0NBW @ Sep. 16 2003,01:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I CARRY COPIES OF THE MINNESOTA "SCANNER LAW" IN MY WALLET, JUST IN CASE I RUN INTO A SITUATION LIKE THAT !

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # KCØNBW[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
anyone know how I could find Wisconsins "scanner law" so I can have a copy in my wallet?

[KB2KAB]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Congradulations to you Richard! I can only quess how you felt, when the judge, ruled in your favor. This is just another case, for the record books. I hope that this experience has not left a bad taste in your mouth, for law enforcement. I know that you went through your own personel hell, but in the end, the LAW DID WORK. Just hope that other law enforcement agentcies do more training in this area, so that other ham's do not have to go through this. A BIG THANK YOU, SHOULD GO TO THE ARRL. FOR GIVING AND SHOWING SUPPORT TO RICHARD. AND ALL THE HAM OPERATORS WHO GAVE THIER ADVISE. GOOD OR BAD.



73'S
DAVID

CONGRATS TO RICHARD!!! EXCELLENT!

Also thanks to the ARRL and the ham attorney who represented him! As well as others who assisted!

I'm with the rest of 'em. Find a GOOD attorney who is 'hungry' for a good fight and lay some nice lawsuits on the Police agency, the State, and the trooper.

You may not win (but you probably will - if nothing else - get an offer to settle 'out of court'http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif the court battle.. but tis worth the fight!



QUICK!! Figure out a way to CLONE that judge about 12 times and send 6 of 'em to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Californina and 6 of 'em to the State Supreme Court in Florida!

Get it done in 1 week and THEN let's see the fun begin!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N2OBY]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB8YMV @ Sep. 16 2003,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It has long been my opinion that law enforcement is mostly made up of a collection of ignorant high-school dropouts on a power trip. #...I think that police departments and their officers should be kept on a short leash and if they don't like it - tough crap.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
For years I've felt the same way. #Through my job, other activities and years on the road, I've come to know dozens of cops on a more than casual basis, and unfortunately as a result have a rather low opinion of most. #I try not to generalize and castigate the entire field, but truth be told I'm far less than impressed. #Too many of them are bigoted, maladjusted, uneducated, etc... and are able to hide behind the blue wall. #Most have not entered the field through a desire for public service, rather for the power and "glory". #

The majority are nowhere near educated enough, especially when one takes into account the power they wield which can ruin someone's life - if not take it altogether... #I've long believed that police officers should be required to have at least a bachelors degree with a criminal justice major/sociology or psychology minor or visa versa. #Then their unions might begin to justify the high salaries they seek and respect they crave. #Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard it before - "what about the daily risks we take." #Well, there there are PLENTY of dangerous jobs out there; and why do we also always hear so often from cops that they've never had to fire their weapon in their entire career?

Now I'm sure to have offended every shield-carrying ham out there, although believe it or not that is not my intention. #Those officers who don't fall into the category described above will recognize the type and continue to strive hard to offset, if not eradicate it. #As far as those who do take it to heart go, perhaps it is because they see some of themselves described above...

To sum it up: #I absolutely respect the job - just not most of those who carry it out.

-Ken N2OBY

[kb9tyc]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tater1337 @ Sep. 16 2003,07http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif3)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0NBW @ Sep. 16 2003,01<!--emo&http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I CARRY COPIES OF THE MINNESOTA "SCANNER LAW" IN MY WALLET, JUST IN CASE I RUN INTO A SITUATION LIKE THAT !

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # KCØNBW[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
anyone know how I could find Wisconsins "scanner law" so I can have a copy in my wallet?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wisconsin has no laws prohibiting scanners in vehicles.

[kw7dsp]

I am confused. I wanted to send a thanks from a HAM to Susan Terry, KF4SUE, but it seems that call belongs to Bob Rosegreen in NC.

[N8HE]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kw7dsp @ Sep. 16 2003,20:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am confused. I wanted to send a thanks from a HAM to Susan Terry, KF4SUE, but it seems that call belongs to Bob Rosegreen in NC.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Maybe good ol' Suezy bought a 10 meter rig from "Copper" and was issued a call sign to use it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

All Kidding aside, I'm glad Robert got justice in his favor.

[kc2ftn]

Here's another article:

http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=148


# # # # # # # # KC2FTN
# # # # www.hamwave.com

[n9kpn]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kw7dsp @ Sep. 16 2003,14:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am confused. I wanted to send a thanks from a HAM to Susan Terry, KF4SUE, but it seems that call belongs to Bob Rosegreen in NC.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It could be a simple typo as there is a Susan Terry (KG4SUE). #The listing is here:

http://www.qrz.com/callsign/KG4SUE

[kw7dsp]

Some how i don't think this Sue is an ex district attorney, or what ever she was, from New York.

[kw7dsp]

Well I'll be. It turns out this is our Sue Terry with a typo in the first article. Now I will send her a thank you. Should of read the other article first.

[N2FWR]

I would like to hear on what actually happen, and how this incident lead up to an arrest?. With security these days one never knows.

[WA9SVD]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2FWR @ Sep. 17 2003,07:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would like to hear on what actually happen, and how this incident lead up to an arrest?. With security these days one never knows.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
N2FWR:

Scroll back a few pages on the main "NEWS" screens. You'll find a couple of topics that apply to the matter.

[AJ5F]

The news director at the network bureau I worked for in the 1990's in Florida passed out copies of the state's scanner laws to all the reporters with scanners in their cars (in FLA they are exempt from the scanner laws like hams). He is also a ham (Bill, KT4SB), so he and I were exempt on TWO counts!

The irony: Bill is also a Broward County Sheriff's Deputy!!!

[kc8rzo]

I find a few of the opinions here to be incomprehensible.

Why sue the state or village and get the taxpayers to pay huge ammounts of money? #I could see attorneys fees, however representation was free in the case, but no more. #This is exactly the problem with the modern thinking and legal system. #Everyone sueing everyone else and no one taking any responsibility.

Why did this case even make it before a judge? Wouldn't any lawyer worth their salt have had it thrown out by the district attorney or prosecutor when faced with the text of the law, and the license in question? #This part makes me wonder.


Ed

[N0PU]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc8rzo @ Sep. 17 2003,12:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find a few of the opinions here to be incomprehensible.

Why sue the state or village and get the taxpayers to pay huge ammounts of money? #I could see attorneys fees, however representation was free in the case, but no more. #This is exactly the problem with the modern thinking and legal system. #Everyone sueing everyone else and no one taking any responsibility.

Why did this case even make it before a judge? Wouldn't any lawyer worth their salt have had it thrown out by the district attorney or prosecutor when faced with the text of the law, and the license in question? #This part makes me wonder.


Ed[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
1. Sue WAS a NY State DA...

2. The frickin' DA in this place didn't know the Federal Laws and apparently had several long conversations with the FCC about the matter...

3. Sue has been in contact with me and sent me several e-mails which I posted here on QRZ.com...

4. The victim here was not physically arrested, merely given a ticket for their scanner law...

5. There seems to be some kind of law in NY that wouldn't allow the DA to dismiss or somethig... I'm not clear on that but that is the idea I got from my conversations with Sue...

6. I think what the Judge did was right for Ham Radio...

7. IMHO, it is too bad we as citizens have to go through this stuff...

[WD8NUP]

If the Ploice are going to enforce the law they should at least know it! #The law states that Amateur Radio Operators are exempt. #What a jerk.

[ks6p]

My take on this is why is any state allowed to have that law on the books in the first place!! I should be allowed to >listen< to whatever I want, wherever I want!

What's next? Will I be allowed to listen to the local fire dept on my scanner at home?

Who knows? I guess we need to ask NY.

[N2OBY]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n6lp @ Sep. 18 2003,09:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My take on this is why is any state allowed to have that law on the books in the first place!! I should be allowed to >listen< to whatever I want, wherever I want!

What's next? Will I be allowed to listen to the local fire dept on my scanner at home?

Who knows? I guess we need to ask NY.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The idea behind laws such as these is to make it illegal to use such a receiver in the commision of a crime.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, only a few states have worded their laws as clear and simply. usually that are so obscured by legalese that they become unintelligible...

[kc8www]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2OBY @ Sep. 18 2003,11:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n6lp @ Sep. 18 2003,09:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My take on this is why is any state allowed to have that law on the books in the first place!! I should be allowed to >listen< to whatever I want, wherever I want!

What's next? Will I be allowed to listen to the local fire dept on my scanner at home?

Who knows? I guess we need to ask NY.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The idea behind laws such as these is to make it illegal to use such a receiver in the commision of a crime.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, only a few states have worded their laws as clear and simply. #usually that are so obscured by legalese that they become unintelligible...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The problem I see here is a crime is illegal regardless of whether a scanner is used or now. These laws do one thing. They make it illegal to do two things together that are fine to do seperately.

Its like George Calins take on prostitution,
Sex is legal, and selling is legal, why isnt selling sex legal?

Actualy I can tell you why; When the general public is told about a bank robbery, or a schoolyard shooting, the media has to make it sound more dramatic. So they tell about the scanner used, or the assault weapon etc. So the people demand that something be done, not knowing that a law already exists. So the lawmakers are too happy to restrict the the freedom of the all too ignorant public even further, Because it what the people want http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kc8www]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2OBY @ Sep. 18 2003,11:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n6lp @ Sep. 18 2003,09:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My take on this is why is any state allowed to have that law on the books in the first place!! I should be allowed to >listen< to whatever I want, wherever I want!

What's next? Will I be allowed to listen to the local fire dept on my scanner at home?

Who knows? I guess we need to ask NY.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The idea behind laws such as these is to make it illegal to use such a receiver in the commision of a crime.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, only a few states have worded their laws as clear and simply. #usually that are so obscured by legalese that they become unintelligible...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The problem I see here is a crime is illegal regardless of whether a scanner is used or not. These laws do one thing. They make it illegal to do two things together that are fine to do seperately.

Its like George Carlins take on prostitution,
Sex is legal, and selling is legal, why isnt selling sex legal?

Actualy I can tell you why; When the general public is told about a bank robbery, or a schoolyard shooting, the media has to make it sound more dramatic. So they tell about the scanner used, or the assault weapon etc. So the people demand that something be done, not knowing that a law already exists. So the lawmakers are too happy to restrict the the freedom of the all too ignorant public even further, Because it what the people want http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[GaryD]

We were planning an extended trip down East to visit relatives in Vermont, MD, and Connecticut, but you can bet we will avoid NY like the plague...the antenna farm on the RV would be a dead giveaway.

So; New York really doesn't want tourism, right? I'll also help spread the word around the world.

[kn8aw]

It is nice to hear that the amateur radio license holder was let off the hook. But my main concern is that the law applies only to a select class of citizens. Are not all laws to be applied equally to ALL citizens (equal protection under the law)? Holding a license should not exempt any one group of people from a law that others are compelled to obey. It sets a dangerous example. Either everybody or nobody should be able to have receivers capable of listening to police communications, not just a select few. The way I see it, nobody should be restricted from being able to listen to the communications of those that they employ, whether stationary or mobile. Since when does one need permission from public SERVANTS to monitor their activities? We are in charge of them, not the other way around.

[k2lck]

That guy busted the officers chops.

How do I know?
1. he was last called (strike one)
2.the court clerk spoke to the judge before the judge talked to him (strike two)
3.the judge argued back to him (deep deep guana)
4. the judge made him return with a lawyer at a later date.(strike three)
5. nothing happened in the end (he was correct, but he paid for busting the officers' chops & justice WAS served)

Things are written on tickets that the offender does not see and law enforcement works together.

New York is not as bad as some would have you believe. While a local yokel might be poorly trained, the higher government level the officer works for, the higher his level of training (and the more his job is worth to him).. Note that this guy did NOT get arrested, just got a summons. It would have been easy for the officer to "discover" maryjuanna just in plain site on the back seat...

I had a police call come over the radio while an officer was looking at my (expired) inspection sticker..(sigh!!!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. (I always monitor the local pct) I not only did not get written for the expired inspection sticker, but we both read section 398 and he left saying "I dont believe it", though I still think that his interpretation of 398 was that I could xmit also...

The NYS troopers are a lot of things, but ball busters aren't one of them unless you start it.

....there are a lot of apples in OUR barrel..........73... Ed K2lck

[N2OBY]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k2lck @ Sep. 19 2003,07:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It would have been easy for the officer to "discover" maryjuanna just in plain site on the back seat...

The NYS troopers are a lot of things, but ball busters aren't one of them unless you start it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The reference to "discovering" dope in the car is a perfect example of what I discussed in my earlier post. K2LCK seems to go to lengths about why the ham was wrong, then casually mentions how the officer could have simply decided to break any number of laws and betray the public's trust by planting evidence of a crime that never took place... Unfortunately, this does happen all to often, another reason why I have problems with law enforcement personnel.

I agree with the many previous posts stating that cops often need a reminder they they are public servants, are not above the law, and as a result should be subject to MUCH more public scrutiny than they currently are.

BTW - it has been my experience that NYS troopers are among the most professional in the field, and appear to hold themsleves to a much higher standard than most agencies. In all my encounters with them, whether working with or being written up by them, I have never failed to be impressed with their professionalism and demeanor.

-Ken N2OBY

[ks6p]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kn8aw @ Sep. 19 2003,04:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is nice to hear that the amateur radio license holder was let off the hook. But my main concern is that the law applies only to a select class of citizens. Are not all laws to be applied equally to ALL citizens (equal protection under the law)? Holding a license should not exempt any one group of people from a law that others are compelled to obey. It sets a dangerous example. Either everybody or nobody should be able to have receivers capable of listening to police communications, not just a select few. The way I see it, nobody should be restricted from being able to listen to the communications of those that they employ, whether stationary or mobile. Since when does one need permission from public SERVANTS to monitor their activities? We are in charge of them, not the other way around.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The way I see it, nobody should be restricted from being able to listen to the communications of those that they employ, whether stationary or mobile. Since when does one need permission from public SERVANTS to monitor their activities? We are in charge of them, not the other way around.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Very well said... I might add that many public service depts have the ability to switch to "encrypted mode" for transmissions they do not want to be made public that usually invlove CPS or health and welfare. It's not my fault or problem if an agency can't afford or does not want to use that technology.

My point is simple and I think it is a right that we need to protect. It somebody, anybody, transmits RF and I want to listen to it, there can be no laws restricting that right. Laws governing how someone >uses< what is heard are acceptable and necessary.

[kb9bgv]

"Well, good for KC5GAX ! It has long been my opinion that law enforcement is mostly made up of a collection of ignorant high-school dropouts on a power trip."

Was that NECESSARY? Just remember that when someone makes the same statement about HAM radio!

[n9kpn]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k2lck @ Sep. 19 2003,06:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
That guy busted the officers chops.
<SNIP>
Things are written on tickets that the offender does not see and law enforcement works together.

The NYS troopers are a lot of things, but ball busters aren't one of them unless you start it.

#....there are a lot of apples in OUR barrel..........73... Ed K2lck[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Did you read this part of the original post?

"In a nearly 1300-word decision, Judge John J. Hallet said it was clear the legislature never intended the provisions of §397 from applying to licensed Amateur Radio operators, and he dismissed the charge August 5."


If what you said was true, why did the Judge spend the time to write a "nearly 1300-word decision" if all they were doing was busting this guy's chops for busting the officers chops? #The Judge could have simply said "Case dismissed" and that would have been the end of it. #Instead he took time to render a real decision.

And who is to say that the officer simply "wrote things" a part of CYA?

[k6pij]

Why blast all police officers for the poor judgement of a few. I have been a law enforcement officer for 30 plus years. We are not all the same and to be honest the majority of officers are still doing the job because they feel that they can help someone, not because they are on a power trip.

[kd5sdi]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg6pij @ Sep. 19 2003,19:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why blast all police officers for the poor judgement of a few. I have been a law enforcement officer for 30 plus years. We are not all the same and to be honest the majority of officers are still doing the job because they feel that they can help someone, not because they are on a power trip.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree that holding onne member of a group responsible for the actions af all members of that group is bad. This is called prejedice, the act of pre judging somone based on a number of irrelavant factors. I agree and disagree with various parts of many posts here. I have never personally met a NY state trooper, but I have noticed that as a whole state troopers are incredibly professional people. I don't know why some of the local PD's won't take a lesson from them but we would all be better off if they did, civil servants and civilians alike.

[W5TXR]

The New York State Gustapo strikes again!!!
Last time I checked states are not supposed to make laws
restricting radio receivers (including radar detectors).
NYS is run and enforced by a bunch of socialists.
Thats why I left NY!!!!
NYS storm troopers are a bunch of as$h0!es!

Thank GOD for the south!!

[N9TTX]

Just for information sake regarding those that may worry about their ham rigs getting confiscated (if licensed) in ANY state....follow the link below, print it out, and carry it with you. It is a federal pre-emption law which makes any state or local law null and void for us licensed amateurs. The states near me have such scanner laws, yet if I go to these states I carry this federal docket with me in case of such an incidence. I live in Wisconsin which does not have this scanner law, Minnesota does, I do not think Michigan does, and I want to say I think either Illinois and Indiana or both may have it in place. I am not sure about Iowa, but I think not. In any case, this docket applies to all states and localities.

Exerpt (heading) from the docket:

"PR Docket 91-36 is the federal preemption of state and local laws concerning amateur use of transceivers capable of reception beyond amateur allocations. This preemption allows amateurs to possess a transceiver capable of reception (but not transmission) on frequencies adjoining the amateur VHF/UHF bands. It does not apply to scanners which are separate from an amateur transceiver. "

Docket link: http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/pr91-36/pr91-36.html

I hope this may help those out that are worried. 73.

Dave....N9TTX

[k7cop]

I have been a law enforcement officer for about 25 years so far. In most of the 50 states, a higher education is now required to be a law enforcement officer. We are constantly scrutinized, our work is scrutinized, our personal lives are scrutinized. In effect, we live in glass houses are some say.That officer in NY State apparently did not know the law, but I can about guarantee that he or she does now.He or she can most likely can recite it, backward and forward.I know that the laws in our state can be confusing, even to veteran officers, so I can just imagine what they are in New York. As for the pay that we recieve, in most states, and local jurisdictions, it's still near poverty level.The local prosecutor should have read that law and dismissed it without prejudice. We still have that benefit in Idaho.
I know several NYS Troopers personally, and have always found them to be very highly trained, and dedicated public servants.
Those that do not know any law enforcement officers, you should get to know some, we are not all bad folks.

[k0ro]

I think the blasting of this officer (and law enforcement in general) has been without merit, and should be emabarrassing to those who made the comments, not those about whom they posted. #There certainly are idiots and egomaniacs in every field, and unfortunately, a police officer with an attitude problem has a much greater ability to screw up somebody's life, for a long time, than a receptionist who cannot say "yes" to a deal but who can keep a sales rep from ever seeing the decision maker, but it is the same principle: the "fallout of the Fall." #The psychological evaluations given to most officers would scare many of us (although I'd STILL like to take a Rorshak test). #The liabilities are tremendous, and most of the time, officers are trying to do their job while not exposing themselves to unwarranted dangers (such as approaching cars with the ubiquitous blacked-out windows).

If the car had been confiscated, torn apart in a search, or the ham had been found guilty, I would cry "foul!" #As it is, an officer was not familiar with part of the law, issued a summons, and the ham was exonerated. #If this type of situation were so rare, then nearly all jury trials could be expected to end in guilty verdicts!

Perhaps if we had acted with more dignity and grace there might have been an opportunity to reach out to this officer and show her the benefits of amateur radio, both personal and public. #Perhaps she could have seen us as allies, then, those who pursue a hobby for the love of it but demonstrate a degree of professionalism not always found in our society today. #Perhaps the next time a ham in this town was trying to get a building permit to erect a tower, there would already have been an ongoing dialogue of cooperation and mutual respect with municipal officials.

Bridges are difficult to build yet easy to burn. #I am not a cop, but while I worry about losing clients, or hospitals fighting contract provisions with me, or at worst, larger competitors dedicating resources solelly to the elimination of my company...I don't worry about being shot, spit at, sued for no reason, infected with various blood-borne disease by people I am trying to save, and becoming over time an increasingly cynical man because of the small slice of humanity that fills my vision 40 or 50 hours per week.

As Rodney King said, "Hey, people, can we all just get along?" #The next time I am stopped by an officer (if I am, but I have a nice Comet UHV-6 to attract attention) I will make the effort to be a bridge-builder, an ambassador for a hobby that has a noble history and the potential (lest we squander it) for an even nobler dawn.

Hmmm, looks like a long way down from this soapbox. #Anybody have a spare ladder?

Art, KC2G http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[KJ7HW]

While people are bashing the Police and many others as well, I prefer to look at the situation as needed education. I am a former Nevada Deputy (High school education) and I would have never cited someone for such a thing. All the education in the world cannot replace common sense and the desire to research rather than react.

As far as the comment by one responder as to the pay, you have no idea what poverty is until you try to live on Social Security!

The Police have a rough job, you have to deal with those of the criminal element as well as those supposedly educated idiots running the system. Basicly the Cops are caught between a rock and a hard place.

JMTCW

And just think, that poor ham had to spend big buck to defend himself against the State of New York! Just another case of the Police State out of control!

I wonder if that same ignorant cop writes speeding tickets! And has that same cop broken the speed limit even just once? Hypocrocy is common place among so called "Peace Officers!" And I perceive that MOST law enforcement officers think that they are above the law! But, they are arms of the State and carry a gun and badge...like elected officials and judges, we should not expect them to be held to the same standards!

Sure their job is dangerous...but nobody made them enter that line of work! And if it wasn't for the anti-constitutional liberals; we would be executing more garbage; have a true Penal system (as opposed to a "correctional system") and be allowed to carry whatever weapon we choose for personal defense--as the second amendment was intended!

If you think a cop is there to protect you...think of this...by the time a cop arrives on the scene, you or your loved one is either lying dead in the street, bleeding to death or the perp has committed the crime and has fled! If and when the cops arrive, they'll make a report--maybe! Those against the second amendment generally fall into two categories...those liberal elite who have armed guards around them anyway...or the ignorant masses who are useful idiots!

[kb5ecv]

I have been a ham since 1987. I also have been a police officer since 1993. As I read the threads from other hams saying Ham radio good, government bad... (spoken with a Bush SR. accent) I really feel good to know how i'm thought of as I leave for work ready to put my life on the line for them.
I know some cops can be butts at times, but overall most people in law enforcement are overwhelmingly honest and hard working. In a job that scorns you for not following the law, you also get scorned for following it. You only see humanity at it's worst and rarely are we invited to come celebrate good times and given pats on the back for our work. As a consequence, cops become emotionally hardened when dealing with the public which always seems odd to people.
Most law enforcement jobs pay wages so low, that no one with a 4yr or better degree would take such a job. As such, you rely on hard working people that are interested in public service that may not have a degree for many reason, however, do just as good or better work then the few that do have degrees.
Lets not forget that not all Hams are law-biding citizens as well. If we were God's chosen people like some many make themselves out to be, then we would not get to read the ARRL's posting of FCC Enforcement Letters to hams that operate illegally and maliciously. Maybe a forum needs to be made to talk about how bad all hams are....ooops, I meant the less than one percent that screw up and make US all look bad.
I love ham radio and I love my job, so don't condemn me for the actions of a few. I meet hams regularly that are travelling and I always chat a while about operating and equipment because it is fun for me. There have been times I thought about throwing out my radio and tearing up my license due to uninformed people.

L. Allen KB5ECV
Montana

[n2obm]

Hollow justice. This 'amateur' should not of been put through the 'ringer' in the first place. I feel that all 'scanner' laws violate the Constitution. What is the right to freedom of speech, if you do not have the freedom to listen. Flame away.

[k2dv]

As a State Trooper with more than 18 years on the road, I can tell you that this is more to this case than we are being told. I still would like to know what he was really stopped for. I had emailed him when this mess first started, and I have yet to get a reply. Something stinks here, and it's not the smell of the flames being posted here.

73
Don
K2DV

[KB8YYA]

The problem is w/ the operators who use the scanners and radios for other than intended. If used properly by all, we benefit.

[W2TXB]

A few other people also said that the Mr. Lalone was not answering e-mails about this... maybe on the advice of his attorney.

Either way, I am glad to see the matter resolved, although it involved a lot of time and money in the process. If I recall correctly, the guy said he was pulled for driving too slowly (maybe appeared suspicious for DWI or otherwise?) at 0230. The officer apparently was not fully familiar with the NYS V&T laws regarding Amateur Radio. Add these together and the ticket was an almost obvious result. If the officer had a heightened index of suspicion because of any other factors, that was not made clear in the discussions here.

While uncertain of how many NY State Troopers (or other police officers) are hams, it would be reasonable to surmise that most are not, and may have little or no knowledge of ham radio. This is an opportunity for hams to present the hobby in a favorable light. In so doing, we may alleviate much of the problem in the future.

Many years ago, I was asked by one of two NY State Troopers about my radio, an ICOM IC-24AT (yes, that many years ago http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ) which was in plain view on the seat of my car (Dodge Intrepid with two Larsen antennas on the trunk lid). The officer (Michael S.) then went back to his vehicle to transmit while the second officer (Gail R.) listened to see if his transmissions came through my radio. An explanation of the involved frequencies was offered, but he had to see for himself..... thank goodness for decent selectivity of the ICOM http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif . Anyway, it was all OK with them and we all went on our way.

The "scanner law" in NY is quite vague and needs to be dramatically changed or repealed. There is a Yahoo! group dedicated to this issue; it is run by a police officer (retired?) in the Albany, NY area. What will probably happen is that, when the systems in NY are changed over to 800-mHz trunked digital systems, the point will become moot, and the law could probably be repealed. Whether or not this will happen is anybody's guess.

[N2KMF]

I doubt the law will be repealed, although hopefully it will be modified to make the ham radio exception more clear. As for the police going to 800 MHz digital, ain't gonna happen soon. A LOT of police officers have to patrol in small towns and rural areas. No 800 MHz trunked system can handle that, to my knowledge, and the communities involved can't afford the infrastructure to make it happen. It means putting up towers (essentially cell sites) on a lot of hills, and you don't even get the benefit of piggy-backing on existing cell sites because there aren't enough of them in rural NYS to provide the coverage a police department would need. If I lose a cell signal, no big deal really. What about if a police officer who needs assistance can't hit a trunk site?
Even a quick look at the frequencies that are used can tell you a lot. State troopers use VHF-HI freqs. Why? Because they carry further than 800 MHz, and they have a lot of area to cover. Small towns and cities also use VHF. One or two bases and several mobiles is MUCH cheaper to buy than a couple of bases, several trunk sites, and the mobiles. Small cities can't afford 800 MHz. Albany has moved to 800 MHz, but just about every city and town within fifty or more miles is on VHF, and is probably going to stay there for the forseeable future.

[KF4MVR]

Imagine that in NY none the less. Hillary had to have been out of town. Its sad to think how much time and money was spent on just defending his right to carry a transceiver !

[k2dv]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k2dv @ Sep. 23 2003,15:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As a State Trooper with more than 18 years on the road, I can tell you that this is more to this case than we are being told. I still would like to know what he was really stopped for. I had emailed him when this mess first started, and I have yet to get a reply. Something stinks here, and it's not the smell of the flames being posted here.

73
Don
K2DV[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I mentioned that I am a New York State Trooper and there was more to this story then we were being told. I also mentioned that I tried to contact Richard Lalone directly, but had not had any reply from him.

I have since been in contact via email with Richard and heard an abbreviated version of his side of the story. From what he told me, I want at this time to apologize for not staying up on the threads. Of course, being "in the business" and also a ham, several friends alerted me to this case when it first started showing up on QRZ. At that time, I did not find any mention of why Richard was actually stopped. With 18 years of experience, and NOT talking to the arresting officer, I was 99.99% sure it WASN'T for having a ham radio in the car. As we have seen later, it was originally for erratic driving.

My original thought was that he may have been stopped for speeding or something, and the officer gave him a break, and wrote him for something else. Then, after getting a break, the person who received the ticket starts to complain about getting a ticket for something that he wasn't doing, or didn't do. Most people who receive breaks are quite appreciative, but a few try to get a break on the road, and then pitch a complaint to the judge, trying to get out of it totally. If you wonder why an officer doesn't want to give you a break, think about how many times in his career he's already heard whatever sob story you're about to give him, and how often he's been lied to. It makes it difficult for the people that really do deserve a break. Anyway, this is what I thought was going on with this case. After a couple of emails to and from Richard I am satisfied that this was not the case here. It was not a "roadside reduction." I have not contacted the arresting officer, and have no real plan to do so. I don't know that side of the story. But Richard tells em and others that there will be a lengthy post to give us the full scoop. I look forward to reading it.

Once again, my apologies to Richard.

73

Don K2DV

[n2orw]

Two months ago I was pulled over by a Onondage Sheriff on Rt 81 near the Thruway and he noticed and heard my radio in my truck it just had happened to stop on a sheriff dispatch channel. The officer actually acted in an educated manor, asking if I was an Amature Radio Operator and asked to see my ham licence, mentioning that if I dont have it with me or have one at all he would issue me a ticket and confiscate the radio. I just happen to carry a folder with a copy of the law with a copy of my licence. And he let me go.