NEW YORK HAM TICKETED- Part II

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5PSH @ June 11 2003,11:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why don't you post the judges name and address and we can get a letter writing campaign going, including to the press. Also, a copy of the NY law.

Imagine a judge on the bench so arrogant that he would not accept your copy of the law. Maybe it is time to sue the arrogant clown.

RC[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A better idea may be to go get legal help (hopefully from the ARRL), go to court, and give us an update.

As for the police officer, may be a good idea to send the Chief of Police a copy of an article from 911 telling how Amateur Radio operators helped during the emergency situations in New York, Washington DC, and PA.

Instead of looking at us as adversaries, it could help them realize they have an asset they can use if they ever have a need for weather spotters or search & rescue. (Maybe not)

Bottom line is get a Lawyer, keep cool and professional and work this through. Hopefully this incident won't cost you an arm, a leg, or an ICOM.

Good luck and 73

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC7ATO @ June 17 2003,09:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The obvious solution to Public Service "evesdropping" is to go back to using Morse Code for all PS traffic. It would be a "Secure" way for PS messages since there are so few "Amateur's" left that understand Morse Code and very, very few 7/11 and gas station bandits that are "code qualified". Morse would also be much cheaper than "encrypting"  PS traffic and/or "banning" all "scanners". [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


Bring on some Navahos!

 

Just an aside to the issue of hams vs. scanner laws:

I've never been hassled about my gear (or scanners) but I did discover there are some some police agencies here in California that have trouble recognizing ham call letter plates as legitimate license plates. I was once pulled over for having a "fraudulent plate," on one other occasion (a legitimate stop for a minor violation) the officer (from the same agency that made the "fradulent plate" stop) mentioned that the dispatcher was "having trouble running the plate." And yet another time, a sheriff's deputy pulled me over for a burned out tail light and started giving me a line about not not having legitimate plates. For whatever reason (better training perhaps) California Highway Patrol does not seem to have any problem recognizing ham plates.

 

Untrained law enforcement officials make the average "JOE" spend thousands on a lawyer. If "JOE" wins; he loses; cause it has cost him thousands to show he was not in the wrong..
Who wins here? Not "Joe"; Not the Judge/county, but the lawyers.

We all should be lawyers    

Hoping the best for Rich.

 

Sorry to ask this - but can someone please give a brief overview of what all this is about? Did the guy get pulled over for having radios in his vehicle? Sorry - but I just started reading this topic a few hours ago. What was the traffic stop for? Thanks!

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KE4VRM @ June 18 2003,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry to ask this - but can someone please give a brief overview of what all this is about?  Did the guy get pulled over for having radios in his vehicle?  Sorry - but I just started reading this topic a few hours ago.  What was the traffic stop for?  Thanks![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Simple.  This is a "Part II" thread.  Read part I first, then read this thread, and all of your questions will be answered.

It should be enough to read the first page of each thread - no need to read 1000 posts.

 

How do I find part 1?? I would like to read that too.

 

Here you go.

73!

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kf3dy @ June 17 2003,13:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">About 12 years ago, I was given a hard time ny the New York State Police... I showed him my license which really made him mad.  I had a hatchback and made me remove my spare tire and other items so he could make sure I wasn't 'transporting drugs'...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I dunno about any of you, but I would never authorize a search of my vehicle.  If the officer wants to search it, my reaction would be "Do you have a search warrant?"  If he says he can get one, then I'd say "That's fine.  Am I under arrest?  If not, please let me sign the ticket and I'll be on my way."

How many times do you see the "Cops" show, where some idiot is pulled over and the cop asks "Do you mind if I search your vehicle?"  These idiots always say "Go ahead" and the cop always find their drugs.

Now, I don't smuggle drugs and the vast majority of Americans don't either... but who knows what is in your car?  Maybe the valet who parked it had a joint roll out of his jacket pocket.  Maybe the friend you brought home from the hospital dropped a Demerol or two.  Maybe you've encountered that 1% of cops who is crooked, and who plants drugs in your car.

The moral here is, if the police ask you to search your vehicle, say "No."  If the police have to ask then it's because they don't have probable cause to justify a search, and they're fishing... or worse.  Don't surrender your rights!

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd7kgx @ June 18 2003,16:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dunno about any of you, but I would never authorize a search of my vehicle. If the officer wants to search it, my reaction would be "Do you have a search warrant?" If he says he can get one, then I'd say "That's fine. Am I under arrest? If not, please let me sign the ticket and I'll be on my way."

How many times do you see the "Cops" show, where some idiot is pulled over and the cop asks "Do you mind if I search your vehicle?" These idiots always say "Go ahead" and the cop always find their drugs.

Now, I don't smuggle drugs and the vast majority of Americans don't either... but who knows what is in your car? Maybe the valet who parked it had a joint roll out of his jacket pocket. Maybe the friend you brought home from the hospital dropped a Demerol or two. Maybe you've encountered that 1% of cops who is crooked, and who plants drugs in your car.

The moral here is, if the police ask you to search your vehicle, say "No." If the police have to ask then it's because they don't have probable cause to justify a search, and they're fishing... or worse. Don't surrender your rights![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I am just going to add my 2 cents onto this one.

Have been reading this topic closely BTW, just to see how it turns out

Wishing all the best, hopefully everything will be cleared

but around here, (TEXAS) if an officer asks to search your vehicle, and you say no, then that gives them their probably cuase if they really want to be an arse about it. If I am not doing anything illegal, then I will let them have their look, (Got out of going to jail over a rifle this way, BTW, long story and totaly off-topic for here, neither ham related or really pertanant, other than It helped me get out of a trip to see the inside of the jail house)

73 all

John

N5BSD / WPXD462

 

A couple of points:
1. In New York, the accusing officer apparently isn't required to show up unless there's a plea of innocent - which ALWAYS seems to get a rescheduled court date.  In other states, it's apparently no cop, no charge.
2. The offense is to EQUIP YOUR VEHICLE with the receiver. I've worked for 23 years as a civilian contractor and employee for NY police and sheriff's departments.  The lore is that you won't get written up unless you did something else wrong.  The lore is also that judges have found drivers guilty with scanners bolted to the dash and drilled-in antennas, not guilty with handheld scanners tossed on the dash, and gone both ways on cigarette lighter plugs units on the seat using magnet mount antennas.
3. Many, if not most volunteer firefighters have illegal scanners in their cars.  A few municipalities have cracked down on them, but most rural cops look at them as "fifth column" backup, who might help or get in the way.  They work together at traffic accidents, and often call in tips on misdeeds going down.
4. This is not the State of NY versus hams.  It's one trooper's interpretation versus one ham.
5. The law changes - it used to say get a permit from the chief elected official of the municipality in which you reside.  I thought the law posted here was wrong. I then checked my 4-year old Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) book.  It does now say apply to the Board of Supervisors for those who live outside an incorporated village or city.  The possibily of changes is probably why the judge did not want to look at the defendant's copy of unknown date.  I also don't remeber the offense being a misdemeanor - maybe that's recent also.
6. The law exempts Hams, but mentions receiving ham frequencies "exclusively allocated" (forget 440 or 900).  If a ham was using an "extended receive" function, all bets are off.  If the motorist was being a jerk, and the officer heard unmistakable police traffic coming from the car, I would bet a finding of guilty might occur.
6. Justices range from farmers to lawyers, folksy to professional, wet-behind-the-ears to experienced to set in their ways.  One of our Town Justices has about two years' experience, the other probably around 50 years.  Expect anything, but be polite.  If you approach them as just doing their job (they didn't haul you in), you will go further than if you pour out your frustration in front of  them for being called there.
7. Dont EVER listen to scrambled police traffic.  The engineer for NYSP told me about 10 years ago that they succeeded in having a law passed that forbids it.  It's not in VTL, maybe its in Criminal Procedure Law.  Since then, the Electronic Privacy Communications Act makes it a Federal offense anyway.
8. Get a lawyer, or at least advice.  A misdemeanor is a crime.  A few judges might have the attitude that if you weren't guilty, you wouldn't be hauled in.  This is apparently not true in this case, but it may be an uphill climb, nevertheless.
9. The local officers and judges have a relationship with each other that will outlast your case.  They also have reputations with each other.  If the trooper in this case is a known jerk, the judge might use this opportunity to demonstrate that he doesn't appreciate his time being wasted.  If the trooper is fresh from the academy, the judge may use this opportunity to instill a sense of professionalism.  If the trooper is known as being thorough and professional, you may have an uphill battle.  The trooper "practices law" 40+ hours per week, the judge maybe as little as two.  He may respect the trooper's reading of the law over his own.
10.  None of this adresses any pressure the trooper or judge may feel of unnofficial quotas to impress superiors or raise cash for the government.
P.S. Those colored windshield squirters are as illegal as hell in NY if they are red, blue, or green.  I've met a village cop who writes up ambers, too.  Simply MOUNTING a light of these colors is restriced in VTL to certain classes of vehicles, never mind lighting them.

I'd love to hear how this one comes out.  73 de N1YR

 

Maybe the court recorder is a ham...

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N1YR @ June 19 2003,00<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A couple of points:
.......
2. The offense is to EQUIP YOUR VEHICLE with the receiver. I've worked for 23 years as a civilian contractor and employee for NY police and sheriff's departments.  The lore is that you won't get written up unless you did something else wrong.  The lore is also that judges have found drivers guilty with scanners bolted to the dash and drilled-in antennas, not guilty with handheld scanners tossed on the dash, and gone both ways on cigarette lighter plugs units on the seat using magnet mount antennas.
3. Many, if not most volunteer firefighters have illegal scanners in their cars.  A few municipalities have cracked down on them, but most rural cops look at them as "fifth column" backup, who might help or get in the way.  They work together at traffic accidents, and often call in tips on misdeeds going down.
4. This is not the State of NY versus hams.  It's one trooper's interpretation versus one ham.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Your post is quite interesting.  So, what kind of law is one that is so vague, that it allows so much ambiguity that an officer can look the other way for his or her favorite buddies and yet use it, when irritated,to harass and selectively proscecute citizens?

Perhaps we ought to refamiliarize ourselves with the following supreme Law of the Land:

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Perhaps NY State should reaquaint its law enforcement personnel, if it ever did in the first place, with the principle of equal protection (enforcement) under law.
The examples you cite ought to be the basis for an interesting defense for Richard.  Please post some specific examples, names, dates, places and times so that Richard's counsel might be able to use them in preparing his defense.

Your post brings to mind other civil rights abuses by law enforcement officers, such as DWB (driving while black) traffic stops.

NYS 397. is codified garbage and should be dealt with accordingly. (Bury it in a landfill)

Lee
W6EM

 

Folks this case is blown way out of proportion. First I never saw the reason the guy was stopped in the first place. Second, was either radio on and turned to a police or public safety frequency. Then we are only hearing part of his story nothing from the officer, and most stories have two sides.

He went to an arraignment, not a trial. It was a waste of time to bring anyone with him to an arraingnment. No testimony is taken, only a plea. It appears the judge from looking over the papers submitted decided that in the guys best interest there should be a trial and the evidence he wanted to give could be presented. Of course at a trial the state must first present a prima facie case and only then does the defense need to submit evidence.

It is the way the system works, arraignment for plea and if a not guilty plea is entered then the case is set for trial. There are other reasons even with a guilty plea the case will be set for trial.

Remember there is statuatory law as passed by the legislative branch of the government and then there is case law that has been generated by appeals to convictions. Lastly there are attorney general opinions that can be considered but are not binding.

Without the case law on this issue you don't know for sure what the NY law really is. So let the case work it's way through the system and justice will be done. Without the case law you don't know the true impact of the preemption under the circumstances in this particular case.

Gill

 

Also disturbing, is the ARRL's silence on this issue.  Complete silence, again, in this week's ARRL News Letter, issued yesterday, June 20.

As I've said before, ARRL could at least mention Richard's situation so that more hams across the country could learn of his plite.  Amazingly, they have not one iota of concern about mentioning accusations/enforcement actions of the Commission against amateurs.  Which, by the way, are accusations, not convictions.  Stating what Richard was accused of doing, and the specifics certainly could not in any way jeopardize his defense.  After all, his case IS a matter of public record.

The ARRL's public silence re Richard's situation only serves to underscore my earlier suspicions of the ARRL not wanting to generate any controversy in NY state until after the NY Legislature considers its version of PRB-1.

Sure wish Wayne Green were still with us......... Hey Wayne, if you read these posts from 'up above', we need your help (to encourage the ARRL).


Lee
W6EM