Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Supreme Court will hear case if Officers need "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    The Supreme Court is hearing a case tomorrow that could do away with RAS (Reasonable Articulable Suspicion) in Terry stops. If they rule along with the 38 states who are filing amicus briefs, then every person in a car in a traffic stop could be removed from the vehicle and frisked without any justification at all.

    The CJLF is arguing for a blanket rule permitting the search of all passengers in order to take "complete command" at traffic stops. See page 10-11 of their amicus brief. http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/JohnsonL.pdf

    Ugh. AZ did the right thing, seeing how the SCOTUS hates personal freedom, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it will side with the government.

  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    hsmith wrote:
    seeing how the SCOTUS hates personal freedom,
    Well, at least 5/9 of them supported the personal right of D.C. residents to purchase and own handguns.

  3. #3
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Double post

  4. #4
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    161

    Post imported post

    Interesting. :?


    I was looking through Terry stop posts yesterday trying to get info organized...a 'Terry Stop Quick Guide' would be great.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    hsmith wrote:
    The Supreme Court is hearing a case tomorrow that could do away with RAS (Reasonable Articulable Suspicion) in Terry stops. If they rule along with the 38 states who are filing amicus briefs, then every person in a car in a traffic stop could be removed from the vehicle and frisked without any justification at all.

    The CJLF is arguing for a blanket rule permitting the search of all passengers in order to take "complete command" at traffic stops. See page 10-11 of their amicus brief. http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/JohnsonL.pdf

    Ugh. AZ did the right thing, seeing how the SCOTUS hates personal freedom, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it will side with the government.
    I've only read the first few pages linked, and I don't think we should get too upset just yet.

    First, traffic stops and Terry Stops are not necessarily the same thing.

    Here is the question presented:

    In the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, may an officer conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but has no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense?

    It is clear the question includes the LEO having an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed. This is different than

    If the court said yes to the question presented, it would basically be applying common-sense Terry analysis. The court, I'm fairly certain, has already ruled that all passengers are necessarily seized during a traffic stop. And, I'm fairly certain the court has already ruled that police can order everyone out of a vehicle (for officer safety, if I recall. I forget the legal theory/rationale.)

    I doubt the court will expressly allow LEOs to search everybody just because the LEO feels like it. They seem to like security against searches to a certain extent. If anything,I think the court would rule"yes" on the question presented. And/or, they may lower the bar on what constitutes reasonable grounds. But I don't think they will allow what would amount to an arbitrarypat-down weapon search.

    Lets wait and see what they say before we get too concerned.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Shorts wrote:
    Interesting. :?


    I was looking through Terry stop posts yesterday trying to get info organized...a 'Terry Stop Quick Guide' would be great.
    Yes, but it would amount to legal advice. Something the forum Founders don't want to get involved in.

    In my mind the two best starter resources are the "Busted" video by flexyourrights.org (on YouTube last I looked) and the video by Regent Law School professor James Duane about talking to police.

    Remember, in any given Terry Stop, its entirely possible and sometimes probable that theOCer will not have enough information to judge whether the LEO has legal justification for the detention. Woe to you if you misjudge and act on that misjudgement during the detention, depending on what you actually do.

    Where the Terry Stop case law reallybecomes useful isafter the detention. The more you know, the quicker you can decide whetherwhatlittle ofyour rights the government still recognizes was violated. Sometimes you still need a Freedom of Information request of the 911 call recordings and police car radio traffic recordings to really make the determination. That's not all entirely true. Case law is also useful if you want to nuance your police encounter strategy.

    If you are really interested in sucking up a bunch of case law,Shorts, PM me. In fact, you can gather up A LOT by going to that .pdf document linked in the OP and hunting up the cases cited there in the Table of Authorities.

    One of the neat things about court opinions is that they give you the thread to follow by citing earlier cases. Lots of reading. Most of it easy. Very little legalese.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    161

    Post imported post

    Citizen, thank you for the point in the right direction. I'll have a look at the cases referenced in this link above. I'm currently on pg8 and a few things have stuck out and I've jotted a few questions/notes for further research

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysi...ght/#more-8379

    Analysis: More police authority in sight? Tuesday, December 9th, 2008 2:54 pm | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post Analysis

    Along the way toward reaching a major new issue on police authority, and hinting that some Justices were ready touphold at least some expansion, the Supreme Court on Tuesday got diverted into a questionit has never decided. And that may complicate its move toward adecision in Arizona v. Johnson (07-1122), testing a police officer’s pat-down for weapons of a passenger emerging froma car that has been stopped for a traffic violation.

    As the case reached the Court, it involved a rather sweeping claim of police power, perhaps going well beyond police action in roadside encounters. It is a claim that wasdescribedduring the hearing by Justice John Paul Stevensas “a rather extreme position” and by Justice David H. Souter as “a pretty wide-open standard in the real world.”

    The wider argument, made by both the state of Arizona and by the federal government in support, was that police who encounter someone in a public place should have the authority to frisk that individual any time they fear he may be “armed and dangerous,” even if they have no suspicion that any crime has been or isbeing committed. Put that way, the claim would appear to lead to a major expansion of the pat-down authority that the Court first embraced, in significantly more limited form, in a 1968 decision, Terry v. Ohio.

    Some Justices, notablyStevens and Souter and, to some degree, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, seemed troubled about the breadth of that argument, exploring various hypotheticals about chance encounters on public sidewalks where there is no hint of criminal acadtivity afoot, or on a roadside when all the motorist is doing is changing a tire. But it was by no means clear Tuesday that a majority of the Justices shared that concern. The comments of others seemed, for example, to suggest that fears for police safety — especially at roadside — may well be so vivid in everyday life to justify, for thoseJustices, someadded pat-down authority.

    But a good portion of Tuesday’s one-hour argument was taken up with exploration of what appeared to be an antecedent question dealing explicitly with roadside stops:when does such a stop begin and end, in relation topolice discretion onwhat they do after the initial stop? In Fourth Amendment terms, that question is: when does a police seizure of an individual begin and end, especially during a traffic stop?
    If the seizure is found to have come to an end once the traffic violation itself has been explored,any police activity that is intrusive after that — such as a pat-down search for weapons — maybe harder to justify constitutionally and, indeed, may not be justifiable at all. If, however, a passenger — and thedriver — remain seized throughout the stop, up to the point that police make it very clear that the individuals are free to move on, then police activity during the seizure may more easily satisfy the Fourth Amendment.

    The Court, for all of the legion of roadside stop cases it has decided, has never ruled explicitly on when a seizure in that context comes to an end. In the case before the Court, involving Arizonan Lemon Montrea Johnson, a state court ruled that his seizure had ended prior to the time he left the stopped vehicle in which he was a passenger,and thus an officer’s pat-down after that was unconstitutional because the officer had no suspicion that a crime was being or had been committed by him.
    To Arizona and the Justice Department, Johnson was not free to leave when he was patted-down, so the officer was free todo that search, especially since she feared he might be armed and dangerous after her discussion with him of gang activity in the area. But, to both the state and the federal government, it really makes no difference whether the seizure had come to an end: either way, according to their broader argument, the officer’s fear for her safety was enough to justify the pat-down even without any suspicion of a crime.

    An assistant state attorney general, Joseph L. Parkhurst, and an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, Toby J. Heytens, fervently defended the broader argument, contending that past statements by the Supreme Court made it clear that officer safety was such a central concern in public encounters (especially at roadside) that a pat-down search for weapons should be considered well within police discretion. Heytens indicated that authority might even exist if the officer came upon someone changing a tire — if the officer had a notion that the individual was a threat to the officer’s safety.

    Justice Antonin Scalia, taking perhaps the furthest position in support of their argument, suggested to Parkhurst that it should be enough to justify a pat-down that an officer suspected an individual of illegal activity. He seemed taken aback whenthe state’s lawyer insisted thatthe suspicion would have to be that the individual was both armed and dangerous — perhaps implying that Scalia thought it would be enough if the officer deemed the individual dangerous, even if not armed. Scalia also suggested that general police authority to search an area following an arrestmight be a sufficient basis for a pat-down.

    Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., somewhat less expansively, suggested that, if the traffic stop was valid in the first place, it might be enough to justify a pat-down if the officer during the stop developed a suspicion that the passenger was dangerous.
    Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., suggested that, if an officer thought an individual was carrying a gun, because the officer saw a bulge in the person’s clothing, it should not be necessary for the officer to wait for that individual to shoot first before doing a pat-down search.

    Johnson’s lawyer at the podium, Andrew J. Pincus, had considerable difficulty making his argument against the sweeping claim to search power because he was pressed closely and repeatedly about whether Johnson was still under police control — not free to leave — when he was patted-down. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in fact, almost reached the point of badgering Pincus on the point. Justices Kennedy and Souter also seemed quite thoroughly unpersuaded that Johnson was free to leave, and Kennedy even contended that the Supreme Court had made clear in a 2007 decision in a roadside case (Brendlin v. California) that an individual in Johnson’s situation certainly would not have felt he could walk away from the scene.

    This extended discussion, of course, focused on an issue that the Court very likelydid not have in mind when it agreed to hear Arizona’s appeal. And it probably complicates the Court’s task, since the Justices may have to decide, first, when a roadside seizure (or any police seizure, for that matter) begins and ends — an inquiry involving a multitude of variables,and then, second, decide what the Fourth Amendment requires or allows depending on the answer to the first question.
    Arizona and the federal government wouldwinif the Court were to rule that all that was necessary is a suspicion by a police officerthat an individualis armed and dangerous; in that event, it would probably make no difference whether the individual was technically “seized” in Fourth Amendment terms, or not. But if the Court were to conclude that Johnson was not seized, would the Justices find that a suspicion of dangerousness was sufficient to justify a pat-down search, or some other form of police activity? And what if the encounter were somewhere other than a roadside after a vehicle stop?



  9. #9
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    I have a real problem with the Officer's assertion as argued in the breif that the mere presence of a radio scanner capable of receiveing police radio traffic in the shirt pocket of an individual is used to evade and elude police officers. There has to be something else, ANYTHING ELSE!



    My view may be biased just a bit though... as I am a Ham Radio Operator and I own a BUNCH of radio receiving and transmitting equipment. In fact, I also own a small handheld scanner capable of receiving radio transmissions from MANY local and statewide Law Enforcement Agencies. I have also been known to walk with the scanner in my pocket andlisten to the "goings on" while I am openly carrying my legally owned and possessed firearm in a holster on my hip. Wow, I wonder what that officer in Arizona would have thought of me?


    Let's see....

    I possess an item that is LEGAL to possess. I am under no legal restriction preventing me from owning/possessingsaid item. And the fact that I have that item is now justification for an officer to ask me to leave a car in which I am a passenger.

    JoeSparky



    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I used to keep a faux kleenex box on my dash to get through VA un-molested.

  11. #11
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    Many years ago I was a passenger in a car stopped at night (2:30) by the PD. I am also a Ham and I had a FT-51R with me that was opened up to recv the PD freqs so I was listening in to the PD radio traffic to see why we had been stopped (we weren't pulled over for driving, the PD stopped us because we matched a vehicle seen leaving the area of a home invasion). The cops DID NOT like the fact that I had the radio in the car, they told me to turn it off several times, and when I refused to turn it off they threatened to arrest me. Being the passenger, I told them I would NOT turn it off and they could charge me if they felt I was breaking the law. At this point they seperated me from the driver and began interogating me as to where we had been prior to the stop. We had been at a 24 hour Hardee's on the opposite side of town and I had paid for my meal with a credit card so I told the officers to call the hardees and confirm I had been there and paid with the card. The PD did so and I was released after 30 minutes. I still had the radio with me the entire time, but once the PD realized I was listening in they switched to secure comms.

  12. #12
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    Trouble maker! Don't you know they do these things for our own good?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    I have a real problem with the Officer's assertion as argued in the breif that the mere presence of a radio scanner capable of receiveing police radio traffic in the shirt pocket of an individual is used to evade and elude police officers. There has to be something else, ANYTHING ELSE!

    *

    My view may be biased just a bit though... as I am a Ham Radio Operator and I own a BUNCH of radio receiving and transmitting equipment. In fact, I also own a small handheld scanner capable of receiving radio transmissions from MANY local and statewide Law Enforcement Agencies. I have also been known to walk with the scanner in my pocket and*listen to the "goings on" while I am openly carrying my legally owned and possessed firearm in a holster on my hip. Wow, I wonder what that officer in Arizona would have thought of me?


    Let's see....

    I possess an item that is LEGAL to possess. I am under no legal restriction preventing me from owning/possessing*said item. And the fact that I have that item is now justification for an officer to ask me to leave a car in which I am a passenger.

    JoeSparky

    *
    I agree. If the police want secure comm they have those channels available (in most jurisdictions). Those channels are mostly used by narcotics, vice, swat, etc. I for one don't understand why some officers get so upset with scanners, recorders etc. I understand sticking a video camera in their face, but short of that I really can't see it. I have seen some halfway sophisticated criminals use scanners in B/E and narcotic type stuff, Maybe that is why the officers were bothered by it in nakedshoplifters case (they were responding to a home invasion). With that and the car matching the description of the suspect vehicle I can see where they would have an interest in it.

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    nitrovic wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    I have a real problem with the Officer's assertion as argued in the breif that the mere presence of a radio scanner capable of receiveing police radio traffic in the shirt pocket of an individual is used to evade and elude police officers. There has to be something else, ANYTHING ELSE!



    My view may be biased just a bit though... as I am a Ham Radio Operator and I own a BUNCH of radio receiving and transmitting equipment. In fact, I also own a small handheld scanner capable of receiving radio transmissions from MANY local and statewide Law Enforcement Agencies. I have also been known to walk with the scanner in my pocket andlisten to the "goings on" while I am openly carrying my legally owned and possessed firearm in a holster on my hip. Wow, I wonder what that officer in Arizona would have thought of me?


    Let's see....

    I possess an item that is LEGAL to possess. I am under no legal restriction preventing me from owning/possessingsaid item. And the fact that I have that item is now justification for an officer to ask me to leave a car in which I am a passenger.

    JoeSparky


    I agree. If the police want secure comm they have those channels available (in most jurisdictions). Those channels are mostly used by narcotics, vice, swat, etc. I for one don't understand why some officers get so upset with scanners, recorders etc. I understand sticking a video camera in their face, but short of that I really can't see it. I have seen some halfway sophisticated criminals use scanners in B/E and narcotic type stuff, Maybe that is why the officers were bothered by it in nakedshoplifters case (they were responding to a home invasion). With that and the car matching the description of the suspect vehicle I can see where they would have an interest in it.
    And there is NO law against receiving the radio signals, even the "Confidential" ones. There are laws that prohibit the telling of others what was heard however. Some juridictions do prohibit the "mobile" use of scanners but generally have exceptions for properly liscensed Radio operators like Hams! Don't mean you won't get hassled by "the man"!

    Terrible shame that congress passed the laws preventing the receptions of Cell phone calls however.It just makes the scanners more expensive!



    JoeSparky
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    nitrovic wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    I have a real problem with the Officer's assertion as argued in the breif that the mere presence of a radio scanner capable of receiveing police radio traffic in the shirt pocket of an individual is used to evade and elude police officers. There has to be something else, ANYTHING ELSE!



    My view may be biased just a bit though... as I am a Ham Radio Operator and I own a BUNCH of radio receiving and transmitting equipment. In fact, I also own a small handheld scanner capable of receiving radio transmissions from MANY local and statewide Law Enforcement Agencies. I have also been known to walk with the scanner in my pocket andlisten to the "goings on" while I am openly carrying my legally owned and possessed firearm in a holster on my hip. Wow, I wonder what that officer in Arizona would have thought of me?


    Let's see....

    I possess an item that is LEGAL to possess. I am under no legal restriction preventing me from owning/possessingsaid item. And the fact that I have that item is now justification for an officer to ask me to leave a car in which I am a passenger.

    JoeSparky


    I agree. If the police want secure comm they have those channels available (in most jurisdictions). Those channels are mostly used by narcotics, vice, swat, etc. I for one don't understand why some officers get so upset with scanners, recorders etc. I understand sticking a video camera in their face, but short of that I really can't see it. I have seen some halfway sophisticated criminals use scanners in B/E and narcotic type stuff, Maybe that is why the officers were bothered by it in nakedshoplifters case (they were responding to a home invasion). With that and the car matching the description of the suspect vehicle I can see where they would have an interest in it.
    And there is NO law against receiving the radio signals, even the "Confidential" ones. There are laws that prohibit the telling of others what was heard however. Some juridictions do prohibit the "mobile" use of scanners but generally have exceptions for properly liscensed Radio operators like Hams! Don't mean you won't get hassled by "the man"!

    Terrible shame that congress passed the laws preventing the receptions of Cell phone calls however.It just makes the scanners more expensive!



    JoeSparky

    Joe I have heard that whatever we hear and send doing ARES operation are not allowed to be passedrepeated tonon-hams not part of the ARES operation but not sure if that is true or not.


    Btw about scanners being expensive...

    My VX-7RB costs like $278 right now at Hamcity.com but I bought it during a special for $250 so not too expensive with an RX range from 500 khz to 999.999 Mhz cell phone excluded unfortunately. =o(

    A very fun little toy to play around with. =o)

    73 de VE2SWE/VA2TLC =o)

  16. #16
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    Sleepless wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    nitrovic wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    SNIP...
    And there is NO law against receiving the radio signals, even the "Confidential" ones. There are laws that prohibit the telling of others what was heard however. Some juridictions do prohibit the "mobile" use of scanners but generally have exceptions for properly liscensed Radio operators like Hams! Don't mean you won't get hassled by "the man"!

    Terrible shame that congress passed the laws preventing the receptions of Cell phone calls however.It just makes the scanners more expensive!



    JoeSparky
    Joe I have heard that whatever we hear and send doing ARES operation are not allowed to be passedrepeated tonon-hams not part of the ARES operation but not sure if that is true or not.

    73 de VE2SWE/VA2TLC =o)

    Please see bolded part above.

    I used to hear ssn's, names, addresses, dl numbers, license tags, and all sorts of "privacy type" stuff. Since more and more agencies are going to internet based car computer systems I hear MUCH less.

    I did make a call to local police dispatch several years ago suggesting that the officers might want to be more carefull about what they were saying over the air between themselves after a call. Never heard dispatch on the air about it but as one was transmitting I heard his cell phone ring.... They ended the discussion then. I was sure glad it wasn't MY daughter they were talking about!!!!!

    JoeSparky

    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    Sleepless wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    nitrovic wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    SNIP...
    And there is NO law against receiving the radio signals, even the "Confidential" ones. There are laws that prohibit the telling of others what was heard however. Some juridictions do prohibit the "mobile" use of scanners but generally have exceptions for properly liscensed Radio operators like Hams! Don't mean you won't get hassled by "the man"!

    Terrible shame that congress passed the laws preventing the receptions of Cell phone calls however.It just makes the scanners more expensive!



    JoeSparky
    Joe I have heard that whatever we hear and send doing ARES operation are not allowed to be passedrepeated tonon-hams not part of the ARES operation but not sure if that is true or not.

    73 de VE2SWE/VA2TLC =o)
    Please see bolded part above.

    JoeSparky
    Ohh I didn't see that, I think I should go and get some glasses for future reading but I will just blame it right now on being tired. =oP

    On my VX-7RB the only thing I have heard with a MH-511 antenna attached was the police dispatch for my area which I think was only one-way but I haven't been able to find any communication between LEOs or other agencies, but I have foundthe dispatch frequencies for two cab companies.

    I have a feeling I need a better antenna. =oP

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    Think twice about warning police away from conducting their business over the radio. All the radio trafficrecordings are discoverable by FOIA or subpoena; when they "back channel" and conduct official business over cell phone instead, there's nothing to discover. No recordings.



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    Sleepless wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    nitrovic wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    SNIP...
    And there is NO law against receiving the radio signals, even the "Confidential" ones. There are laws that prohibit the telling of others what was heard however. Some juridictions do prohibit the "mobile" use of scanners but generally have exceptions for properly liscensed Radio operators like Hams! Don't mean you won't get hassled by "the man"!

    Terrible shame that congress passed the laws preventing the receptions of Cell phone calls however.*It just makes the scanners more expensive!

    *

    JoeSparky
    Joe I have heard that whatever we hear and send doing ARES operation are not allowed to be passed*repeated to*non-hams not part of the ARES operation but not sure if that is true or not.

    73 de VE2SWE/VA2TLC =o)

    Please see bolded part above.

    I used to hear ssn's, names, addresses, dl numbers, license tags, and all sorts of "privacy type" stuff. Since more and more agencies are going to internet based car computer systems I hear MUCH less.

    I did make a call to local police dispatch several years ago suggesting that the officers might want to be more carefull about what they were saying over the air between themselves after a call. Never heard dispatch on the air about it but as one was transmitting I heard his cell phone ring.... They ended the discussion then. I was sure glad it wasn't MY daughter they were talking about!!!!!

    JoeSparky
    Just fyi, tag numbers aren't confidential in the least. If it's in public view it's usually public knowledge. If they were giving out CCH (criminal history's) or driving transcript info then yes, that is considered "for official use only".

  20. #20
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    Think twice about warning police away from conducting their business over the radio. All the radio trafficrecordings are discoverable by FOIA or subpoena; when they "back channel" and conduct official business over cell phone instead, there's nothing to discover. No recordings.

    If you know backchannel communication has happened...can't thatbe aquired viasubpoena?

    I know that among LA County SD (at least in my area) backchannel text messaging and phone calls is actually more common then using the mobile computers or the radio. This happens precisely because of all the recordings.

  21. #21
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    nitrovic wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    Sleepless wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    nitrovic wrote:
    JoeSparky wrote:
    SNIP...
    And there is NO law against receiving the radio signals, even the "Confidential" ones. There are laws that prohibit the telling of others what was heard however. Some juridictions do prohibit the "mobile" use of scanners but generally have exceptions for properly liscensed Radio operators like Hams! Don't mean you won't get hassled by "the man"!

    Terrible shame that congress passed the laws preventing the receptions of Cell phone calls however.It just makes the scanners more expensive!



    JoeSparky
    Joe I have heard that whatever we hear and send doing ARES operation are not allowed to be passedrepeated tonon-hams not part of the ARES operation but not sure if that is true or not.

    73 de VE2SWE/VA2TLC =o)

    Please see bolded part above.

    I used to hear ssn's, names, addresses, dl numbers, license tags, and all sorts of "privacy type" stuff. Since more and more agencies are going to internet based car computer systems I hear MUCH less.

    I did make a call to local police dispatch several years ago suggesting that the officers might want to be more carefull about what they were saying over the air between themselves after a call. Never heard dispatch on the air about it but as one was transmitting I heard his cell phone ring.... They ended the discussion then. I was sure glad it wasn't MY daughter they were talking about!!!!!

    JoeSparky
    Just fyi, tag numbers aren't confidential in the least. If it's in public view it's usually public knowledge. If they were giving out CCH (criminal history's) or driving transcript info then yes, that is considered "for official use only".
    In this situation they had "interupted" a couple who were "entertaining" themselves about 2am in a local park... After the incident was resolved the ongoing "discussion" between the officers was about the appearant "lack of beauty" of the female participant who happened to be only 16 years old....

    It was not a professional discussion!

    JoeSparky

    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  22. #22
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    KBCraig wrote:
    Think twice about warning police away from conducting their business over the radio. All the radio trafficrecordings are discoverable by FOIA or subpoena; when they "back channel" and conduct official business over cell phone instead, there's nothing to discover. No recordings.

    If you know backchannel communication has happened...can't thatbe aquired viasubpoena?

    I know that among LA County SD (at least in my area) backchannel text messaging and phone calls is actually more common then using the mobile computers or the radio. This happens precisely because of all the recordings.
    I understand in my brother's department that the online chat system they have is also logged... So, I guess one just has to include that info in the FOIA request!

    JoeSparky


    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    X-WB6AAZ 'Aardvark Aardvark Zap'

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    I have seen a couple of times when officers have gotten into trouble with radio transmissions. You really don't hear it as much these days (mainly because the computers have taken over), but it still happens. That is a problem from the top down, I know my department wouldn't put up with that stuff for one second. They monitor our MDT transmissions and obviously they are on the radio as well. I guess it just depends on what department you work for.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Lets wait and see what they say before we get too concerned.
    No, this is precisely the time when we don't wait and do get concerned. For, once the Court decides, that's it. Done. All over but the crying. There can be no influence over the decision once it is rendered. The question is before the highest court.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •