• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
imported post

nitrovic wrote:
JoeSparky wrote:
Sleepless wrote:
JoeSparky wrote:
nitrovic wrote:
JoeSparky wrote:

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
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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
 

nitrovic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
935
Location
, ,
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.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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.
 

IanB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,896
Location
Northern VA
imported post

nitrovic wrote:
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.
Yup.

http://www.vcdl.org/Tonys/MCPD_FOIA_Response.pdf
 
Top