RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > U.S. Regional Radio Discussion Forums > Michigan Radio Discussion Forum

Michigan Radio Discussion Forum Forum for discussing Radio Information in the State of Michigan.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2007, 6:13 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 73
Default Scanner in car

I just read in the local newspaper from November 18, 2007 that a man was arrested in Livonia for having a scanner in his vehicle. The article also said the man was impersonating a police officer. Assuming the newspaper is right will the charge of having a scanner in his vehicle hold? Is it possible that Livonia has an ordinance that overrides state law?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2007, 6:25 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 547
Default

Sounds like he was arrested not so much for having a scanner, but impersonating a cop. To compound the problem, the scanner could be construed as helping him commit his crime (of impersonating an officer). It is illegal (just about anywhere) to use a scanner while committing a crime. I am almost sure that is what happened here.
__________________
Scanning Since 1971
Using Pro92, 94, 97, 106, 2050, 2052, 2004, BC-200XLT
Antiques: TMR-8H, ACT-R10H/L/U, ACT-W10, ACT-A4W
Ham Radio Since 1975 - VE for ARRL, W5YI & WCARS - GROL
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-21-2007, 2:16 PM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 11,438
Default

He was not arrested for having a scanner in his car, he would have been arrested for impersonating an officer.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11-21-2007, 2:42 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 547
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdale
He was not arrested for having a scanner in his car, he would have been arrested for impersonating an officer.

AND....

He complicated matters by having a scanner while committing the crime of impersonating an officer.....
__________________
Scanning Since 1971
Using Pro92, 94, 97, 106, 2050, 2052, 2004, BC-200XLT
Antiques: TMR-8H, ACT-R10H/L/U, ACT-W10, ACT-A4W
Ham Radio Since 1975 - VE for ARRL, W5YI & WCARS - GROL
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-21-2007, 6:57 PM
JoeyC's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KR4BD
AND....

He complicated matters by having a scanner while committing the crime of impersonating an officer.....
rdale is correct in clarifying the original posters somewhat inaccurate depiction of the arrest.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11-21-2007, 8:26 PM
Fiveo's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdale
He was not arrested for having a scanner in his car, he would have been arrested for impersonating an officer.
He likely was arrested for BOTH impersonating and possession of a scanner while commiting a crime. So to answer the original question, NO the scanner charge will not likely be dismissed, as it is in line with state law.

See MCL 750.508 for further, which in part states the following

"(2) A person shall not carry or have in his or her possession in the commission or attempted commission of a crime a radio receiving set that will receive signals sent on a frequency assigned by the federal communications commission of the United States for police or other law enforcement, fire fighting, emergency medical, federal, state, or local corrections, or homeland security purposes. "
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-22-2007, 1:24 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Oakland & Roscommon Counties MI
Posts: 550
Default

While the post is active, does anyone have the updated michigan scanner law? I am still not clear whether you are or arent allowed to have one in your car for listening purposes only.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-22-2007, 3:50 AM
Member
   
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy252
While the post is active, does anyone have the updated michigan scanner law?
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(pb2...cl-750-508.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 11-22-2007, 5:07 AM
freqs's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: warren michigan
Posts: 1,093
Default scanner in cars

try this site puts it in simple terms michigan.gov/msp go to specialized divisions then go to traffic div and click on new traffic laws 3rd one down says it all this is not a copy of the law
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 11-22-2007, 7:05 AM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 11,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveo
He likely was arrested for BOTH impersonating and possession of a scanner while commiting a crime.
No. He was not arrested BECAUSE he had a scanner. Having a scanner in the car is NOT illegal, UNLESS you are breaking the law in another way.

That's like saying that when a police officer pulls over a car with a broken tail light and finds drugs inside, that they were arrested because they had a broken tail light.

Quote:
So to answer the original question,
To answer the 2nd original question, NO they don't have a local law overriding the state's law.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-22-2007, 8:12 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 547
Default

rdale:

Please read the very first post here. Read it carefully. He was also arrested "for impersonating an officer". I agree that having a scanner in itself, is not illegal, but in this case it is illegal because he was "impersonating an officer". In other words, he was using the scanner in commission of another crime (impersonating an officer). Thank you!
__________________
Scanning Since 1971
Using Pro92, 94, 97, 106, 2050, 2052, 2004, BC-200XLT
Antiques: TMR-8H, ACT-R10H/L/U, ACT-W10, ACT-A4W
Ham Radio Since 1975 - VE for ARRL, W5YI & WCARS - GROL
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-22-2007, 12:53 PM
JoeyC's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KR4BD
rdale:

Please read the very first post here. Read it carefully. He was also arrested "for impersonating an officer".
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithken
I just read in the local newspaper from November 18, 2007 that a man was arrested in Livonia for having a scanner in his vehicle. The article also said the man was impersonating a police officer.
KR4BD:
You are confused. The OP stated: the man was arrested for having a scanner in his vehicle. He further states: the article also said the man was impersonating a police officer. No where in the original post does it state he was arrested for impersonating an officer. Stop trying to confuse matters just because you don't like someone here. We all know why the man was arrested.

Last edited by JoeyC; 11-22-2007 at 12:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 11-22-2007, 5:09 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 322
Default Police Scanner In Car?

I think the guy was arrested because ge was making beleive he was a police officer. Its completely legal to have a scanner in your car in the State of michigan as long as your not commiting a crime with it. Ive check with oue local MichiganState Police Post here as well as with my cousin who works for the Montclam County Sherriffs department. So thats all I can tellm you on that one.
__________________
______________
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 11-22-2007, 6:53 PM
BuiltonAsus's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 264
Default

http://www.hometownlife.com/apps/pbc...711180540/1027

Here is a link to one of the original articles which states he was also arrested for having a police scanner in his vehicle. Now, he was originally stopped because his car matched the description of a vehicle in an incident which occurred on Oct. 30th. The initial stop and subsequent arrest was based on his actions on Oct. 30th. It sounds like there are other charges going to be added on, such as using flashing lights and having a police scanner. Based on his original charges, and how his trial goes, I can see him only being found guilty of impersonating an officer. It cannot be proven he was using his scanner during the traffic stop on Oct. 30th.
Now based on the current law as it states he cannot be charged with using a scanner in a vehicle since it is not illegal and would be hard to prove he was using it on Oct. unless he approached the speeder with the scanner on his physical person. Just having a scanner in the vehicle while he was stopped by Livonia police would not give cause for him to be arrested for the scanner since he was not committing a crime, only a suspect vehicle.
Now the DA could spin it anyway he wants and this could actually set a precedent in the State of Michigan which could cause more arrests of individuals with police scanners in motor vehicles. Many departments are also unsure as to what the law really states. To me, if the MSP say it's fine, their word trumps local.
__________________
PRO-91*92*96
Uniden UBCD396T

Last edited by BuiltonAsus; 11-22-2007 at 6:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 11-23-2007, 10:57 PM
Fiveo's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdale
No. He was not arrested BECAUSE he had a scanner. Having a scanner in the car is NOT illegal, UNLESS you are breaking the law in another way.
Nothing in my post stated he was arrested simply because he possessed a scanner. Rather, I pointed out the possibility of two distinct charges arising from this one incident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdale
That's like saying that when a police officer pulls over a car with a broken tail light and finds drugs inside, that they were arrested because they had a broken tail light.
And it doesn't mean they can't be cited for the tail light AND arrested for the drugs...what is the point here?

It doesn't sound like anyone here has first hand and/or reliable (no the media is not reliable) information on exactly what occurred leading up to this reported arrest. So guessing as to which charges were used for the arrest and which ones are going to be dismissed or prosecutable is pointless. Could have any number of senarios where case is very solid...eyewitness testimony...confession...video evidence, etc. Same could be used to attack the case. Not enough information on the circumstances is given to come to a reasonable conclusion.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2007, 12:31 PM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 11,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveo
And it doesn't mean they can't be cited for the tail light AND arrested for the drugs...what is the point here?
The point is that they would not be arrested BECAUSE their tail light was broken, and the original suspect in this case was not arrested BECAUSE he had a scanner in the car. There are some here who seem to think he was arrested solely for having a scanner in the car, and not only is that not true that would be against Michigan law.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2007, 6:00 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 73
Default

Thanks for the clarification. I don't have the newspaper I read so I can't tell you if I misread the article or if the online version is different than the print version but I think the print version I read said he was arrested for having the scanner in his car. If that's what the print article said then it made me wonder if the law had changed or if I misinterpreted the law and you have answered that question. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2011 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions