Question about legality

I live in Manchester CT, recently the department changed the frequency codes and will not share them with the public. Is this legal? I thought this was protected under FOI act? I asked an officer and he claimed this was done for their safety even though there is no record I can find of a Manchester officer or a state of CT officer harmed due to a scanner being monitored to find them? For 35 years I have listened and now that I received a brand new scanner for Xmas, I can't listen anymore........bumming in Manchester

Many Police department are going to all Encryption. We as the public have no NEED to listen live just the desire. FOI does not come into play as you can still go to the PD and ask for tapes of all radio and 911 any time you want. So if you think you need to listen that badly shoot on down to the pd every day and get a copy of all the radio transmitions for the previous day

Jon,

You know who has a need? The media, TV stations, radio stations newspapers, wire services. Journalism keeps things in check, and relying on police fed information allows for information to be hidden ,skewed and important stories to be missed ... I say this as I spent 16 years covering news full time, working with small news outlets.

You may not have heard of those I spent years working with, all over the U.S., overseas, in such mundane places as New York City and Iraq. Small outlets, such as the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, Agrence France Press, UPI, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, Time Magazine, Life.

What I do now for work, it has changed, but it is not a desire to listen, as much as I enjoy it, there is an absolute need to hear things in real time and gather my information independently from the outset rather than wait and hope someone sends me a press release to tell me what I missed.

Firebuff66 said:

We as the public have no NEED to listen live just the desire.

Click to expand...

Need of an individual isn't the determining factor. The question for courts is if the government has a reasonable and compelling interest in not sharing information. If that is not the case then they are not allowed to withhold information from the public.

Firebuff66 said:

FOI does not come into play as you can still go to the PD and ask for tapes of all radio and 911 any time you want.

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with availability of public records. There are all sorts of public records available out there. What this is probably waiting on is a challenge in court. There is a good chance, IMHO, that the courts might find that there is a compelling government interest in keeping some of this from the public; most likely under the guise of homeland security. However, it's quite possible that the courts will rule in favor of open records.

Firebuff66 said:

So if you think you need to listen that badly shoot on down to the pd every day and get a copy of all the radio transmitions for the previous day

Click to expand...

Assuming motives and casting aspersions upon someone because they are simply interested in the availability of public records and information is pathetic and necessary. You do know that the source of authority for our government is the People, right?

sefrischling, I get the spirit of your post and I agree. However, if we are, as a free people, going to get baited into the "need" argument then individual liberty loses every time. Journalism isn't really constitutionally defined and anyone can be covered under First Amendment protections. I do some part-time journalism but nothing actually defines me as a journalist for purposes of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. IMHO, someone should challenge the withholding of this information and I don't agree that government has a compelling interest in keeping it out of the public record. The courts, of course, are free to disagree with me.


Thread: I would also argue that even those who get some strange enjoyment out of hearing gory things on a scanner are also protected under our form of government. As long as what they are doing is not illegal or bringing civil harm to another, then government isn't supposed to be interfering.

To the root of the question,If your looking for the new freq's,ctcss/dcs codes,NAC's ect..Legality is really not the issue,the FCC is tasked with that
responsibility and can be searched for information. No FOIA is needed and the bulk that is not included in the FCC DB is federal. And they have a separate DB that you need to have authorization to access. No one here can access it and if they could they would not share or post that info.

Keep in mind much of the information listed here in the RRDB is member submitted..Many posts are made with new information,Talkgroups,Control Channels,Analog to digital changes,CTCSS/DCS changes..ect..

I suggest you use your signal sweeper or close call options on your radio,or just scan the bands and see if you can catch the transmissions that are familiar to you in your area,,look for the call signs,the voices of dispatchers..or location info for calls..

If indeed they have made changes, and you find new info on that particular system/department..help out the other members in your area and submit it to the DB..It will update in the RRDB,subsequently update the radio models that also have that option, as well as all the software that has access to the RRDB..

Hans,

No, there is no constitutionally defined measure of journalism. That is in one part why Connecticut no longer issues any press credentials, as well other states and jurisdictions have as well. They were unable to define who was and who was not a "legitimate" journalist.

For work, I now primarily cover Feds. I have some of my own radios, and not all of their channels are publicly listed , or defined as to what they frequency does, but I've had help there in some instances. I at times end up with 'their radios' from people I know to listen to those channels that I wouldn't be able to monitor with my own radios. I understand the need for encryption, in some instances, but overall I see it encrypting everything ... like DCFD's Fire & EMS dispatch ... as an egregious act of curtailing a public's right to know.

There are other issues with this move, such as Nassau County, NY, PD going to P25 Phase II Encrypted, which effectively cut off the ability of the volunteer fire & EMS department to monitor the police. In Nassau County the vollie FDs share the EMS duties with the NCPD's Emergency Ambulance Bureau, often speeding up their response times by getting the calls off the PD dispatch, which is critical for cardiac cases, MVAs and other situations. For not EMS purposes the FD often gets dispatched, and getting a jump on that is always beneficial.

Each department is issued 3 radios that can monitor the PD encryption ... sure 3 radios may sound good, but in the village I grew up in, with nearly 60,000 people, there are four engines, two trucks, a heavy rescue, two ambulances, three chiefs, operating from five separate houses ... so those three radios really do no good to the community in regard to speeding up response times.

There are countless incidents now where the FDs have had issues because they cannot monitor the NCPD EMS bus, because they operate on the precinct channels. In other situations there have been dispatch delays for an MVA where the PD were reporting a fire, but that info goes from cop to NCPD dispatch, who sends it to NC FireCom, who dispatches it, before the tones go out for for the vollies to head to the house, wait for a crew, and roll out. In the past you could end up with a vollie on scene with a fire extinguisher , or first responder on scene, beating the bus, beating the engine, which greatly enhances public safety.

But you can't hand an encrypted radio to every vollie in 76 departments across 9 Battalions ... but yea, there is no need for what is considered 'the public' by some jurisdictions to monitor the police.

The kicker for me is that our tax $$$$ have paid for the encrypted radios. That is my silly argument (not meant to be fully serious) If I paid for it, I should be able to listen in.

I know/remember the Hartford Courant and other media outlets suing under FOI for access to the TRSs coming online back in the 90s (I think, don't quote me there, I was in NH at the time, my memory is a bit foggy) and winning. I am not sure what (if any) the actual legal standard is, but will look into it.

As for the officer safety argument....please. 99% of most criminals would not have any clue how to program a modern scanner. The only time I ever heard a police officer talk about someone listening in is, is when I was the one getting pulled over or covering an event. Police will argue about scanners and officer safety when 99% of scanner listeners have no intention of ever committing a crime, and are good upstanding citizens which are more likely to use their scanners and radios to prevent crime from happening.

As for journalists, the proper use of a scanner is a news gathering tool, BUT not as an actual news source. I will occasionally quote fun things that I hear on my Facebook page, but never for print coverage. Actual source confirmation is always required (Chiefs). For photographers, it helps us to get access to a scene while doing our jobs is in the safest way possible.

Tim,

I don't quote from a scanner, but I use it as a starting point of where to look. It allows me to follow what is going on in real time ... the same way it allows you ... and then use the information to formulate where I am going with what I have gleaned from the radio.

I believe The Day also ended up with a CSP radio years ago when they switched to P25 trunking and left all the papers and stations unable to monitor them. I briefly worked up in Bristol (worst 89 days of my career before I quit) and they had a CSP issue radio in the newsroom.

I do however frequently tweet, and post to facebook "Tales From The Scanner" because that's just some funny stuff.


There was a call in New London a year or so ago where the cops were told to switch to phones because they knew the person they were going after had multiple radios in the house. Never heard that one before.

We have not had the CSP radios since my arrival in 2002. I'll ask SDE about that. I know without me no one would hear much of anything in this building, and as such only about 11 of us listen with any real frequency. My favorite when I call in about a possible fire "I haven't heard anything" You are sitting next to THE SCANNER!

For those who want to experience some real concerns about journalistic integrity and understand a bit better why some public agencies might want to use encryption, check out the CT Post (newspaper) website from time to time. Their on-line stories are based on scanner reports and make such attribution in the story! That's just inexcusable and the editors should have better sense than to allow it. I worked in the newsroom for a lower Fairfield County radio station many years ago and I've been monitoring scanner broadcasts since the early 70's. Never would have used anything on the air based on what I heard on the scanner. As for me, listening to the scanner is pure entertainment and the only encryption I might tend to agree with is for EMS crews. Often times the EMS dispatch contains much more information than I need to be entertained or that I should have any knowledge of. Police and fire dispatches can give you an idea of what's going on but they rarely contain the kind of detail that EMS does.

Jim ,

I can argue against encrypting EMS on a number of levels, but will just use one ... practicality.

EMS needs to be interop, and encryption is anti-interop. I have encountered very few people, even the hardcore radio junkies, that listen to the Med Channels. I don't mean dispatch, I mean the Bus-to ER channels.

Interestingly, my 10 year old loves that channel.

Back to the issue at hand, here are the channels used by Manchester Police
460.12500 KTO334 Manchester Police 1 P25
460.40000 KTO334 Manchester Police 2 P25
I do not know if they are using encryption but they are using Digital so you will need a digital scanner.

A complete list of Hartford County Frequencies can be found here
Hartford County, Connecticut (CT) Scanner Frequencies and Radio Frequency Reference

State Police
Connecticut State Police Trunking System, Statewide, Connecticut - Scanner Frequencies

City Of Hartford
Hartford (City) Trunking System, Hartford, Connecticut - Scanner Frequencies

fourthhorseman said:

To the root of the question,If your looking for the new freq's,ctcss/dcs codes,NAC's ect..Legality is really not the issue,the FCC is tasked with that
responsibility and can be searched for information.

Click to expand...

The FCC does not track "ctcss/dcs codes,NAC's ect" - only frequencies.

That said, most modern scanners have a SEARCH mode that can be used to show any of the above (ctcss/dcs codes,NAC's ect) in an instant, so no need to go through FOIA and the like. Just set the scanner to search for CTCSS/CDCSS/NAC. How this is done varies depending on the model, but it's easy on any of them.

In this case, program 460.12500 and 460.40000 as P25 using NAC SEARCH or just SEARCH, and it will show the NAC. If they are encrypted, you are SOL.

As for the need to monitor, do you have a need to be safe? If so, you have a need to know what criminal activity is going on around you, and you cannot rely on the media for reporting everything that goes on. Many times, they aren't given the info either.

well..

it is their game and their rules. be happy to hear anything at all.
also i would treat it as a game of hide and seek.
but it sounds like others have come to help.

cookandcamera said:

The kicker for me is that our tax $$$$ have paid for the encrypted radios. That is my silly argument (not meant to be fully serious) If I paid for it, I should be able to listen in.

Click to expand...

Your tax dollars paid for their telephone system and cell phones, and you won't be getting free access to listen in on telephone calls. Your tax dollars paid for their computers and network, and you won't be getting access to those, either.

In some places, news agencies have been given a radio set up on the systems as "receive only". This is probably the best you could hope for. Said radio remains the property of the law enforcement agency and can be revoked. As an individual, FOIA is probably going to be your best resource.

mmckenna said:

Your tax dollars paid for their telephone system and cell phones, and you won't be getting free access to listen in on telephone calls. Your tax dollars paid for their computers and network, and you won't be getting access to those, either.

In some places, news agencies have been given a radio set up on the systems as "receive only". This is probably the best you could hope for. Said radio remains the property of the law enforcement agency and can be revoked. As an individual, FOIA is probably going to be your best resource.

Click to expand...

????

I was kidding about the tax dollars. I know better. Listening to phone conversations is illegal, hence I have never had that expectation.

In the early days of their digital TRS the CSP offered to let media outlets purchase a "receive only" radio at a price that was out of reach for most. I am unsure if anyone went for it or not.

I can't speak for other media outlets in CT, but I know where I work we have a very high ethical standard to not use scanner communications as news sources. Anyone who does so will certainly be told to get another source (or more) and will likely receive a reprimand.

What I am hoping for is no different than the constitutionally protected rights of gun owners. Why should the majority lose their ability to listen in, when they have done absolutely nothing wrong, or have any intent to do something wrong, or to misuse their scanners or radios in any way. And yes, I know that the Constitution in no way protects my current legal right in the state of CT to listen to public safety communications on a scanner.

I simply understand why our friend in Manchester is bummed out that he may not be able to listen in Manchester PD on his scanner anymore if they are encrypted, and to answer his original question, encryption is completely legal in the state of CT. Scanner laws vary from state to state. In CT there is no law saying that should a public safety system decide to encrypt that they are not fully entitled to do so. At least none that I could find. Also, I do not think anyone would legally try to challenge the encryption anymore.

I know you were kidding, just brining up some other examples.

Technology will always be advancing, and hobbyists will always be playing catch up.

wtp said:

it is their game and their rules. be happy to hear anything at all.

Click to expand...

If it's government then it is our game and our rules. All game rules government plays by must conform to the rule of law and eventually the Supreme Law; the Constitution.

wtp said:

be happy to hear anything at all.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. We aren't subjects, serfs, or peons in the United States. I've ran into more than a few agents of government that had to learn the lesson a harder way than necessary. In the end, they lose when they consistently interact with that arrogant mindset.

wtp said:

also i would treat it as a game of hide and seek.
but it sounds like others have come to help.

Click to expand...

I like that. It's a healthy way to "play the game", IMHO.

Hans13 said:

If it's government then it is our game and our rules. All game rules government plays by must conform to the rule of law and eventually the Supreme Law; the Constitution.

Click to expand...

I want to send you something. What is the address of your rock?

(IOW, what rock have you been living under?)

I know that's what the founding fathers envisioned, and that's the way it's supposed to be, but certainly not the way it is or there would not be all these encryption issues with the governments trying to hide things.