Jimbo695
Member
This is NOT meant to start another round of arguments and "opinions" about the scanner laws in New York State; the moderators made it clear that they don't want that. I only offer it for the general information of the scanning community.
On October 14th New York's highest court ruled that a tow truck operator who had a scanner in his pocket violated section 397 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (originally enacted in 1933), which prohibits "equipping" a motor vehicle with a radio capable of receiving police frequencies, without a permit. The case turned on the meaning of "equip". The police officer said that the scanner was "on", and the circumstances set out in the decision give rise to the suspicion that the tow truck driver may have responded to what he heard and was somewhere that he shouldn't have been. But the bottom line was the Court's holding that because the scanner could be accessed and operated in seconds it didn't actually have to be attached to the vehicle for its possession to violate 397.
Courts only address the positions actually argued by counsel. Not discussed is federal preemption; how an item that is lawful to own can be transported without violating the law (in the trunk, maybe?); whether possessing a cell phone with a Broadcastify app constitutes a "radio" and thus also violates the law; and a host of other questions. So there's no sense getting into those issues.
People v. Andujar www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2017/Oct17/91opn17-Decision.pdf
On October 14th New York's highest court ruled that a tow truck operator who had a scanner in his pocket violated section 397 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (originally enacted in 1933), which prohibits "equipping" a motor vehicle with a radio capable of receiving police frequencies, without a permit. The case turned on the meaning of "equip". The police officer said that the scanner was "on", and the circumstances set out in the decision give rise to the suspicion that the tow truck driver may have responded to what he heard and was somewhere that he shouldn't have been. But the bottom line was the Court's holding that because the scanner could be accessed and operated in seconds it didn't actually have to be attached to the vehicle for its possession to violate 397.
Courts only address the positions actually argued by counsel. Not discussed is federal preemption; how an item that is lawful to own can be transported without violating the law (in the trunk, maybe?); whether possessing a cell phone with a Broadcastify app constitutes a "radio" and thus also violates the law; and a host of other questions. So there's no sense getting into those issues.
People v. Andujar www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2017/Oct17/91opn17-Decision.pdf