Armed robbery suspects involved in shootout with KPD had scanner

Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
112
Location
Golden Valley AZ
#1
Was just listening to the scanner. Kingman PD was involved in a shootout with an armed robbery suspect who had a rifle and fired shots off at KPD. Apparently the guy that was shot had a scanner on him. This is the kind of stuff that pushes PDs toward encryption. I hope this incident doesn't push KPD towards it. I'm glad all the Officers were unharmed.
 
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
2,018
Location
Evansville, IN
#2
Was just listening to the scanner. Kingman PD was involved in a shootout with an armed robbery suspect who had a rifle and fired shots off at KPD. Apparently the guy that was shot had a scanner on him. This is the kind of stuff that pushes PDs toward encryption. I hope this incident doesn't push KPD towards it. I'm glad all the Officers were unharmed.
Since he got shot I don't think it did him much good!
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
112
Location
Golden Valley AZ
#4
You are both correct. Even though the suspect had a scanner he was still shot, and taken into custody. The robbers were leaving the scene right when the PD arrived. Thats when one of the robbers started popping shots off at officers while the other suspect ran in the other direction. In addition to the scanner, the suspect was also wearing body Armour.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
373
Location
Tucson, AZ
#7
We need some facts...

Just having a "scanner" on him means nothing. Was it programmed for KPD? Was he monitoring agencies that would give him an advantage in avoiding capture? Was it even turned on?

Since they were engaged by KPD as they were trying to leave the bank, it does not seem like the scanner was of any use.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
373
Location
Tucson, AZ
#9
The only mention of "scanner" in ARS Title 13 is in relation to devices used to scan credit cards.

In regards to burglary tools, "Possessing any explosive, tool, instrument or other article adapted or commonly used for committing any form of burglary" - Burglary is defined in ARS Title 13 as "Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a nonresidential structure or in a fenced commercial or residential yard with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein"



SO, there is nothing in ARS that refers to the possession of a scanner during the commission of a crime, nor to classifying a scanner as a burglary tool. A scanner is not "commonly used" nor "adapted" for committing any form of burglary, because a scanner does not help you enter the property in any way.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
77
Location
Phoenix, AZ
#10
Unless they have changed the law, it *is* a federal crime to use intercepted radio communications for all sorts of purposes, including committing a crime. The feds can prosecute independently of any local communications. But, I haven't heard of any such prosecutions.
 

KK4JUG

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
2,139
Location
GA, AL, TX, OK, KS, AR, NC, or MI
#11
I think its a federal crime to use a police receiver during the commission of a crime but they rarely prosecute.
It could only apply if the underlying crime was a federal offense. If the armed robbery was a federally insured bank, it would apply if it existed. 30+ years as a LEO and I've never heard of it, though. Like they said earlier, it's likely a state offense.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
373
Location
Tucson, AZ
#13
READ and COMPREHEND what you post

18 U.S. Code § 2511

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted—
(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
(II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;
(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;

FURTHER, In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, however, in which the Court sanctioned the publication of information about an issue of public importance that was lawfully obtained, the FCC itself has recognized that the law in this area is unclear and that Section 705’s prohibition on divulgence may well be unconstitutional.

SO, there's the FACTS about this issue. Feel free to ignore them in favor of Bubba who once walked past a court house.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
77
Location
Phoenix, AZ
#14
kjd7eir - there is no need to be rude!

My knowledge came from when I passed my FCC First Phone License - which has been a while since they no longer issue them. The rule apparently has now changed. I suspected it might have, or the FCC would have jumped on streaming scanner audio. However, that does not address the unlawful use of legally obtained communications.

You may now return to the heights of wisdom, where you apparently believe you reside.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
373
Location
Tucson, AZ
#16
The Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper EXACTLY refers to that!

If you don't want to read and comprehend, then please stop spouting off with your ADMITTED old, no longer applicable "knowledge."

There is no place in this WORLD for FAKE INFORMATION - and when you spread some BS about intercepted communications that the federal law, the US Supreme Court AND the FCC have agreed is OLD and UNCONSTITUTIONAL you are spreading fake information.

Read this very slowly - "the FCC itself has recognized that the law in this area is unclear and that Section 705’s prohibition on divulgence may well be unconstitutional."

Also - I don't BELIEVE that I reside in the heights of wisdom, I back up my claims with FACTS AND THE LAW. That firmly establishes me at the heights of wisdom - I'm wise enough to not open my mouth unless I KNOW what I am talking about is CORRECT. You back up your claims with hot air.

If you think the courts or the FCC give a darn about what you learned at least 36 years ago (FCC stopped issuing first class phone in 1982) then you are sadly mistaken.

There's an old saying "Ignorance of the law is no defense."
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
77
Location
Phoenix, AZ
#17
I'm out of here. I'll go someplace where people are nicer, and if they see a mistake, provide information to correct it, without being rude. I mentioned the First Phone to make it clear that my information *was* old, and I later mentioned that "The rule apparently has now changed. I suspected it might have, or the FCC would have jumped on streaming scanner audio. " Obviously you would rather rant than read.

So apparently that isn't enough for you. You have to come back and rant.

And by the way, no, Bartnicki v. Vopper does *not* refer exactly to using overheard communications in the commission of a crime. Rather, it asserts a First Amendment right to divulge overheard communications, a very different thing.

Bye
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
766
#18
18 U.S. Code § 2511

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted—
(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
(II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;
(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;

FURTHER, In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, however, in which the Court sanctioned the publication of information about an issue of public importance that was lawfully obtained, the FCC itself has recognized that the law in this area is unclear and that Section 705’s prohibition on divulgence may well be unconstitutional.

SO, there's the FACTS about this issue. Feel free to ignore them in favor of Bubba who once walked past a court house.
Thank you for posting this. Incredibly helpful - going to keep a copy in the vehicle...
 

PCTEK

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Messages
404
Location
Northern California, USA
#19
This incident is not isolated. That's why most departments are encrypting their transmissions, and those that don't use the MDT's in the patrol cars / fire rigs even medics... The hold out on using the MDT's were the "legacy" officers who by now have retired.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
112
Location
Golden Valley AZ
#20
Additional info on this. The perp supposedly fired 40+ rounds off with an AR-15 style rifile equipped with a bump stock at arriving officers striking their patrol cars. The second suspect fled in a different direction and was caught the next day. The suspect who fired at officer was shot in the face but survived. No mention of the suspect having a scanner on him, but after the suspect was apprehended they said over the radio he had a scanner on him, and they didnt know if the other suspect had one because a second scanner was found in the vehicle they abandoned.

https://kdminer.com/news/2018/jul/05/kingman-police-officers-armed-robbery-shooting-ide/
 
Top