Clemars

[Giant420]

I have been hearing a lot of traffic on the CLEMARS (154.92000) in the areas between thousand oaks and oxnard. Some of is it hard to make out, but most of the time it sounds like they are searching for something (or someone). Is this the channel thats used for search and rescue, or am I hearing something else?

The other day it sounded like CHP looking for something on the freeway..

 

[zz0468]

CLEMARS is a statewide mutual aid channel. It's licensed almost exclusively to the state, with state licenses being assigned to various local agencies that request it. It's used primarily for law enforcement, although the state CLEMARS plan allows for non-enforcement use if traffic allows. An example might be a law agency participating in a SAR operation.

The CHP is a heavy user of it, generally to communicate with other agencies.

BTW, there's CLEMARS frequencies on low band, VHF, UHF, and 800 MHz. 154.920 just happens to be the original one, and the most widely used.

 

[TES]

Ventura County SO seems to make fairly consistent use of CLEMARS in the evening for surveillance. It's quite clear in the eastern part of the county.

 

[code3cowboy]

There was some surveillance/tracking someone about an hour and a half ago while I was in Oxnard.

The wardens were in the harbor doing some surveillance at the same time.

 

[cousinkix1953]

There is a lot of unidentified scrambled transmissions on 154.920 mhz too. I can't say who they are; because these violators don't bother to transmit their required callsigns in plain English when they're finished with the channel, even though this has been a FCC rule for decades...

 

[inigo88]

I believe CA DOJ (Department of Justice) have been consistently identified as the users who operate voice inversion scrambling on VHF CLEMARS. I believe this is also in direct violation of a clause somewhere that says no encryption may be used on a CLEMARS frequency (as it is basically the exact opposite of interoperability for mutual aid), but that was something I read here a while ago and may have been incorrect.

Inigo

 

[zz0468]

I believe CA DOJ (Department of Justice) have been consistently identified as the users who operate voice inversion scrambling on VHF CLEMARS. I believe this is also in direct violation of a clause somewhere that says no encryption may be used on a CLEMARS frequency (as it is basically the exact opposite of interoperability for mutual aid), but that was something I read here a while ago and may have been incorrect.

Inigo

Interesting that the DOJ is the one using encryption. I'm curious as to how that would have been discovered. The OES CLEMARS plan does indeed prohibit encryption.

 

[inigo88]

See here and here:
http://www.radioreference.com/forums/california-radio-discussion-forum/77274-doj-traffic-sac.html
http://www.radioreference.com/forum...-forum/138106-chp-using-speech-inversion.html

Apparently DOJ is pretty commonly known to use simplex voice inversion, including the use of VHF CLEMARS for this purpose. Voice inversion scrambling can be inverted and listened to both using software and hardware.

Perhaps Cousinkix could elaborate on the type of 'scrambling' he heard used - because if it was voice inversion one could theoretically listen to their traffic and identify them that way. If it was true encryption, then that wouldn't be possible.

Inigo

 

[cousinkix1953]

It sounds like voice inversion but more sophisticated than the systems used back in the 70s or 80s. I don't know if encryption is illegal; but the FCC can issue some nasty fines, if the transmissions do not end with the use of an official call sign in plain English.

It might also be the local sheriff's office narks No salmon season this year. The marine bans is dead most of the time. In that case this isn't likely to be some potty mouth fishermen using their secret business channel on a modified 2 meter ham rig.

 

[zz0468]

It sounds like voice inversion but more sophisticated than the systems used back in the 70s or 80s. I don't know if encryption is illegal; but the FCC can issue some nasty fines, if the transmissions do not end with the use of an official call sign in plain English.

The issue of encryption is not an FCC matter, in this particular case. In California, 154.920 is licensed exclusively to the state, and it's use is subject to the states OES CLEMARS plan. It's this document that prohibits encryption, not the FCC.

 

[cousinkix1953]

Encryption is a FCC matter as long as somebody is using a frequency which requires their licenses! The use of a callsign "in the clear" is the only of determining that authorized users are on the air.

How do you like the idea of thousands of dollars being used to pay those fines; because some idiot employed by the California DoJ doesn't know how to say, "KMA-448".

Callsigns are the rule of thumb, when the professional 9-1-1 dispatchers are using CLEMARS around here...

 

[zz0468]

Encryption is a FCC matter as long as somebody is using a frequency which requires their licenses! The use of a callsign "in the clear" is the only of determining that authorized users are on the air.

Just to clarify my comments, I stated that "in this particular case" it's prohibited by the state OES CLEMARS plan. There is no prohibition of encryption under Part 90 of the FCC rules on that frequency.

I am not discussing ID requirements, I am discussing use of encryption on 154.920 MHz under State of California held licenses.

90.212 address the ID requirements, and it can be accommodated by CWID.

How do you like the idea of thousands of dollars being used to pay those fines; because some idiot employed by the California DoJ doesn't know how to say, "KMA-448".

Callsigns are the rule of thumb, when the professional 9-1-1 dispatchers are using CLEMARS around here...

Although it doesn't appear to be applicable here, bear in mind that law enforcement agencies can get special authorization to use a form of ID besides the station call sign. This is frequently done in cases where there are many transmitters under control of one dispatcher, and they all have different callsigns. ID could take the form of something like "Sleepy Hollow Sheriff's Department" every half hour.

I have personally applied for, and received, FCC authorization for the agency I worked for to do exactly that. That was years ago, and it's still in force today.

Who's to say that the state DOJ hasn't received authorization to ID in an encrypted mode for certain operations? It COULD happen. And since the DOJ is a state agency, and CLEMARS is a state frequency, it's a little absurd to imagine that OES is unaware of the situation.

 

[cousinkix1953]

Just to clarify my comments, I stated that "in this particular case" it's prohibited by the state OES CLEMARS plan. There is no prohibition of encryption under Part 90 of the FCC rules on that frequency.

I am not discussing ID requirements, I am discussing use of encryption on 154.920 MHz under State of California held licenses.

90.212 address the ID requirements, and it can be accommodated by CWID.



Although it doesn't appear to be applicable here, bear in mind that law enforcement agencies can get special authorization to use a form of ID besides the station call sign. This is frequently done in cases where there are many transmitters under control of one dispatcher, and they all have different callsigns. ID could take the form of something like "Sleepy Hollow Sheriff's Department" every half hour.

I have personally applied for, and received, FCC authorization for the agency I worked for to do exactly that. That was years ago, and it's still in force today.

Who's to say that the state DOJ hasn't received authorization to ID in an encrypted mode for certain operations? It COULD happen. And since the DOJ is a state agency, and CLEMARS is a state frequency, it's a little absurd to imagine that OES is unaware of the situation.

I didn't say there was a federal regulation against encryption on 152.920 or any other frequency; but those G-men at the Livermore monitoring station will write them up for not using their call signs in the clear.. Those FCC fines are in the thousands of $$$. Uttering a call sign does not disclose any classified information, nor does it tell anybody what those narks were discussing before.

If you really wanna hear some illegal radio operations, then listen for units 240-250 on the Santa Cruz city police repeater and 154.920 as well as their private business channel on 152.315. The Boardwalk security guards have been botlegging on restricted LEA only frequencies since the 1970s. This illegal activity obvious to anyone. They don't even try to hide by using a different ID when using frequencies not covered by their commercial licenses.

A friend of mine confirmed this when he was employed by that amusement park, by noticing the forbidden crystals, when putting in a new battery pack some years ago...

 

[uman18]

Ive too heard several different transmissions on CLEMARS in the last few weeks. Ive been radio scanning for 10 years or so and its the first time I've heard so much traffic on CLEMARS. Statred hearing first during the Santa Barbara fire, then heard some traffic on some units during surveillance in the OXnard/Camarillo back roads, and just yesterday heard what sounded like a fire unit looking for a TC in the Lockwood valley and requesting Kern Co.

 

[KB6KGX]

CLEMARS still active?

I used to listen to CLEMARS on the 460.025 freq when I lived in Orange County (it was called “Red” channel) but when OC went encrypted and nobody heard anything after that. Does ANYONE use CLEMARS these days? I spend most of my time in Ventura and LA counties.

 

[inigo88]

Yep, CLEMARS is alive and well. But in six months when the narrowband deadline hits CLEMARS 1 and 2 are going to change to CALAW 1 and CALAW 2.

You aren't hearing anything on 460.025 around LA County because most of the LE agencies are on UHF T-band, and use CLEMARS 22: 484.2375 156.7 PL. For instance, LASD helos routinely use this channel for mutual aid with other agencies. After narrowbanding the channel is going to be called "CALAW 5D."

As for Ventura County, I'd be surprised if they didn't use CLEMARS 1 pretty often, it just may all be car-car simplex so you don't hear it.

 

[UvGotIssuesToo]

They don't even try to hide by using a different ID when using frequencies not covered by their commercial licenses.

Is there an MOU between SCPD and The Boardwalk? Maybe there is no need to hide it.

 

[LowBat]

Is there an MOU between SCPD and The Boardwalk? Maybe there is no need to hide it.

I wondered about this also. Maybe cousinkix1953 has more info.

 

[K6CDO]

There is a lot of unidentified scrambled transmissions on 154.920 mhz too. I can't say who they are; because these violators don't bother to transmit their required callsigns in plain English when they're finished with the channel, even though this has been a FCC rule for decades...

Since someone kicked the dust on this 3 year old thread, I'll comment on this (as the former coordinator of all things CLEMARS):

• Yes, one group in one State agency has hundreds of radios in the field that use low-end encryption on a number of channels including CLEMARS 1.
• That low-end encryption is global in the radio, not on a 'by-channel' basis.
• The now-retired equipment coordinator for that agency had a plan in place to replace low-end encryption-equipped radios with newer gear that was narrow-band compliant (and used 'real' encryption programmable by-channel). Funding, however, was an issue that agency was still struggling with when I left state service in 2006.
• The now-retired coordinator had policies in place that Channels 'n' and 'n+1' in the radios (CLEMARS and NALEMARS) were not to be used for covert activities
• Peace Officers in general get far less training on radio equipment and procedures than any other area of their job. Typically they know "pick up the radio, turn it on, and push-to-talk.'
• Officers in the field putting together daily operational plans often didn't know or forgot about channel use procedures. As a result, "We'll use Channel 'n' for today's detail" has been the norm.

Time will tell now that the narrow-banding deadline approaches.

 

[k7ng]

[*]Peace Officers in general get far less training on radio equipment and procedures than any other area of their job. Typically they know "pick up the radio, turn it on, and push-to-talk.'
[*]Officers in the field putting together daily operational plans often didn't know or forgot about channel use procedures. As a result, "We'll use Channel 'n' for today's detail" has been the norm.

Time will tell now that the narrow-banding deadline approaches.

I have had to work in the radio comms side of LE, and still do. The officers tended to get surly when I tried to tell them even a little about how to better / more efficiently use their radio equipment. I used to say that "they use their radios a lot more than their weapons but they train a lot more with guns than radios... How can that be?" Of course "shut up" was a common response.