Ex felon in possession of scanner?

[GrandpaFrank]

So my grandson has a history for drug possession and he is approached by the police (LAPD) while he is listening to one of my scanners (Pro-96) in his front yard. The police officer confiscated the scanner on the grounds that possession of a scanner by an ex con is against the law. I do not believe that is true and I would like to get my scanner back. Can I get it back?

Frank

 

[rolncode2892]

Unless he was using it to alert his buddies who were commiting a crime, it was an unlawful arrest. Read 636.5 of the California Penal Code.

Sounds like he and/or you have a good lawsuit.

 

[GrandpaFrank]

Thank you for your reply. Based on what I read, I see that the confiscation is likely a form of harassment due to the circumstances.

 

[markclark]

Find out if L.A. has an ordinance against possession of scanners. Read it.

In the past, L.A. did have such an ordinance, last time I checked, was over thirty years ago, and, it related to shortwave receivers in automobiles. Was the radio in an automobile at time of seizure? I know you mentioned he was in front of his house, but was he, or the radio, in an automobile?

Is your grandson on probation or parole? Not that the seizures is necessarily legal based on those facts.

Was your grandson arrested? Please provide more specific facts, if you can. Thank you.

 

[markclark]

Attached is the L.A. City and County ordinances relating to "shortwave receivers," which of course scanners are. I don't see any language about felons being in possession of scanners, do you? Your grandson wasn't using the radio in the commission of a crime or to evade the police, right? I'll pull up 636.6 P.C. and possibly post that law.

In any event, it was your radio, and you need to work on getting it returned to you.

 

[cousinkix1953]

So my grandson has a history for drug possession and he is approached by the police (LAPD) while he is listening to one of my scanners (Pro-96) in his front yard. The police officer confiscated the scanner on the grounds that possession of a scanner by an ex con is against the law. I do not believe that is true and I would like to get my scanner back. Can I get it back?

Frank

Listening to your scanner on your property is one thing; but on his property is quite another story. Did he take the Pro-96 without permission? A judge is gonna ask why you allowed a convicted felony to remove it from your house. Prohibiting the possession of a police scanner as part of a criminal's sentencing is not unheard of either. Drug dealers are known to use them too.

The grandson should have purchased his own scanner. None of the stores conduct any kind of background checks on their customers. There is no "Brady Law" waiting period on "in stock" police scanners either. He should replace your Pro-96, if his probation officer can't get it back and returned to it's legal owner.

The FCC doesn't issue ham licenses to convicted felons and they might actually confiscate a radio from them too...

 

[davidgcet]

The FCC doesn't issue ham licenses to convicted felons and they might actually confiscate a radio from them too...

not to sidetrack this discussion, but that is not entirely correct. they CAN use the fact of a felony conviction to deny you a license or revoke your license, but it is not automatic. see http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1570A1.html specifically III 4. it all depends on what the conviction was for and the mood they are in when they read your application.


back to the OP, the cop was doing his job as he saw fit. if you want the scanner back you may spend more money than it would cost to just buy a new one. the question you have to ask yourself is do you want to fight for YOUR property or just let him take it? myself, i would demand it back.

 

[cousinkix1953]

not to sidetrack this discussion, but that is not entirely correct. they CAN use the fact of a felony conviction to deny you a license or revoke your license, but it is not automatic. see http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1570A1.html specifically III 4. it all depends on what the conviction was for and the mood they are in when they read your application.


back to the OP, the cop was doing his job as he saw fit. if you want the scanner back you may spend more money than it would cost to just buy a new one. the question you have to ask yourself is do you want to fight for YOUR property or just let him take it? myself, i would demand it back.

Yes, it sounds just like a federal beauracrat doesn't it.

Maybe the parole officer can get the scanner and return it to it's rightful owner. Otherwise, he'll have to settle it with a judge, when the grandson goes to court.

The Pro-96 is far less expensive, than the limits imposed by a small claims court. Filing fees are about $20. Why not file a complaint and force the city to defend itself...

 

[KMA367]

So my grandson has a history for drug possession and he is approached by the police (LAPD) while he is listening to one of my scanners (Pro-96) in his front yard. The police officer confiscated the scanner on the grounds that possession of a scanner by an ex con is against the law. I do not believe that is true and I would like to get my scanner back. Can I get it back?

Frank

Was he arrested or cited for any offense at the time, in which use of the scanner may have played a part and the scanner confiscated and booked as evidence? E.g. 636.5 PC which has already been mentioned:

"636.5. Any person not authorized by the sender, who intercepts any
public safety radio service communication, by use of a scanner or any
other means, for the purpose of using that communication to assist
in the commission of a criminal offense or to avoid or escape arrest,
trial, conviction, or punishment or who divulges to any person he or
she knows to be a suspect in the commission of any criminal offense,
the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect or meaning of
that communication concerning the offense with the intent that the
suspect may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or
punishment is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution of any person
under Section 31 or 32.

As used in this section, "public safety radio service
communication" means a communication authorized by the Federal
Communications Commission to be transmitted by a station in the
public safety radio service."​

Another possibility is that he may be on parole or probation for a previous offense, and possession of a scanner could have been prohibited as part of his terms. Not very common that I've ever heard of, unless a scanner was involved in the previous offense.

But like the other guys, I know of no California law prohibiting an "ex-con" from merely possessing a scanner. Unless they plan to use the scanner as evidence in some sort of prosecution, or parole/probation violation, I don't know how they can refuse to return it to him. I'm not sure how much standing you have in it at the moment since it was he who had it in his possession. One of you, or an attorney, should talk to the investigating detectives at the division in which this occurred and find out what's the status of the scanner and whether it can be released. At this point, assuming this is a recent occurrence, they won't be making any huge effort to return it to him (or you), you'd have to go ask them for it. Good luck. Sounds like a real wobbler at best, unless there are circumstances we don't know about.

 

[SAR923]

Frank,
Is your grandson on probation or parole? If so, is one of the conditions that he can't monitor police radio calls? If so, he was lucky he didn't go back to jail. Unless you can prove the radio is yours, and you had no knowledge that he wasn't allowed to have a device to receive police calls, it will be hard to get your radio back.

If he's not on probation or parole, I don't see any probable cause for seizing the scanner under Califronia law. Of course, you are getting the story from your grandson, who may not be a reliable reporter. Find out the watch commander for the division that covers his area and talk to him. You may find that things didn't go exactly as described by your grandson.

 

[KMA367]

myself, i would demand it back.

I think I'd ASK for it first, before getting all worked up in thoughts of lawsuits, small claims, false arrest, demands, claims against the city, etc etc. It could well be that the detectives following up on the case will see that it's too weak to file any charges on, in which case the scanner, if it was in fact taken as evidence, would then be releasable, probably to the grandson from whom it was seized, unless Frank can prove ownership.

 

[GrandpaFrank]

Thanks for all the replies. My grandson is not on probation or parole and in fact has been a prodictive member of society for the last 11 years without a hitch. The area he lives in is a known crime area (which is why he found my scanner interesting) He said the police mistook him for someone else and he infact heard the words "code 4 - wrong suspect" just before they took the scanner. They asked him if he was on parole or probation while they were running his name, he said no, they said ok, and then told him it was against the law for an ex felon to have a scanner.

I guess it didnt help that he is a male hispanic with tattoos, but i think the police officers are misinformed about their scanner laws. Or, they just didnt like the fact that any tom, dick, and harry can hear their calls. I will now go to the station armed with my new information.

Thank you.

 

[rolncode2892]

They had no probable cause or legal justification to seize your scanner. Go ask for. If you don't get it back or they give you a hard time, politely leave and find a lawyer. Otherwise, chalk it up to uniformed and ill-trained LAPD rookies.

I would be shocked though if you talk to a W/C and he doesn't side with you. I would strangle one of my deputies if they pulled some crap like that.

Good luck!

 

[DPD1]

What's unfortunate, is that's the kind of thing that just gives cops a bad rep and fuels the fire for claims of harassment by police.

 

[RolnCode3]

Or maybe there's more to the story than what has been posted... An ex-felon is the only source of information that's been provided.

 

[JoeyC]

Or maybe there's more to the story than what has been posted... An ex-felon is the only source of information that's been provided.

Now now there. The forum lawyers (in this case judges) have all ruled already. Do not try to overrule the rulings by introducing a little logical thinking into this obvious case of police misconduct. :twisted:

You are right on. We have the word of the ex-felon and the loved one. Not exactly a fair assessment of the situation.

 

[gewecke]

This is NOT going to go anywhere in court! Think about it.:evil:
n9zas

 

[JoeyC]

If one were truly a fellow LE, he would not be so quick to jump to the (possibly) wrong conclusion based on a single side of the story without inquiring into the other side of the story. LEOs like that are what give cops a bad name. Shame.

 

[rolncode2892]

If one were truly a fellow LE, he would not be so quick to jump to the (possibly) wrong conclusion based on a single side of the story without inquiring into the other side of the story. LEOs like that are what give cops a bad name. Shame.

Because we lowered hiring standards, I see boobs making stupid decisions like the aforementioned everyday. Sorry.

 

[markbart]

All anyone can do is to hope that thing's will eventually will get beter for everyone.