Police chief gives towing company encrypted radio

[Giddyuptd]

Happens more often than people like to think.

Believe me I know and see it here. Several over the years have lost their job including a contractor tech who managed to convince a officer to give him a spare radio in closet with loaded keys in it to monitor a secondary in house pd channel.

Why or what reason who knows. He was a Vol fire deputy chief for county, private radio tech for his own business. Lost it all.

 

[allend]

As time goes by and the more encryption is being used you will see an upward trend in cases where authority of people will give radios out to the good ole boys club or behind closed door money deals.

When you lock down more and more systems the backdoor deals start happening and people get bribed. People are people and money talks.

Now who do you blame? The upward tick of encryption for no really valid reason, or the higher up authority. If cities and counties did not use so much un necessary encryption then we would not be having these cases pop up. I really don't blame anybody except for the not so smart people making these talkgroups encrypted as well as the sales people for Harris or Motorola.

Now you have a start of Fire Departments starting to use full encryption to even their own people that work for the department can't listen anymore or from home. This is a bad trend and its only going to get worse to the point where something bad is going to go down.

 

[w4amp]

Typical.

 

[RRR]

1. The chief/department does not own or administer the system, the Sheriff's department does.
2. Because of number 1, there is a user agreement in place. I have yet to see one that authorizes equipment to be provided to third parties without approval of the system administrator, <s>but maybe this one is different</s>
3. Even if the person that the equipment was given to was using it for altruistic purposes, if it had encrypted talkgroups for other agencies and they did not know a member of the public had the radio, those agencies/talkgroups are compromised.

There is a problem here, whether or not it rises to the level of crime is up to the GBI, but if the towing company got additional advantages on tows because of the information they were privy to, it could add up to a significant larceny charge, of which the chief would be a co-conspirator.

(1) - Ok, the Sheriff's office owns the system. The Police dept is authorized to be on it. The Police chief authorized someone he most likely vetted to have (borrow?) the radio. If there was no sale, or other compensation given, for the wrecker man to have the radio in his possession, as authorized by the chief, then what?

(2) - Innocent until proved guilty. To claim there is a "user agreement in place" with no evidence of it, is lacking in proof. What we do know, is the head of the police dept authorized the wrecker man to use (tx or not) the radio, that the chief was legally assigned.

(3) - The system having full encryption doesn't amount to compromise anything. Did the wrecker man use the radio to commit a crime? It is very likely he was the contracted wrecker service for this area.

And "use of a communications device for profit" is ridiculous. Not only does Georgia not have a law that makes that illegal, there are 2 way radio systems all over the place that dispatch out couriers, commercial drivers, etc. etc.

 

[Citywide173]

(1) - Ok, the Sheriff's office owns the system. The Police dept is authorized to be on it. The Police chief authorized someone he most likely vetted to have (borrow?) the radio. If there was no sale, or other compensation given, for the wrecker man to have the radio in his possession, as authorized by the chief, then what?

(2) - Innocent until proved guilty. To claim there is a "user agreement in place" with no evidence of it, is lacking in proof. What we do know, is the head of the police dept authorized the wrecker man to use (tx or not) the radio, that the chief was legally assigned.

(3) - The system having full encryption doesn't amount to compromise anything. Did the wrecker man use the radio to commit a crime? It is very likely he was the contracted wrecker service for this area.

And "use of a communications device for profit" is ridiculous. Not only does Georgia not have a law that makes that illegal, there are 2 way radio systems all over the place that dispatch out couriers, commercial drivers, etc. etc.

Georgia most definitely does have a law that would apply to the "use of a communications device for profit" it is called "Theft by Conversion"

Take a look at this article, it puts a little better definition on the case. He gave a radio capable of receiving other departments and tactical channels that the end users believed to be encrypted to a towing service (the contracted on for Varnell) that is physically located in another town: GBI investigating Varnell police chief for providing encrypted radio to wrecker service

To think there is nothing wrong here and that the chief has the authority to assign County bought equipment that is entrusted to him to non-department employees is simply obteuse.

 

[Citywide173]

What system are we talking about? Is it in the DB?

They are on TACN

https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=6355

 

[KK4JUG]

Georgia most definitely does have a law that would apply to the "use of a communications device for profit" it is called "Theft by Conversion"

Take a look at this article, it puts a little better definition on the case. He gave a radio capable of receiving other departments and tactical channels that the end users believed to be encrypted to a towing service (the contracted on for Varnell) that is physically located in another town: GBI investigating Varnell police chief for providing encrypted radio to wrecker service

To think there is nothing wrong here and that the chief has the authority to assign County bought equipment that is entrusted to him to non-department employees is simply obteuse.

From someone who enforced Georgia laws for over 30 decades, I'm telling you the state doesn't have a "communications for profit" law.

Theft by conversion has nothing to do with radios or communications.

 

[buddrousa]

Plus the Sheriff does not own the TACN System

 

[doctordialtone]

From someone who enforced Georgia laws for over 30 decades,

30 decades?

Wow!

 

[KK4JUG]

30 decades?

Wow!

Actually 32 years and I'm still communications officer for the regional SAR team. That's a freebie.

 

[Citywide173]

From someone who enforced Georgia laws for over 30 decades, I'm telling you the state doesn't have a "communications for profit" law.

Theft by conversion has nothing to do with radios or communications.

If there was benefit derived from the information received over the encrypted radio that another towing company had a vested interest in (i.e. jumping call,) there would most definitely be a correlation between the two. Since the radio had all but two of the system's talkgroups programmed, there was access and potential for that to happen. It's up to the GBI to determine if it did.

 

[Citywide173]

Plus the Sheriff does not own the TACN System

No, but they administer it for the County and they are the ones who purchased the radios.

 

[KK4JUG]

If there was benefit derived from the information received over the encrypted radio that another towing company had a vested interest in (i.e. jumping call,) there would most definitely be a correlation between the two. Since the radio had all but two of the system's talkgroups programmed, there was access and potential for that to happen. It's up to the GBI to determine if it did.

I see your point but I've never seen the law applied that way. Perhaps they'll set a precedent.

I suspect that, if they elect to prosecute the tow truck driver, they'll choose "Theft by Taking" which is a lesser, included offense of Theft by Conversion. The elements of Theft by Taking are not as specific as "Conversion" and a conviction might be easier to come by. In either case, it would be a felony because of the value of the radio.

 

[nyscan]

They are on TACN

https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=6355

Looked at that. Don't see anything for Varnell. In fact there are only 3 TG's listed for Whitfield Co. and only one of the three show as encrypted and that's a fire dispatch channel.

 

[RRR]

If the tow truck driver was authorized by the police chief to have the radio, and he used it in good faith, then why would a charge against him even be considered? He certainly didn't "steal" it, as apparently, it is well known the Police chief had authorized him to use it. The chief readily admitted he let him use it.

It still hasn't been determined if it was loaned out, purchased, or whatever else. Obviously the radio has to be accounted for.

Again, a police chief does have latitude in issuing equipment. Regardless of ownership, it was obviously issued to the police department that he is in control of. According to the article, the mayor "straightened the chief out" on what he was allowed to do with the radio AFTER this incident. Seems the only ones getting upset over this is someone at the Sheriff's office, ("jumped the gun", seems accurate) and some of the posters on here, who seem to take this personally. Varnell isn't a town that is very populated. Per the article, he was the only one that has a contract to do tows for the PD. Not all agencies use a "Rotation list" Some are let on a yearly basis. So this whole "use of communications equipment for financial gain" (which doesn't even exist in Georgia) is completely moot. The remark about "him not having to pay an employee to monitor the phones" won't make it past a probable cause hearing. And even if charges were brought, take it to a jury trial, a bunch of locals would throw all that out in no time. The remark about the wrecker man benefitting over other wrecker companies, from the councilman, correctly identifying himself as a novice, was inaccurate, as, again, the wrecker man was the only one that tows vehicles for the dept. And it shows how much he knows about what goes on in "his" town.

So now, it is up to the GBI to investigate it, if their investigation leads them to believe a crime has possibly been committed, they will then forward their findings to the District Attorneys office, and then the D.A. will then make a determination if they wish to prosecute or not. (Not every case presented to the DA's office is prosecuted)

And the Police chief is apparently still out doing his job as I type, so there must not be too much concern over at city hall over this. The most attention this is getting is apparently on here, and from a bored local newspaper reporter.

 

[RRR]

Looked at that. Don't see anything for Varnell. In fact there are only 3 TG's listed for Whitfield Co. and only one of the three show as encrypted and that's a fire dispatch channel.

In all fairness, not everything in a radio system shows up in the database on here.

 

[KK4JUG]

And the Police chief is apparently still out doing his job as I type, so there must not be too much concern over at city hall over this. The most attention this is getting is apparently on here, and from a bored local newspaper reporter.

I think you're probably right. "Bubba, get that radio back and don't do it again. Wanna go to lunch?"

 

[Australia4001]

This exact same thing happened in Australia in a major capital city a few years ago , someone in the force was selling radios to tow trucks for I think it was $20000 a pop

 

[Citywide173]

Again, a police chief does have latitude in issuing equipment. Regardless of ownership, it was obviously issued to the police department that he is in control of.

That is the crux of the argument. The radio was programmed for other encrypted talkgroups that were not under the chief's control. If you believed your system was encrypted and secure and then found out the the next town over was giving radios (yes, I know it was just one) out to members of the public that could monitor and probably transmit on your talkgroup (contractual interest or not,) how would you feel about it? This is what I was referring to when I spoke of a security compromise. You dismissed my mention of a user agreement, but I am sure there is one and with encrypted talkgroups, there has to be a security policy in that agreement that prohibits or severely restricts giving access to third parties. Anything less is irresponsible on the part of the administrator.

 

[Citywide173]

Looked at that. Don't see anything for Varnell. In fact there are only 3 TG's listed for Whitfield Co. and only one of the three show as encrypted and that's a fire dispatch channel.

Kinda hard to confirm encrypted talkgroups if they were never in the clear.