• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Police Scanner Apps illegal in Indiana

Status
Not open for further replies.

W9BU

Lead Wiki Manager
Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
5,685
Location
Brownsburg, Indiana
#2
That's a 5-year-old article.

Name one case where Indiana's scanner law was used to convict someone for the use of a scanner app on their smartphone. In the Muncie pharmacy robbery that was mentioned in that article, one of the perpetrators was charged by the police with violating Indiana's scanner law, but that charge was later dropped by the prosecutor once he determined that he had a case against the individual on other charges.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
#3
I imagine if they have more serious charges they will go for those over less petty criminal charges but in a example if a person had nothing else serious dirty on them and the officer brought it to a DA and they wanted to get some thing on the person they could if no other charges could be held in court or nothing else existed. Similiar to NYC stories in past. They'll look for and press the minor charge if no other serious charge can be found or evidence to back it.

While it will be mentioned in court he used a device to monitor police they'll focus more on the bigger charges for prosecution if they exist. Why settle for a misdemeanor when they can prosecute felonies. Some may still go after the lessor offenses.

The only way to know for sure who has and hasn't been prosecuted using the law written if not reported in media is to go to every county clerks office and court office in each district and dig up cases regarding it. Only way to say officially nobody has ever not been prosecuted on it. I'm sure cases exist in places where scanners or radios were used in a crime but you hardly hear of it when it involves a longer list of more serious offenses the person committed.

We have had a few in past but it did not make the media. Unless the person is impersonating a officer or fire man with a car and gear you probably won't hear much of the details unless the media wants to paint a evil picture. We know how media is with stories and what is focused on.

In every state it is a crime to use a device capable of recieving police transmissions in aide of a crime. Like most laws they exist but not always focused on. Case to case basis pretty much.

Say a group of people were filming officers, showing up at traffic stops (yes it happens) and continued to be a problem. Using pre text they could charge the person or persons under that law or similiar law wherever to make a arrest. While most places have better to do and ignore the camera follow you types it would be passed by. But in right place, right time you may find a officer who is willing to charge on it and go through the long court processes. Most won't waste time but there is always someone who will somewhere.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
512
Location
suburban hell
#6
4th amendment protects you from unlawful search and seizure, like the cops searching your smartphone without probably cause, and what would be the probably cause to suspect you had this app?
 
Last edited:

cpetraglia

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Messages
775
Location
Fairfax, VA
#7
4th amendment protects you from unlawful search and seizure, like the cops searching your smartphone without probably cause, and what would be the probably cause to suspect you had this app?
I think you may have missed the point. Make it illegal to provide the service to the app. It has to be stopped at the source or it will never end until it's too late.
 

bravo14

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
3,185
Location
#850Strong
#8
That's a 5-year-old article.

Name one case where Indiana's scanner law was used to convict someone for the use of a scanner app on their smartphone. In the Muncie pharmacy robbery that was mentioned in that article, one of the perpetrators was charged by the police with violating Indiana's scanner law, but that charge was later dropped by the prosecutor once he determined that he had a case against the individual on other charges.
That is true it's a 5 year story but there is a update 4/15/16 12:27am EDT. It's under the picture.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,794
Location
Indianapolis,Indiana
#10
http://www.w9tca.com/w9tca/Files/Doc/Training02/Indiana Scanner Law.pdf. This is the current Indiana scanner law in the state of Indiana. In the Delaware county case 35-44-3-12 section (3) (A) (B) and (C) would apply to this case. Under(Sec 3) paragraph (C) "The law is very clear on this, Quote"Commits unlawful use of a police radio, a class B misdemeanor"
 
Last edited:

W9BU

Lead Wiki Manager
Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
5,685
Location
Brownsburg, Indiana
#11
http://www.w9tca.com/w9tca/Files/Doc/Training02/Indiana Scanner Law.pdf. This is the current Indiana scanner law in the state of Indiana.
No, it's not. The document you linked to, which is not an official reference for Indiana statutes, is a reprint IC 35-44-3-12. Indiana Code Title 35 Article 44 (IC 35-44) was repealed in its entirety in 2012.

You need to refer to Indiana Code Title 35 Article 44.1 Chapter 2 Section 7 (IC 35-44.1-2-7).

In the Delaware county case 35-44-3-12 section (3) (A) (B) and (C) would apply to this case.
It was widely reported 5 years ago that the prosecutor in that case dropped the scanner law charges and proceeded with other charges. I'm still waiting for you to provide a reference to any case where Indiana's scanner law was used to convict anyone for using an app on their phone to listen to the police.

Under(Sec 3) paragraph (C) "The law is very clear on this, Quote"Commits unlawful use of a police radio, a class B misdemeanor"
The current law does make reference to "police radio" and goes on to define it thusly:
(c) As used in this section, "police radio" means a radio that is capable of sending or receiving signals transmitted on frequencies assigned by the Federal Communications Commission for police emergency purposes...
A smartphone can't receive signals transmitted on frequencies assigned by the FCC for police emergency purposes. A smartphone receives signals transmitted on frequencies assigned to cellular telephone common carriers, not the police.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
3,301
#12
I got stopped in September in Greenfield. Basically he was checking the registration but got confused when he heard my scanner in the car. After 25 minutes he finally came up and said your good to go. He just wanted to make sure the scanner couldnt transmit.

However I hear a few times a year where ISP has confiscated scanners from truck drivers. One not too long ago. That scanner ended up at a police station for their use. The driver was given a choice, give it up or be charged.

Indiana law sucks and needs changed.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Messages
1,901
#13
...A smartphone can't receive signals transmitted on frequencies assigned by the FCC for police emergency purposes. A smartphone receives signals transmitted on frequencies assigned to cellular telephone common carriers, not the police.
People with more legal training than me would have to answer this in the appropriate formal setting(s) in Indiana, but...

To some people, it could seem that the "signals (that were) transmitted on frequencies assigned by the FCC for police emergency purposes" were received by the phone, even though they reached the phone via an indirect route and were not received by the phone directly on the "frequencies assigned by the FCC for police emergency purposes".

To some people it could seem that the signals themselves certainly did arrive at the phone (or at any other device capable of receiving the feed), as that is exactly what the feed-providers intend to happen; is it not?

Only one opinion from a non-lawyer,
 

W9BU

Lead Wiki Manager
Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
5,685
Location
Brownsburg, Indiana
#15
However I hear a few times a year where ISP has confiscated scanners from truck drivers. One not too long ago. That scanner ended up at a police station for their use. The driver was given a choice, give it up or be charged.
I don't dispute that Indiana law prohibits scanner radios, aka "police radios" as defined in the law, in vehicles, except under certain circumstances. However, the OP's premise is that scanner apps on smartphones are illegal under Indiana's scanner law. I'm not sure that's true.
 

mikewazowski

Forums Manager/Global DB Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Messages
10,733
Location
Central Ontario
#16
Off-topic posts deleted.

Let's keep in mind that this thread is for discussion of Indiana's scanner law.

The more general topic of Live Audio Streams and Encryption belongs in the Tavern thread specifically setup for that discussion.

Thanks.
 

milf

Careful, I CAN hear you!
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
12,636
Location
Indianapolis, IN
#17
I don't dispute that Indiana law prohibits scanner radios, aka "police radios" as defined in the law, in vehicles, except under certain circumstances. However, the OP's premise is that scanner apps on smartphones are illegal under Indiana's scanner law. I'm not sure that's true.
Its not the OPs opinion as pertains to the article, its the News Agency (WTHR TV CH 13 Indianapolis) that states this and is as usual, an method by the News Agency to drum up fear and make you read/watch video/hear audio of their story fro their site. Eventually this will get pushed up the ladder to the State Supreme Court, or further and we will finally get an answer. Or it will go US Supreme Court and force the re looking at the ECPA, and another rewrite of it even stricter than it is now. Only time shall tell.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
3,301
#18
I don't dispute that Indiana law prohibits scanner radios, aka "police radios" as defined in the law, in vehicles, except under certain circumstances. However, the OP's premise is that scanner apps on smartphones are illegal under Indiana's scanner law. I'm not sure that's true.
According to two people I spoke to today the apps fall under the same laws as scanners. To add to it, the one is a prosecutor and stated that the audio transmission is the issue when it comes to the Apps not the frequency. He also stated that any radio capable of transmitting on a public safety frequency is another issue. All those cheap Chinese radios could get you in trouble whether the frequencies are programmed or not because they are capable of transmitting on public safety frequencies. Being a "ham" won't save you on this one either in Indiana. So don't leave home with your Baofeng and similar as they can transmit on public safety frequencies.Turns out they have had a few they have confiscated already but he wouldnt go into details.
The last thing he said is each county, or even department and prosecutor may handle it differently.
 

KK4JUG

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
2,349
Location
GA, AL, TX, OK, KS, AR, NC, or MI
#19
According to two people I spoke to today the apps fall under the same laws as scanners. To add to it, the one is a prosecutor and stated that the audio transmission is the issue when it comes to the Apps not the frequency. He also stated that any radio capable of transmitting on a public safety frequency is another issue. All those cheap Chinese radios could get you in trouble whether the frequencies are programmed or not because they are capable of transmitting on public safety frequencies. Being a "ham" won't save you on this one either in Indiana. So don't leave home with your Baofeng and similar as they can transmit on public safety frequencies.Turns out they have had a few they have confiscated already but he wouldnt go into details.
The last thing he said is each county, or even department and prosecutor may handle it differently.
The last thing I'm going to worry about is ANY law enforcement officer looking at ANY Baofeng I might have and then make a determination that it will be capable of transmitting on ANY public safety frequency.
 

mblank46

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
4
#20
According to two people I spoke to today the apps fall under the same laws as scanners. To add to it, the one is a prosecutor and stated that the audio transmission is the issue when it comes to the Apps not the frequency. He also stated that any radio capable of transmitting on a public safety frequency is another issue. All those cheap Chinese radios could get you in trouble whether the frequencies are programmed or not because they are capable of transmitting on public safety frequencies. Being a "ham" won't save you on this one either in Indiana. So don't leave home with your Baofeng and similar as they can transmit on public safety frequencies.Turns out they have had a few they have confiscated already but he wouldnt go into details.
The last thing he said is each county, or even department and prosecutor may handle it differently.
According to your explanation and opinion, a goodly number of Ham radio operators using former commercial radio equipment like Motorola Astros, Spectras, Radius, Mitrek, etc. are all operating in violation of Indiana's laws as they are ALL capable of being programmed on "public safety" frequencies. Your two "friends" need to open up their law books and do a little bit more research. Their information regarding this subject is grossly in error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top