N.Y. Ham Sited For Mobile QSO

[Alain]

Courtesy of S.B.A.R.C.

Amateur radio enthusiasts abuzz over traffic ticket

Published: Thursday, June 03, 2010

By Dave Canfield
The Record

TROY — Amateur radio enthusiasts are abuzz on the airwaves over a traffic ticket Steve Bozak received Sunday in Troy as he talked to his buddies over the very same frequency.

Bozak, who owns an antenna company and has been using so-called “ham” radios for 34 years, was pulled over at the intersection of 15th and Hoosick streets while on his way to breakfast with fellow enthusiasts of the technology. He was slapped with a ticket for talking on a cell phone while driving, and he said Officer Mark Millington dismissed his claims that the radio was not in fact a telephone.

http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2010/06/03/news/doc4c07322402191401492287.txt

 

[texasemt13]

I wondered if this would come up at one point or another- in Texas it is illegal to use a cell phone in school zones (not as restrictive as "no cell phones period" while driving). It looks like this guy was just on his way to watch the kiddies at the middle school and thought he could issue a citation on his way, to some unsuspecting guy. Fortunately for us with tickets, that Federal license usually means something to a judge...

If anybody needs to be ticketed it's CB'ers.

Good luck to Dave and I hope we hear the outcome of this.

 

[NYCRADIO]

texasemt why do you think cb user's should be ticketed?

 

[texasemt13]

texasemt why do you think cb user's should be ticketed?

It's a joke. Nothing more.

 

[NYCRADIO]

okay, i was just wondering if you we're one of those down with cb radio guys that float around here lol

 

[Skypilot007]

New Jersey's cell phone law has a very clearly worded exemption for Ham radio operators. Does New York have such an exemption? Some cops though,.....good greif ! Hopefully it will get squashed in court and officer "Fife" will scury out with his tale between his legs.

 

[DaveNF2G]

There is no need for a ham exemption in this case. The law explicitly targets "mobile telephones" and includes a very specific and narrow definition of what a mobile telephone is. The officer simply refused to recognize that the definition excludes two-way radios.

Even with ham exemptions, there are police officers in the NY capital area who cite hams anyway.

 

[Citywide173]

The fact is that the NY law is very specific, and as a sworn upholder of that law, the officer should be familiar with it. Obviously, Mr. Bozak was familiar with the law, as he pointed out that it was in fact a two-way radio and not a cell phone. Based on the fact that he is requesting a deposition, and is willing to accept a continuance of the court date to get it, I'm guessing that he's got legal aid at a minimum, and most likely an attorney retained.

My babble above is more to support this statement than anything else: When this gets thrown out of court, the officer needs to be sent back for some retraining/refamiliarization with the law and probably internally disciplined, or even civilly charged by Mr. Bozak for harassment.

 

[davidbond21]

Even with ham exemptions, there are police officers in the NY capital area who cite hams anyway.

I wonder how often these same officers are on their cell phones and the radio at the same time driving down the road.

 

[jaymatt1978]

The article said the officer usually works in schools not traffic enforcementso it's obvious he doesn't understand the law. I think that has to be taken into consideration. The complaint will be thrown out no big deal.

 

[Citywide173]

The article said the officer usually works in schools not traffic enforcementso it's obvious he doesn't understand the law. I think that has to be taken into consideration. The complaint will be thrown out no big deal.

Herein lies the problem. Too many people are just accepting the dismissal of charges and saying "no big deal". Once charges are dismissed, it needs to be pushed further, because without penalty to the officers that are overstepping their bounds by issuing these citations, it will only continue.

 

[RadioDaze]

The officer would have been better off citing the driver as a 'distracted' driver rather than as a violation of the cell phone law. Although, he still would have to prove the driver was in fact distracted, and absent any evidence, such as weaving, he would have a hard time in court. If the law doesn't explicitly include two-way radio devices, the ham should win his case. The 'intent' of the law won't fly, because for that matter it could include any other activity that could be considered distracting.

 

[DaveNF2G]

We don't have a generic "distracted driver" law in NY. Nor do we need one.

As for post-dismissal action, I think this is an extremely bad idea. It would just put hams into a p***ing match with the police, who always win such contests.

The officer in this case is not the one with the heaviest responsibility for the situation. That would be whatever supervisor assigned a School Resource Officer who "rarely" works traffic to traffic enforcement duty without ensuring that he was adequately familiar with the VTL.

This presumes, of course, that the officer was assigned to traffic enforcement when he wrote the ticket, and not merely attempting to enforce an unfamiliar law while enroute to his assigned duty in a school. We don't have any information about that aspect of it.

 

[Citywide173]

It would just put hams into a p***ing match with the police, who always win such contests.

Maybe it's the fact that I pay dues to a police union weekly, but I still think these guys need to be departmentally disciplined, or have their pocketbook hit hard to make them think twice about applying their own interpretation to laws that have specific wording to them.

 

[Sccafire]

I wonder how often these same officers are on their cell phones and the radio at the same time driving down the road.

In California emergency services are exempt from this law. I am sure other states that have this law are exempt also.

Hand-Held Wireless Telephone: Prohibited Use

23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.

(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.

 

[texasemt13]

In California police/fire/ems while on duty are exempt from this law.

... which is bs, because we all know a police officer can't be distracted while driving and talking on his cell phone, while on duty. Police officers have to be trained to have a greater attention span than normal citizens, while on duty.

 

[captncarp]

Cops attention span is no better than anybody else....probably worse.......they get a call on the radio to call by phone....now there dialing while driving.......yah thats just great......

 

[APTN]

... which is bs, because we all know a police officer can't be distracted while driving and talking on his cell phone, while on duty. Police officers have to be trained to have a greater attention span than normal citizens, while on duty.

...which is why they should not be given an exemption. If the FD can use hands-free devices in their vehicles, why can't the PD ? (Of-course I think the whole law in question is stupid anyway ? Distracted driving is distracted driving no matter the device.)

 

[sragen]

The article said the officer usually works in schools not traffic enforcementso it's obvious he doesn't understand the law. I think that has to be taken into consideration. The complaint will be thrown out no big deal.

Sorry, ignorance is no excuse for both sides. Will the PO get OT for a court appearance or will he be working and go as part of the regular day? I doubt this gentlemen will be re-imbursed for his time and inconveinance if he is made to go to court? If the PO is unfamiliar the ticket should not have been written. I'm sure a ticket could have been issued after the fact within a couple days after researching if it applies. If it is so vague, then issue a warning instead. GEEZ!

 

[jaymatt1978]

You're right, the cop should know the law and the ticket shouldn't have been written. My suggestion, as it has been suggested[ before is to have as copy of the law in your vehicle and show it to the offcer before he issues a ticket. The PPO didn't know he was unfamilar with the laww. While I agree it's not an excuse, I also think the officer acted in good faith

Sorry, ignorance is no excuse for both sides. Will the PO get OT for a court appearance or will he be working and go as part of the regular day? I doubt this gentlemen will be re-imbursed for his time and inconveinance if he is made to go to court? If the PO is unfamiliar the ticket should not have been written. I'm sure a ticket could have been issued after the fact within a couple days after researching if it applies. If it is so vague, then issue a warning instead. GEEZ!