Is the Gestapo in Colonie still going after ham ops with mobile rigs for violation of VTL 397?
73,
bob
n2oam
73,
bob
n2oam
Are they still harassing Ham Radio ops in Colonie, NY?
- Thread starter rja1
- Start date
- Status
Well, I've been here for over 5 years and I haven't run into any trouble. But then again I try not to do anything that will give any police officer P.C. to stop me.
Kevin
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
While my posting wasn't targeted at any specific town, I just asked a very similar question.
http://forums.radioreference.com/ne...6340-need-new-mobile-scanning-encounters.html
We don't really need two separate threads on the same topic, do we?
http://forums.radioreference.com/ne...6340-need-new-mobile-scanning-encounters.html
We don't really need two separate threads on the same topic, do we?
APX8000
Sarcastic Member
Actually, police do not need "PC" or probable cause to stop you. All they need is "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. It is a lower standard. See Terry vs. Ohio.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
I disagree. Police can't do Terry Stops on cars, at least not in New York. PC is required as pulling over a vehicle is a "seizure."
adamgirard
Member
While I can't cite any specific laws I believe that Dave is correct. Generally state and local police can only pull a car over for a violation (no lights on when its dark, speeding, not being able to stay in lane). However, federal officials can pull a driver over for any reason.
Granted, this information is based on what I know about drug laws and not mobile scanning but I would think it still holds true.
Granted, this information is based on what I know about drug laws and not mobile scanning but I would think it still holds true.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
The Feds are bound by the Fourth Amendment. There must be some sort of individualized suspicion that some violation of law is taking place before they can detain a person or vehicle.
As scanners in cars constitute a violation of NY Vehicle & Traffic Law, over which the Feds have no jurisdiction, it is unlikely that any federal agent will stop a car just because it has a scanner in it.
As scanners in cars constitute a violation of NY Vehicle & Traffic Law, over which the Feds have no jurisdiction, it is unlikely that any federal agent will stop a car just because it has a scanner in it.
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread.
First, "federal officials" if they pull someone over for a narcotics incident, they already have the warrant to do so and make the arrest, or they observed a drug sale. They can not pull over a vehicle for "no reason" and they actually have less ability than a state or local officer to make a stop since they can't enforce state traffic laws unless they are made peace officers by the state law, or have a signed MOU that allow them to do so.
I'm not sure on the PC/RS discussion, but I will look it up and get back to you.
First, "federal officials" if they pull someone over for a narcotics incident, they already have the warrant to do so and make the arrest, or they observed a drug sale. They can not pull over a vehicle for "no reason" and they actually have less ability than a state or local officer to make a stop since they can't enforce state traffic laws unless they are made peace officers by the state law, or have a signed MOU that allow them to do so.
I'm not sure on the PC/RS discussion, but I will look it up and get back to you.
adamgirard
Member
According to criminal.lawyers.com:
Canine Sniff During a Traffic Stop - Lawyers.com
A police officer may stop a vehicle if the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe that a motorist is committing or has committed a traffic violation. An officer typically obtains reasonable suspicion for a traffic violation by personally watching the driver commit a violation.
A police officer may also stop a vehicle if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime. For the stop to be legal, the officer must be able to state specific facts that support the suspicion.
What Police May Do During a Stop
Once police officers have lawfully stopped a car, either because of a civil traffic violation or because of a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, officers may do the following without any additional showings of suspicion or cause:
Order both the driver and passengers out of the car
Demand the driver's license, registration card and other relevant documents, such as an insurance card
Conduct a limited search to gain access to the vehicle identification number (VIN)
Conduct a dog sniff, so long as the sniff does not extend the length of the stop
To proceed beyond these acts, the officers must have cause or suspicion beyond the reason or suspicion that initially justified the stop.
During a lawful stop, officers may take actions reasonably related to the original reason for stopping the vehicle or related to suspicions that arise during the stop. For example:
To conduct a frisk, the officer must show not only a justification for the original stop, but also a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed and dangerous.
To justify a search of the vehicle, the stop must provide probable cause for the officers to believe it contains contraband
The officers may take some of the actions above automatically, but the officers will need more than the original justification for the stop to take other actions.
So to keep this on topic, unless the officer sees a driver using a scanner in a vehicle or I guess even a scanner if plain view, that is technically grounds for a stop.
Canine Sniff During a Traffic Stop - Lawyers.com
A police officer may stop a vehicle if the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe that a motorist is committing or has committed a traffic violation. An officer typically obtains reasonable suspicion for a traffic violation by personally watching the driver commit a violation.
A police officer may also stop a vehicle if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime. For the stop to be legal, the officer must be able to state specific facts that support the suspicion.
What Police May Do During a Stop
Once police officers have lawfully stopped a car, either because of a civil traffic violation or because of a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, officers may do the following without any additional showings of suspicion or cause:
Order both the driver and passengers out of the car
Demand the driver's license, registration card and other relevant documents, such as an insurance card
Conduct a limited search to gain access to the vehicle identification number (VIN)
Conduct a dog sniff, so long as the sniff does not extend the length of the stop
To proceed beyond these acts, the officers must have cause or suspicion beyond the reason or suspicion that initially justified the stop.
During a lawful stop, officers may take actions reasonably related to the original reason for stopping the vehicle or related to suspicions that arise during the stop. For example:
To conduct a frisk, the officer must show not only a justification for the original stop, but also a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed and dangerous.
To justify a search of the vehicle, the stop must provide probable cause for the officers to believe it contains contraband
The officers may take some of the actions above automatically, but the officers will need more than the original justification for the stop to take other actions.
So to keep this on topic, unless the officer sees a driver using a scanner in a vehicle or I guess even a scanner if plain view, that is technically grounds for a stop.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
The information in the lawyers.com article is not state specific. Before relying on any legal advice, you should first get it from an actual lawyer. Then you should be sure that the advice applies in your state.
New York has tighter restrictions on what the police may and may not do than the federal constitutional requirements, based on state court interpretations of the State Constitution. This is permissible under our republican system of government, as the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714 (1975).
As a student of criminal justice, someone might be tempted to presume that their studies so far have granted them some expertise in legal interpretation. This can be dangerous under some circumstances. Legal advisement is within the purview of lawyers, and interpretation of law rests with judges (most of whom are very experienced lawyers). (I do have a Master of Arts in Criminal Justice with a concentration in Law, and occasionally teach college courses, but you shouldn't seek legal advice from me, either, especially if you have actually been arrested.)
BTW, a police officer (in New York at least) may not stop a vehicle on suspicion of a simple traffic violation that was not witnessed by the officer. However, Section 397 of the V&T designates the mobile police receiver offense as a misdemeanor, which is an actual crime. Police officers may make an investigative stop based upon a tip that a crime has been or is being committed.
Technically, the officer does not have to see the scanner if someone has reported that there is one, but probable cause is easier to establish if the officer in fact observes the scanner in the car. An officer who claims to have been tipped to a misdemeanor offense by an anonymous third party might have trouble persuading the prosecutor to go forward with criminal charges, but that is another topic.
New York has tighter restrictions on what the police may and may not do than the federal constitutional requirements, based on state court interpretations of the State Constitution. This is permissible under our republican system of government, as the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714 (1975).
As a student of criminal justice, someone might be tempted to presume that their studies so far have granted them some expertise in legal interpretation. This can be dangerous under some circumstances. Legal advisement is within the purview of lawyers, and interpretation of law rests with judges (most of whom are very experienced lawyers). (I do have a Master of Arts in Criminal Justice with a concentration in Law, and occasionally teach college courses, but you shouldn't seek legal advice from me, either, especially if you have actually been arrested.)
BTW, a police officer (in New York at least) may not stop a vehicle on suspicion of a simple traffic violation that was not witnessed by the officer. However, Section 397 of the V&T designates the mobile police receiver offense as a misdemeanor, which is an actual crime. Police officers may make an investigative stop based upon a tip that a crime has been or is being committed.
Technically, the officer does not have to see the scanner if someone has reported that there is one, but probable cause is easier to establish if the officer in fact observes the scanner in the car. An officer who claims to have been tipped to a misdemeanor offense by an anonymous third party might have trouble persuading the prosecutor to go forward with criminal charges, but that is another topic.
Last edited:
code3cowboy
Member
Not exactly true, a pat down can be conducted at any time you come into contact with a person provided you inform them that you are conducting a search for your protection. This was referenced several times in Maryland v Wilson, however it has been addressed at the state level since. It really pivots around the rule of mimms.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
Terry searches are only for weapons. If an officer doing a patdown notes anything that is not obviously a weapon (like the shape of a portable radio on the belt or in a pocket, for example), he/she has no authority to establish the identity of the object or to examine it further.
wuzafuzz
Member
I found a variety of improvised weapons on people and in their cars (during searches pursuant to arrest or warrant). Things like zip guns, flare pen guns, and even a fake cell phone gun. Does that knowledge change the scope of "reasonable" actions of an officer during a Terry search? I suggest it would be unreasonable of an officer to discount their existence. They might not be real common, but it only takes once...
As for the ban on scanners in cars: oppressive.
APX8000
Sarcastic Member
I know you teach CJ Dave, but I disagree. Police can do Terry stops on vehicles as well as persons when they have reason to believe that criminal activity is afoot. They do not need probable cause.
Example...police officer receives a radio call of that a black Ford pickup was just used as a getaway car for a robbery. While enroute to the call, an officer passes a vehicle matching that description. The officer has reasonable suspicion, based upon articulabe facts, that the vehicle that just passed him may be the suspect vehicle. Although the information does not equate to probable cause, he can make an investigative stop or Terry stop based upon reasonable suspicion. Once that vehicle is stopped, PC can be established by things such as items in plain view, suspect identification by a witness, etc.
davenf2g said:
Agreed. Same goes for narcotics. While patting down a subject for a weapon, an officer feels what he belives, based upon his training and experience, to be a syringe concealed in someone's front pocket. He can establish the identity of that object. "What's this?" "Is this your dope?" Once established, he then has PC to retrieve that item as it is evidence of a crime and to protect that evidence from being destroyed.
adamrgirard said:
A simple question always grants consent. "Do you have any guns, knifes, or other weapons on your person?" "Do you mind if I pat you down for my safety?" I've never been told no.
Again, correct. Any idiot, including me, can post anything they want on the internet. Don't believe everything you read. Get advice from a professional trained in that area. Just as defendants get advice from their attorneys, us law enforcement personnel get advice from ADA's, AUSA's, Asst. State Prosecutors, etc. as well as constantly keeping informed of recent court decisions. Just because the law says one thing, doesn't mean it can be done. For example, friends of mine that work in California are bound by the liberal 9th circuit.
sc8 said:
True. Feds are bound by federal law, not state law. However, some states grant peace officer status to feds, other states actually grant specific authority. For example, in the NYS CPL, several feds are actually granted specific authority. This usually includes a person "is commiting, is about to commit or has commited a felony." In NYS, I belive ANY OFFENSE committed in an officer's presence applies as well. An offense is defined as a misdemeanor or felony. Since most violations are not misdemeanors or felonies, they have no authority to stop you.
Some feds are "cross-designated" as Deputy Sheriffs in certain counties and can act under that authority as part of their investigative methods. But, you wouldn't know because they would ID themselves as the SO, not the feds and have SO credentials, etc. There are also may federal task forces that are made up of state/local PO's which can be used to stop someone for a traffic violation even though the ultimate reason for the stop is for something different.
Every stop is techically a seizure because a person is not free to leave. That's why one has to be able to differentiate between what a consensual encounter vs. a Terry Stop is.
Just my .02. As Dave posted his disclaimer, same goes with me. I have many years of law enforcement experience and have several degrees as well, but I don't practice law. Courts interpret things alot differently that you and I and always seek advice from a professional.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2003
- Messages
- 60
"Every stop is techically a seizure because a person is not free to leave. That's why one has to be able to differentiate between what a consensual encounter vs. a Terry Stop is. "
I disagree with the information in this post. The above statement is not true. There is a huge difference between interview and interrogation. While a officer is doing a terry stop or even a traffic stop, that is not a seizure, this is in the interview stage. It is when a person feels or becomes "not able to leave" that you have to worry about a violation of rights, in so many words.
As far as I am aware and have been trained, you have to had a "reason" to stop a vehicle. no remember this can be as benine and checking to see if the regi or inspection sticker is valid, which is what anyone would say to just check out a suspicious vehicle and it would be perfectly legit. Mr 2 cents
I disagree with the information in this post. The above statement is not true. There is a huge difference between interview and interrogation. While a officer is doing a terry stop or even a traffic stop, that is not a seizure, this is in the interview stage. It is when a person feels or becomes "not able to leave" that you have to worry about a violation of rights, in so many words.
As far as I am aware and have been trained, you have to had a "reason" to stop a vehicle. no remember this can be as benine and checking to see if the regi or inspection sticker is valid, which is what anyone would say to just check out a suspicious vehicle and it would be perfectly legit. Mr 2 cents
It's very distressing to see the very brave & commited men & women who are sworn to protect & to serve you called such a vile name, I will soon be one of those dedicated sworn & certified law enforcement officers & I'm quite curious as to who you would now contact in an emergency if the need ever arose. I'm not familiar with your situation there, however I'm quite sure if the department in question was violating your civil rights, there would have been some type of lawsuit or an external agency investigation by now or am I misleading myself? No personal offense intended however your post just distresses me & is a very unfair depiction of the thousands of law enforcement officers who perform duties that may be deemed unpleasant and/or unpopular to some civilians.
Manny
Gestapo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Town of Colonie, NY Police Department
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
If it quacks like a duck....
While it seems to be human nature to paint with a broad brush, the fact is that some of those "very brave & committed" police officers have overstepped the legitimate bounds of their authority at times. A police force contains many individuals who serve from the highest motivations, but there are also people in uniform who should not have been allowed to join up.
While it seems to be human nature to paint with a broad brush, the fact is that some of those "very brave & committed" police officers have overstepped the legitimate bounds of their authority at times. A police force contains many individuals who serve from the highest motivations, but there are also people in uniform who should not have been allowed to join up.
Yes sir, I will not argue your position on this matter as you are correct in that presumption, however there is no justification for the other member to compare law enforcement officers to the murderous antisemetic Gestapo. However as I already stated, you are right about "crooks with shields" as witnessed by the latest scandals of the Melbourne Florida law enforcement officer targeting Negroes with racial profiling & the vicious assault & questionable arrest of a young Negro youth by Pittsburgh plainclothes law enforcement officers. remember though, other professions have their closeted skeleton too. When i become a certified law enforcement, I will never engage in such unnaceptable & criminal behavior.Thanks for listening.
Manny
Manny
hvscan
Member
Just like every other profession.
A broad brush is unfair to those who are dedicated and put their lives on the line day in and day out. Just about every day, a police officer is killed in the line of duty somewhere in the United States.
Are there some who are unfit for the job...yes, but this is no different than many other professions. As long as this group remains in the minority while the majority are meeting or exceeding the expectations set out for them, the broad brush is better left for painting walls.
A broad brush is unfair to those who are dedicated and put their lives on the line day in and day out. Just about every day, a police officer is killed in the line of duty somewhere in the United States.
Are there some who are unfit for the job...yes, but this is no different than many other professions. As long as this group remains in the minority while the majority are meeting or exceeding the expectations set out for them, the broad brush is better left for painting walls.
w2rea
Member
Get a grip, I'm sure they have more to worry about than your Ham radio.
- Status
Similar threads
