Broadcastify Receives Cease and Desist from Terre Haute, IN City Attorney

[blantonl]

We received the following cease and desist letter from Darrell E. (Eddie) Felling II, the City of Terre Haute, IN's city attorney. After a short phone conversation with him walking him through Broadcastify's broadcaster terms of service, he vehemently disagreed with our perspective and indicated further legal remedies would be forthcoming - citing a "changed climate in this country."

It is interesting to note that the City of Terre Haute actually encrypts all of their non-routine law enforcement communications. Their primary police dispatch channel is the only one not encrypted, and the only one included on any live broadcasts.

Note that we will vigorously defend any legal action taken by the city of Terre Haute IN. Any challenge by the City of Terre Haute would not survive even a lax standard of First Amendment scrutiny, as the widespread availability of these communications, often sanctioned by the public safety departments themselves, undermines any rational basis for prohibiting their broadcasts to the general public.

By USPS Certified Mail 7008 1140 0000 1938 5315

RadioReference.com LLC
1150 North Loop 1604 W, Suite 108-556
San Antonio, TX 78248

Re: Cease and Desist

Dear Sir or Ma'am:

It has recently been brought to my attention that your service provides
real-time streaming of City of Terre Haute Police Department and Fire
Department radio traffic. I am requesting that the City's agencies be
removed from your broadcasting applications immediately.

I understand for some, listening to public safety scanner traffic is a
hobby that has been around for many years. Recently several of the City's
police officers have reported that individuals listening to scanner feeds, like
those broadcast by RadioReference.com and/or Broadcastify have shown up
to emergency incident scenes.

Given the dangers our police officers face today, having our radio
traffic broadcast in real-time has created a serious threat to officer safety, the
security of incident scenes, and may hinder the officer's ability to
appropriately ascertain and respond to the emergency situation because
listeners are at the scene as well.

I appreciate your help in resolving this potential officer safety issue as
quickly as possible. Please contact my office within ten (10) days of receipt
of this letter to avoid potential legal action.

Sincerely,
Darrell E. Felling II
City Attorney

cc: Chief Plasse

/mjm

Attached original letter.

 

[NyGregg]

So what's to stop citizens from getting handheld scanners and listening and showing up at incidents? The next right we lose is scanning? Gov't is getting out of control.

 

[prcguy]

Is it possible to have a class action suit against the city for violating first amendment rights, etc? Do it!
prcguy

 

[W5AWX]

Overstepping Jerisdiction

Even if streaming an un-encrypted channel was illegal, I would think that the City Attorney is overstepping his jurisdiction. Based on his misguided logic, news reports in real time, often with live video from a helicopter, would clearly be a more serious problem than a scanner or stream.

Smart sheriffs and police chiefs have for decades used the listening, and legal public to aid them with information.

Most of us who stream a law enforcement agency do it mainly because of support for the agency and law enforcement in general. I once had a lady tell me that she never wanted a scanner for fear she couldn't master it (she was older and very non technical), but started listening to my stream of the local sheriff's department on her PC when the weather was bad for information. She went on to say that she never dreamed how much LEOs do and had a whole new respect and admiration for them. She also was able to call the sheriff and provide him some very useful information after hearing of a missing person. The sheriff told me the information provided by this lady helped them quickly locate someone with dementia who had walked away from an assisted living center.

Chris W5AWX

 

[mm68gto]

Not real time

It says that the broadcast are in real time. There is a delay. So its just old news

 

[kayn1n32008]

Just because streaming is legal, doe not mean you should.

Leave the feed. Then the only course of action will be for the city to employ encryption on the only remaining unencrypted channel...

 

[evfd1625]

Just playing devil's advocate, isn't there a federal rule/reg regarding dissemination of information heard over a scanner? Wouldn't a complete rebroadcast of radio traffic be in violation of this? Indiana also has several laws regarding possession of a police radio by non-law enforcement persons. The first amendment is cited also, does the first amendment apply to being a non-participating 3rd party that has no interest directly in the speech claimed to be protected?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[radioman2001]

quote"Then the only course of action will be for the city to employ encryption on the only remaining unencrypted channel..

You can bet that's exactly what they will do,and possibly this whole exercise is to use the streaming as an excuse to do so. The local press should be on this like stink.

 

[fxdscon]

Just playing devil's advocate, isn't there a federal rule/reg regarding dissemination of information heard over a scanner? Wouldn't a complete rebroadcast of radio traffic be in violation of this? Indiana also has several laws regarding possession of a police radio by non-law enforcement persons. The first amendment is cited also, does the first amendment apply to being a non-participating 3rd party that has no interest directly in the speech claimed to be protected?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

http://forums.radioreference.com/1313618-post1.html

 

[kayn1n32008]

You can bet that's exactly what they will do...

Who was it saying live feeds are not the cause of the move to encryption?

 

[Hans13]

Is it possible to have a class action suit against the city for violating first amendment rights, etc? Do it!
prcguy

IMHO, since internet covers the nation and territories, individuals nationwide would be eligable to join in. The streams I listen to are generally not local to me so any injunction would conceivably affect me and surely I'm not alone.

 

[evfd1625]

http://forums.radioreference.com/1313618-post1.html

Didn't load properly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[kayn1n32008]

...The local press should be on this like stink.

Easy fix is to let the media have a receive only radio on the system. If it uses OTAR, then the radio can be rekeyed at will by the system owner.

 

[fxdscon]

Didn't load properly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Try this:

http://forums.radioreference.com/br...ve-audio-broadcasts-archives.html#post1313618

.

 

[Hans13]

Who was it saying live feeds are not the cause of the move to encryption?

Frankly, the reason doesn't matter. Since the beginning of civilization, governments have used any convenient excuse to violate individual liberty. It is the rationale of tyrants. People hang their rights when they engage in a lot of finger-pointing, all the while ignoring the real elephant in the room.

 

[CarolinasFeedNet]

Just playing devil's advocate, isn't there a federal rule/reg regarding dissemination of information heard over a scanner? Wouldn't a complete rebroadcast of radio traffic be in violation of this? Indiana also has several laws regarding possession of a police radio by non-law enforcement persons. The first amendment is cited also, does the first amendment apply to being a non-participating 3rd party that has no interest directly in the speech claimed to be protected?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Yes, I agree with you. Even though I provide a feed myself, I think they could be held in violation of the Communications act of 1934 and ECPA of 1986.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Frankly, the reason doesn't matter. Since the beginning of civilization, governments have used any convenient excuse to violate individual liberty. It is the rationale of tyrants. People hang their rights when they engage in a lot of finger-pointing, all the while ignoring the real elephant in the room.

So exactly where is the 'right' to stream public safety comms enshrined in the constitution? Also where is the 'right' to listen to listen to 2way radio communications, not intended for you to be a recipient enshrined in the constitution?

 

[evfd1625]

Try this:

http://forums.radioreference.com/br...ve-audio-broadcasts-archives.html#post1313618

.

One thing that caught my attention was that the communications being disseminated cannot be carried by a common carrier. The Indiana SAFE-T system which THPD uses is interconnected by AT&T common carrier T1 lines. Doesn't that mean that any communications that are obtained from a site not directly connected to the site receiving the broadcasts be considered in violation of the law?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[Hans13]

Easy fix is to let the media have a receive only radio on the system. If it uses OTAR, then the radio can be rekeyed at will by the system owner.

That's a bad idea as it creates a special class while ignoring the rights of everyone else. There is no concrete distinction between the "rights" of journalists and the rights of the individual in tge Constitution of the United States. In fact, "journalist rights" are more of a collective privilege founded on the individual right. When one allows the undercutting of the individual right, eventually the collective privilege will follow. This is not an area in which to compromise.

 

[kayn1n32008]

That's a bad idea as it creates a special class while ignoring the rights of everyone else. There is no concrete distinction between the "rights" of journalists and the rights of the individual in tge Constitution of the United States. In fact, "journalist rights" are more of a collective privilege founded on the individual right. When one allows the undercutting of the individual right, eventually the collective privilege will follow. This is not an area in which to compromise.

So you are not going to answer the question then?