can anyone tell me if you can listen to Casa Grande PD ?????
Casa Grande PD
- Thread starter safetymedic901
- Start date
- Status
kd7eir
Member
Welcome to the RR forums. Database shows them as fully encrypted (mode "TE") on Pinal County P25 = no-go on monitoring!
But also shows VHF analog conventional channels.
Someone local to the area will need to reply back if the analog conventionals are still used, both licenses were renewed within the past 6 months...
Casa Grande Police
| DEC | HEX | Mode | Alpha Tag | Description | Tag |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4301 | 10cd | TE | Casa Grande PD | Dispatch | Law Dispatch |
But also shows VHF analog conventional channels.
| Frequency | Input | License | Type | Tone | Alpha Tag | Description | Mode | Tag |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 155.655 | 151.355 | KOE288 | RM | 167.9 PL | CGPD - 1 | Police - Dispatch - Repeater | FMN | Law Dispatch |
| 155.655 | KOE288 | RM | 167.9 PL | CGPD - 2 | Police - Dispatch - Simplex | FMN | Law Dispatch | |
| 155.925 | KEX251 | BM | CGPD - 5 | Police - TAC | FMN | Law Tac |
Someone local to the area will need to reply back if the analog conventionals are still used, both licenses were renewed within the past 6 months...
kd7eir
Member
Thanks for catching that! I should not respond before having coffee.
Oh yes, I definitely know the importance of coffee. Cheers!
So does that mean you can't listen to Casa Grande PD ???
KB7MIB
Member
It's important that we have the means to oversee the actions of our public servants. There should be no resistance to this; without oversight, they may act unchecked. Nowadays, keeping an eye on them requires some technical know-how and the use of a sophisticated radio, tools that are unlikely to be procured or even recognized by those with ill intentions.
I think you should rethink your last sentence. With all the streaming that is done. it only requires them to download an app to listen to un-encrypted traffic. We have helped things to move to the Big E.
That doesn't justify preventing the public from overseeing those who serve us. Furthermore, it's important to be aware of the criminal activities happening in our city and neighborhoods!
No one does. However, removing it from the majority of responsible and law-abiding individuals isn't justified. The proportion of those who might misuse the radio for criminal activities is minimal, making it unreasonable to restrict access for everyone else.
mbnv992
Also known as MT2000 man on Batlabs since 2001+
Most departments are going encrypted. That’s that way it’s been for the past several years now. You can thank the 1st amendment morons following police to all of their calls for this ( this is not the only reason, but a BIG one in many towns/city's ). Trying to listen in on encrypted radio traffic is against the law, and with AES256 being used by most departments now, good luck with that.
Things like Broadcastify and 1st amendment auditors has ruined the scanning hobby IMO. You’ll be seeing more Police Departments going encrypted very soon.
Things like Broadcastify and 1st amendment auditors has ruined the scanning hobby IMO. You’ll be seeing more Police Departments going encrypted very soon.
I don't believe thats the motive—they started moving towards encryption well before the emergence of First Amendment auditors. What are these auditors doing if not merely exercising their First Amendment rights? It seems the police are resistant to oversight, plain and simple. The majority of First Amendment auditors operate squarely within the bounds of their legal rights.
Additionally, I want to clarify that I'm not against the police. My issue arises when they exceed their authority. After all, we, the public, are ultimately in charge.
Additionally, I want to clarify that I'm not against the police. My issue arises when they exceed their authority. After all, we, the public, are ultimately in charge.
mbnv992
Also known as MT2000 man on Batlabs since 2001+
You seem to be one of those “I pay your salary” folks that seem to be more and more common nowadays. And trust me, that definitely seems to be a lot of their motives. They know exactly what they are doing, and if you have to ask what they are doing and don’t see an issue, then we’ll never see eye to eye.
I think we’ll just agree to disagree here. I know there’s some “good” first amendment auditors out there, but from what I’ve experienced and seen, plus the tons of videos out there on YouTube with these people, they are more of a hindrance to PD than anything else.
As for transparency, sure once a department goes the “big E” transparency goes away with that. IMO if I was in charge of communications, I’d have dispatch calls in the clear and anything sensitive ( SSN’s, detectives, crime units, swat, etc etc ) on encrypted channels. But - most are going fully encrypted wether we like it or not.
I think we’ll just agree to disagree here. I know there’s some “good” first amendment auditors out there, but from what I’ve experienced and seen, plus the tons of videos out there on YouTube with these people, they are more of a hindrance to PD than anything else.
As for transparency, sure once a department goes the “big E” transparency goes away with that. IMO if I was in charge of communications, I’d have dispatch calls in the clear and anything sensitive ( SSN’s, detectives, crime units, swat, etc etc ) on encrypted channels. But - most are going fully encrypted wether we like it or not.
While I appreciate your perspective, it's important to recognize that advocating for accountability and transparency from our law enforcement doesn't equate to undermining their work or disrespecting their service. Labeling concerned citizens as merely "I pay your salary" types oversimplifies a complex issue. The call for oversight is rooted in a desire for a just and equitable law enforcement system that operates in the best interest of the communities it serves.
Regarding First Amendment auditors, it's crucial to differentiate between those who may indeed hinder police work through confrontational or obstructive actions, and those genuinely committed to exercising their rights in a manner that promotes transparency. The existence of problematic individuals within any movement shouldn't overshadow the legitimate concerns raised about public access to law enforcement activities.
On the topic of encryption, your point about balancing the need for operational security with public transparency is well taken. It's a nuanced issue, requiring a thoughtful approach that protects sensitive information while maintaining a level of openness. The blanket move towards full encryption may not be the most balanced approach, and fostering a dialogue on how to achieve both security and transparency could lead to more effective solutions.
In essence, our shared goal should be to ensure law enforcement operates with integrity, accountability, and transparency, serving the public good while safeguarding the rights and safety of both officers and citizens.
Regarding First Amendment auditors, it's crucial to differentiate between those who may indeed hinder police work through confrontational or obstructive actions, and those genuinely committed to exercising their rights in a manner that promotes transparency. The existence of problematic individuals within any movement shouldn't overshadow the legitimate concerns raised about public access to law enforcement activities.
On the topic of encryption, your point about balancing the need for operational security with public transparency is well taken. It's a nuanced issue, requiring a thoughtful approach that protects sensitive information while maintaining a level of openness. The blanket move towards full encryption may not be the most balanced approach, and fostering a dialogue on how to achieve both security and transparency could lead to more effective solutions.
In essence, our shared goal should be to ensure law enforcement operates with integrity, accountability, and transparency, serving the public good while safeguarding the rights and safety of both officers and citizens.
A quick search
“information organizations to hobbyists and law enforcement departments. It also counters the police argument that encryption is necessary for officer safety by noting that many Broadcastify feeds are delayed, diminishing the tactical advantage for criminals”
“information organizations to hobbyists and law enforcement departments. It also counters the police argument that encryption is necessary for officer safety by noting that many Broadcastify feeds are delayed, diminishing the tactical advantage for criminals”
Yes I miss the days of: Sniper 2 ready
It was about 23 years ago was the last time I heard one of those. Didn't get much sleep that night.
It was about 23 years ago was the last time I heard one of those. Didn't get much sleep that night.
It's a DOJ mandate because of sensitive information being transmitted over the air and to protect the privacy and identity of the citizens.
When did Arizona's DOJ issue this mandate?
- Status
Similar threads
