FCC's Warrantless Household Searches Alarm Experts
- Thread starter iMONITOR
- Start date
- Status
This belongs in the politcs thred...
This is crap! Its a pirate radio station duh....
Now if the FCC wants to enter my house without a warrant, well they'll find out that I'm a closer brother to Cain then they had thought. They better come with guns.
This is crap! Its a pirate radio station duh....
Now if the FCC wants to enter my house without a warrant, well they'll find out that I'm a closer brother to Cain then they had thought. They better come with guns.
ecps92
Member
Nothing New here.
they have a legal right to inspect my Station, and are welcome.
No for those who decide to threat'n federal agents, you might want to re-think your posting. :twisted: Since it is now in the public domain
they have a legal right to inspect my Station, and are welcome.
No for those who decide to threat'n federal agents, you might want to re-think your posting. :twisted: Since it is now in the public domain
The FCC does have the legal right to inspect a "transmitting station" during normal business hours or at any time the station is in operation BUT extending this concept to any and all devices that radiate RF is patently ridiculous. Fiske thoughtlessly opened his yapper and Wired ran with it, typical of media hype of every political gaffe that comes down the pike... yawn.
N
N_Jay
Guest
Wired is the "media", you give them far too much credit.:lol::lol:
Yep, gotta like that...
Terroristic Threats - A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief.
See ya' in the funny papers!
I know! :twisted:
Whatever..
Its simple. No proper documentation and you enter; the law here allows me to shot your head off clean! And I will! As horrific as that may sound, I'm not pulling any punches with the fed crap. Now build your case against me!!! Make me famous! Or I'll make you famous. :lol:
Your choice of definition is pathetic! :roll: That doesn't even define any law ffs! You go search for the definition of terrorism, which there are many and try to say that because I do not approve of a warrantless break in to my home by which the Constitution guards against that I'M THE BLOODY TERRORIST???!!! I don't think so!
America has been nuderd!
Warrantless wire taping is one thing, with many facets. Warrantless house entry is a WHOLE NEW animal!!
Last edited:
Sounds like the FCC..
Like Grandpa said from the Munsters, "FK The FCC!" :lol:
Al Lewis (actor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He must be a terrorist...
Last edited:
RolnCode3
Member
While I generally avoid the Tavern and those who frequent it, I will say two things.
1) "neutered"
2) There are several exemptions to the 4th Amendment protection, one of which is "exigency". Basically, some type of threat to public safety that prevents waiting for a warrant to be executed. While an interfering RF transmitting device might be actively causing problems, it is unlikely to constitute an "exigency". If it was interfering with a police or fire communications, then it could possibly qualify.
Living in the US, a government agent not having "paperwork" would certainly not give you the authority to kill them. In addition to "exigency" there are several other exemptions (consent and hot pursuit are two), all of which have been recognized many times in various levels of the court system. (although this is not my main point, and one I will not argue beyond this single post)
The claim that they have regulatory authority to inspect devices is certainly interesting. On its face, it seems a reasonable claim to inspect devices. But I think most courts would not find an overwhelming government interest in the need to inspect, at any time, without a warrant, these devices. I believe this would be considered "unreasonable" in the context of the 4th amendment, and the protection against these searches would be upheld.
1) "neutered"
2) There are several exemptions to the 4th Amendment protection, one of which is "exigency". Basically, some type of threat to public safety that prevents waiting for a warrant to be executed. While an interfering RF transmitting device might be actively causing problems, it is unlikely to constitute an "exigency". If it was interfering with a police or fire communications, then it could possibly qualify.
Living in the US, a government agent not having "paperwork" would certainly not give you the authority to kill them. In addition to "exigency" there are several other exemptions (consent and hot pursuit are two), all of which have been recognized many times in various levels of the court system. (although this is not my main point, and one I will not argue beyond this single post)
The claim that they have regulatory authority to inspect devices is certainly interesting. On its face, it seems a reasonable claim to inspect devices. But I think most courts would not find an overwhelming government interest in the need to inspect, at any time, without a warrant, these devices. I believe this would be considered "unreasonable" in the context of the 4th amendment, and the protection against these searches would be upheld.
Last edited:
Without a warrant, where's the validity? Lot of fakes out there..
Make an interesting trial if they didn't have probable cause or a warrant, wouldn't...
Hot pursuit, probable cause, yes...
Consent is my fav.. :lol: I have a story. :lol:
Now here's the definition of terrorism.
Mapp v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
Doesn't matter. George Washington and the fore fathers would say the same thing. The fed without a warrant can not enter your home! And I'm sure the firing of a musket is lawful regardless of the title one holds. Of course there wasn't an FCC back then either.
Everyone who breathes is equal to me! No one higher.
Everyone who breathes is equal to me! No one higher.
Last edited:
Hmmm, could the Exclusionary Rule be applied to this pirate radio station?
Exclusionary rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Exclusionary rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RolnCode3
Member
Sorry I posted in here. I'm out.
Last edited:
ecps92
Member
N
N_Jay
Guest
This is a crazy discussion based on a really stupid article.
I would bet you would find 1000 regulations that would appear to be unconstitutional if acted upon in the most rigorous manner imaginable.
FCC inspections are usually during normal hours and are based on overwhelming evidence.
If entry is refused, then it can become a legal matter with the force of law in the form of fines and/or law enforcement support.
Above is a layman's interpretation, but I challenge anyone to find an example of this apparently unconstitutional power being used
Till then we are discussing "dancing angles"
I would bet you would find 1000 regulations that would appear to be unconstitutional if acted upon in the most rigorous manner imaginable.
FCC inspections are usually during normal hours and are based on overwhelming evidence.
If entry is refused, then it can become a legal matter with the force of law in the form of fines and/or law enforcement support.
Above is a layman's interpretation, but I challenge anyone to find an example of this apparently unconstitutional power being used
Till then we are discussing "dancing angles"
Here is another "quote" for you...
You may even wish to review the USA PATRIOT Act which includes a definition of terrorism to include "domestic terrorism".
While you may feel that America has been "nuderd", the laws are written as they are. And with how you seem to be a scoflaw, under the USA PATRIOT Act just might be deemed a "domestic terrorist" since you have willfully and without regard made threats against agents of the US government.
Last edited:
nd5y
Member
People make threats against the government ALL- DAY- LOOOONG! Oh, threading the US Government is a bad thing and you will be jailed.. :roll: Sounds like Russia or China! There is no threat! I'm not a threat until you step inside my house. Then hell will ensue.
Your not going to sit there and tell me that I'm a Fing terrorist! Your petty quotes mean nothing. The fact of the matter is that if you bust down my door without a warrant, your dead! End of story! You better show who you are and better check out. Otherwise it's unlawful entry and my position is to stop you at all costs. I thought the tyrannies monarchy rule was defeated during the revolution. This is like the King of England's rule here.
It seems as the years go on more and more qusi-law is printed into books to dance around a right. Just like the 2nd amendment.
Can the bloody USDA inspect my freezer for meat?! FFS!
This is a private residence and not a commercial establishment. I would comply to all rules and regulations....short of warrantless entry into my home!
This is very unlikely. But the fact is that the FCC can not "inspect" your equipment without a warrant. The fact is this is criminal in its self, not the other way around. :roll: I am a law abiding citizen!
I am not a terrorist FFS! Where is your brains?! Your like labeling me as some militia member when all I'm saying is that this warrantless entry can not possibly be justifiable.
There is no threat. I have nothing to fear. Label for what you what, I don't care.
IMO, The Patriot Act just labels all citizens as a terrorist....The police state is shaping nicely.
I am not bound to use any action which would be considered criminal. But in my book, no one is above the law.
The FCC has no decree to enter a house without a warrant. In assessment of the following grab ass explanations, I'm writing my Senator.
Q: The FCC Agent standing at my door does not have a search warrant, so I don't have to let him in, right?
A: Wrong. Search warrants are needed for entry involving criminal matters. One of the requirements as a licensee, or non-licensee subject to the Commission's Rules, is to allow inspection of your radio equipment by FCC personnel. Whether you operate an amateur station or any other radio device, your authorization from the Commission comes with the obligation to allow inspection. Even radio stations licensed under a "blanket" rule or approval, such as Citizen's Band (CB) Radio, are subject to the Commission's inspection requirement.
Q: Well then, if I am a low-power broadcaster and don't have an FCC license, they need a search warrant, right?
A: Wrong again. The FCC agents have the authority to inspect all radio equipment; even if you do not have a license, the FCC can still inspect your equipment. Section 303of the Act gives the FCC the right to inspect all "stations required to be licensed." This language covers your low-power radio station. The FCC agents are inspecting the equipment, not searching your house.
=====
Your damn right I'll verify! And I'll be holding the shotgun in the mean time.
This is madness and circumvents the Fourth Amendment. I don't care what you brainwashed people think!
I'm not continuing this stupid topic, as doing so makes my position worse. When I see BS, I'll call it out!
The 1st is a *****, isn't it?
Last edited:
- Status
