Does anyone know of Illinois scanner laws, or where I could find them. I have not had any luck trying to find them.
Thanks,
Ian
Thanks,
Ian
Illinois Scanner Laws
- Thread starter i_galbreath
- Start date
- Status
bob_leach_3
Member
Generally speaking, in Illinois it is completely legal to use a scanner while at home, mobile, (in a motor vehicle) or on foot (Indiana I believe prohibits a scanner anywhere outside your work or home at all). Local ordinances or laws can prohibit this but I have not heard of any in Illinois. It is, however, illegal to use a scanner to further commitiing a crime, or to avoid capture by law enforcement. I believe it's illegal everywhere in the U.S. to show up at emergency scenes (unless you have a reson to be there) or to follow emeregency vehicles. Not a good idea to drive near areas whre you might hear surveillance goin on, im sure. Scanners are legal to use anywhere in the state of Illinois. Scanner usage aboard public transportation I am not sure of; but I believe it's up to the company who owns the bus, aircraft, etc. Per federal law, it is illegal everywhere in the U.S. to intentionally monitor pagers, phone communications of any type, or to unscramble any encrypted communications.
Thank you very much. Thats exactly what I was wanting to know.
Ian
Ian
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 1
bob_leach_3 answered this question beautifully. However, if you plan on using your scanner in Chicago, it's best to keep it under wraps because CPD is just convinced that us radio people are all horrible villians.
only you KOW..
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 1
Thanks for the flame. You're just so pleasant to converse with.
bob_leach_3
Member
Scanner Laws
No problem, Ian. Glad to help.
No problem, Ian. Glad to help.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 1
If you look at the bottom of the page carefully, it says that it was compiled on hearsay only and to check with your state police. Thing in Illinois is that although there is no law against radio hobbyists, you need to remember that there is also no law specifically authorizing it either.
This has the effect of the law taking a silent stance on the matter which leaves the matter open to each individual police officer's interpretation of a non-existant statute. Good piece of advice - when the law is silent on something such as in this case, you are better off not doing it because the state courts here have taken the issue of the law being silent on something in the light of "just because there is no law against it doesn't mean it's ok to do, neither does it have the effect of banning the activity either, so use your own discretion." It just isn't wise to tempt the communist leaders of our fine, upstanding state (sarcasm)
This has the effect of the law taking a silent stance on the matter which leaves the matter open to each individual police officer's interpretation of a non-existant statute. Good piece of advice - when the law is silent on something such as in this case, you are better off not doing it because the state courts here have taken the issue of the law being silent on something in the light of "just because there is no law against it doesn't mean it's ok to do, neither does it have the effect of banning the activity either, so use your own discretion." It just isn't wise to tempt the communist leaders of our fine, upstanding state (sarcasm)
K9JLR
Member
There needs to be a state statute making this an offense before any police officers can "interpret" something that would result in a citation or arrest. You can't just cite people for some interpretation of a non-existing statute.
If you use your scanner in a sensible manner (avoid "ambulance chasing" or using the scanner in the furtherance of a crime) then you should have no problems in Illinois. There might be isolated incidents where someone is detained or questioned for possessing a scanner, but scan responsibly and you should avoid legal troubles.
Oh, and what do scanner laws have to do with a collectivist economic system?
Last edited:
Thank you everyone for the great help.
W9GC
Silent Key
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]Below is a FEDERAL-level preemption of lower-level state and local laws which regulate the reception of public service frequencies. (PR 91-36) In most cases, licensed amateur radio operators (hams) are exempted in the laws; but not always.
The following document makes your out-of-band (OOB) capable mobile transceivers legal everywhere in the U.S.
It is a Memorandum, Opinion and ORDER, and it carries the same level of authority as actual law, and it must be obeyed.
This document has been out for nearly 15 years, and yet most people are not even aware of it's existence.
In it, the FCC holds that lower-level laws restricting the usage out-of-band-capable transceivers by licensed hams are preeempted by federal law. Should your transceiver ever be confiscated for scanning out-of-band of the ham frequencies, use this, and and it should get you out of trouble. I recommend printing out the PDF version (link provided below). The PDF version comes straight from the FCC Record. It's likely that this STILL will not prevent a ticket and/or confiscation; but now you have something to take with you to the courtroom at least.
(Note that PR 91-36 ONLY applies to the use of out-of-band-capable amateur transceivers, and not to actual scanners.)[/FONT]
The following document makes your out-of-band (OOB) capable mobile transceivers legal everywhere in the U.S.
It is a Memorandum, Opinion and ORDER, and it carries the same level of authority as actual law, and it must be obeyed.
This document has been out for nearly 15 years, and yet most people are not even aware of it's existence.
In it, the FCC holds that lower-level laws restricting the usage out-of-band-capable transceivers by licensed hams are preeempted by federal law. Should your transceiver ever be confiscated for scanning out-of-band of the ham frequencies, use this, and and it should get you out of trouble. I recommend printing out the PDF version (link provided below). The PDF version comes straight from the FCC Record. It's likely that this STILL will not prevent a ticket and/or confiscation; but now you have something to take with you to the courtroom at least.
(Note that PR 91-36 ONLY applies to the use of out-of-band-capable amateur transceivers, and not to actual scanners.)[/FONT]
W9GC
Silent Key
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]Here is the text of the document (wont allow me upload the .pdf):
________________________________________
[/FONT]
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: August 20, 1993; | Released: September 3, 1993
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
▪ 1. On November 14, 1989, the American Radio Relay League, Incorporated (ARRL), filed a Motion for a Declaratory Ruling requesting that the Commission preempt certain state statutes and local ordinances affecting transceivers used by Amateur Radio Service Licensees. The laws referenced by the ARRL prohibit the possession of such transceivers if they are capable of the reception of communications on certain frequencies other than amateur service frequencies. On March 15, 1990, we released a public notice inviting comment on ARRL's request. In addition, on February 28, 1991, we released a Notice of Inquiry that solicited additional comment to assist us in making a decision in this matter. This Memorandum Opinion and Order grants the request to the extent indicated herein.
II. BACKGROUND
▪ 2. The ARRL motion discusses state statutes and local ordinances commonly known as "scanner laws," the violation of which may be a criminal misdemeanor with the possibility of equipment confiscation. Specifically, ARRL notes that state statutes in New Jersey and Kentucky (which have subsequently been changed --see paragraph 3, infra) prohibit the possession of a mobile short-wave radio capable of receiving frequencies assigned by the Commission for, inter alia, police use. In addition, ARRL states that local ordinances exist throughout the United States that similarly prohibit the possession of such mobile short-wave radios without a locally-issued permit. Therefore, ARRL explains, scanner laws can, inter alia, render amateur radio licensees traveling interstate by automobile vulnerable to arrest and to the seizure of their radio equipment by state or local police.
▪ 3. Since the ARRL motion was filed with the Commission, New Jersey repealed its statute and substituted a new, narrowly tailored scanner law that only applies in the criminal context. In addition, Kentucky amended its statute by adding an exemption applying to amateur radio licensees. As a result, there no longer appears to be any state scanner law with a deleterious effect on the legitimate operations of amateur radio service licensees. Nonetheless, the preemption issue raised by the ARRL motion remains timely because it appears that some local scanning ordinances remain in effect without safeguards to protect the legitimate use of such radios by our licensees.
III. MOTION, INQUIRY AND COMMENTS
A. The ARRL Motion.
▪ 4. ARRL makes two arguments in support of preemption. First, it states that the receiver sections of the majority of commercially available amateur station transceivers can be tuned slightly past the edges of the amateur service bands to facilitate adequate reception up to the end of the amateur service bands. ARRL seeks a preemption ruling that would permit amateur operators to install in vehicles transceivers that are capable of this "incidental" reception. Although ARRL's formal request is couched in terms of this first, technical point, the request focuses almost entirely on a second, broader issue of whether state and local authorities should be permitted, via the scanner laws, to prohibit the capability of radio reception by amateur operators on public safety and special emergency frequencies that are well outside the amateur service bands.
▪ 5. Concerning the broader issue, ARRL argues that amateur operators have special needs for broadscale "out-of-band" reception, and that the marketplace has long recognized these needs by offering accommodating transceivers. According to ARRL, all commercially manufactured amateur service HF transceivers and the majority of such VHF and UHF transceivers have non-amateur service frequency reception capability well beyond the "incidental" -- they can receive across a broad spectrum of frequencies, including the police and other public safety and special emergency frequencies here at issue. This additional capability, argues ARRL, permits amateur operators to participate in a variety of safety activities, some in conjunction with the military or the National Weather Service. In both cases, reception on non-amateur frequencies is necessary. Such activities benefit the public, according to ARRL, especially in times of emergency, and some require the mobile use of the amateur stations. ARRL states that, in addition, the vast majority of amateur operators take part in these mobile activities, and that the widespread enforcement of scanner laws would render illegal the possession of virtually all modern amateur mobile equipment. ARRL states that, as a result of scanner laws, "several dozen instances of radio seizure and criminal arrest [have been] suffered by licensed amateurs."
B. The Inquiry and Comments.
▪ 6. The Commission's February 28, 1991 Inquiry solicited additional information concerning the technical and financial feasibility of modifying existing amateur service mobile transceivers to render them incapable of receiving police or other public safety channels. We also asked for information concerning the current and future marketplace availability of mobile equipment meeting the restrictions of the laws and whether there is value in having an available pool of wide-band, mobile amateur equipment in the United States to meet emergency needs.
▪ 7. In response to the Inquiry, we received 115 comments and reply comments, of which the great majority are from individual amateurs who support the preemption. One commenter, the Michigan Department of State Police, states that although it cooperates with the amateur service during emergencies, it is concerned about isolated incidents of apparently unlawful actions taken by amateur licensees upon receipt of public safety communications outside of the amateur radio band. Therefore, it concludes that "there can be no beneficial need for amateur radio equipment to tune in public safety channels." Of the remaining comments received, only a few address the technical and marketplace questions described above. These comments are from individual amateur operators who state that existing wide-band transceivers cannot be modified to meet the restrictions of the scanner laws without substantial expense and that this situation will continue as new equipment becomes available. Despite our specific request in the Inquiry that manufacturers comment on these technical and financial questions, no manufacturer chose to respond on these points. We also received a few comments describing the prevalence of scanner laws nationwide. Finally, the National Communications System (NCS), of the Department of Defense, states in its comment that the federal government utilizes amateur operators in a number of programs requiring mobile, wide-band transceivers.
(Continued)
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica][/FONT]
________________________________________
[/FONT]
- [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]Before the
Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, DC 20554
(PR Docket 91-36)
In the Matter of
Federal Preemption of State
and Local Laws Concerning Amateur
Operator Use of Transceivers
Capable of Reception Beyond
Amateur Service Frequency Allocations[/FONT]
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: August 20, 1993; | Released: September 3, 1993
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
▪ 1. On November 14, 1989, the American Radio Relay League, Incorporated (ARRL), filed a Motion for a Declaratory Ruling requesting that the Commission preempt certain state statutes and local ordinances affecting transceivers used by Amateur Radio Service Licensees. The laws referenced by the ARRL prohibit the possession of such transceivers if they are capable of the reception of communications on certain frequencies other than amateur service frequencies. On March 15, 1990, we released a public notice inviting comment on ARRL's request. In addition, on February 28, 1991, we released a Notice of Inquiry that solicited additional comment to assist us in making a decision in this matter. This Memorandum Opinion and Order grants the request to the extent indicated herein.
II. BACKGROUND
▪ 2. The ARRL motion discusses state statutes and local ordinances commonly known as "scanner laws," the violation of which may be a criminal misdemeanor with the possibility of equipment confiscation. Specifically, ARRL notes that state statutes in New Jersey and Kentucky (which have subsequently been changed --see paragraph 3, infra) prohibit the possession of a mobile short-wave radio capable of receiving frequencies assigned by the Commission for, inter alia, police use. In addition, ARRL states that local ordinances exist throughout the United States that similarly prohibit the possession of such mobile short-wave radios without a locally-issued permit. Therefore, ARRL explains, scanner laws can, inter alia, render amateur radio licensees traveling interstate by automobile vulnerable to arrest and to the seizure of their radio equipment by state or local police.
▪ 3. Since the ARRL motion was filed with the Commission, New Jersey repealed its statute and substituted a new, narrowly tailored scanner law that only applies in the criminal context. In addition, Kentucky amended its statute by adding an exemption applying to amateur radio licensees. As a result, there no longer appears to be any state scanner law with a deleterious effect on the legitimate operations of amateur radio service licensees. Nonetheless, the preemption issue raised by the ARRL motion remains timely because it appears that some local scanning ordinances remain in effect without safeguards to protect the legitimate use of such radios by our licensees.
III. MOTION, INQUIRY AND COMMENTS
A. The ARRL Motion.
▪ 4. ARRL makes two arguments in support of preemption. First, it states that the receiver sections of the majority of commercially available amateur station transceivers can be tuned slightly past the edges of the amateur service bands to facilitate adequate reception up to the end of the amateur service bands. ARRL seeks a preemption ruling that would permit amateur operators to install in vehicles transceivers that are capable of this "incidental" reception. Although ARRL's formal request is couched in terms of this first, technical point, the request focuses almost entirely on a second, broader issue of whether state and local authorities should be permitted, via the scanner laws, to prohibit the capability of radio reception by amateur operators on public safety and special emergency frequencies that are well outside the amateur service bands.
▪ 5. Concerning the broader issue, ARRL argues that amateur operators have special needs for broadscale "out-of-band" reception, and that the marketplace has long recognized these needs by offering accommodating transceivers. According to ARRL, all commercially manufactured amateur service HF transceivers and the majority of such VHF and UHF transceivers have non-amateur service frequency reception capability well beyond the "incidental" -- they can receive across a broad spectrum of frequencies, including the police and other public safety and special emergency frequencies here at issue. This additional capability, argues ARRL, permits amateur operators to participate in a variety of safety activities, some in conjunction with the military or the National Weather Service. In both cases, reception on non-amateur frequencies is necessary. Such activities benefit the public, according to ARRL, especially in times of emergency, and some require the mobile use of the amateur stations. ARRL states that, in addition, the vast majority of amateur operators take part in these mobile activities, and that the widespread enforcement of scanner laws would render illegal the possession of virtually all modern amateur mobile equipment. ARRL states that, as a result of scanner laws, "several dozen instances of radio seizure and criminal arrest [have been] suffered by licensed amateurs."
B. The Inquiry and Comments.
▪ 6. The Commission's February 28, 1991 Inquiry solicited additional information concerning the technical and financial feasibility of modifying existing amateur service mobile transceivers to render them incapable of receiving police or other public safety channels. We also asked for information concerning the current and future marketplace availability of mobile equipment meeting the restrictions of the laws and whether there is value in having an available pool of wide-band, mobile amateur equipment in the United States to meet emergency needs.
▪ 7. In response to the Inquiry, we received 115 comments and reply comments, of which the great majority are from individual amateurs who support the preemption. One commenter, the Michigan Department of State Police, states that although it cooperates with the amateur service during emergencies, it is concerned about isolated incidents of apparently unlawful actions taken by amateur licensees upon receipt of public safety communications outside of the amateur radio band. Therefore, it concludes that "there can be no beneficial need for amateur radio equipment to tune in public safety channels." Of the remaining comments received, only a few address the technical and marketplace questions described above. These comments are from individual amateur operators who state that existing wide-band transceivers cannot be modified to meet the restrictions of the scanner laws without substantial expense and that this situation will continue as new equipment becomes available. Despite our specific request in the Inquiry that manufacturers comment on these technical and financial questions, no manufacturer chose to respond on these points. We also received a few comments describing the prevalence of scanner laws nationwide. Finally, the National Communications System (NCS), of the Department of Defense, states in its comment that the federal government utilizes amateur operators in a number of programs requiring mobile, wide-band transceivers.
(Continued)
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica][/FONT]
W9GC
Silent Key
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]IV. DISCUSSION
▪ 8. There are three ways state and local laws may be preempted. First, Congress may expressly preempt the state or local law. Second, Congress may, through legislation, clearly indicate its intent to occupy the field of regulation, leaving "no room for the States to supplement." Last, and most important for this discussion,[/FONT]
▪ 9. The amateur service is regulated extensively under Part 97 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 97. As we have stated in the past:[/FONT]
▪ 10. The strong federal interest in the preservation and advancement of the amateur service is also demonstrated by Congress's recent recognition of the goals of the amateur service in a "Sense of Congress" provision in which Congress strongly encouraged and supported the amateur service. Congress therein directed all Government agencies to take into account the valuable contribution of amateurs when considering actions affecting the amateur radio service. We believe that the strong federal interest in supporting the emergency services provided by amateurs cannot be fully accomplished unless amateur operators are free to own and operate their stations to the fullest extent permitted by their licenses and are not unreasonably hampered in their ability to transport their radio transmitting stations across state and local boundaries for purposes of transmitting and receiving on authorized frequencies. Indeed, as a result of advances in technology making smaller, lighter weight radios commercially available, the Commission has expressly amended its rules to facilitate and encourage unrestricted mobile amateur operations. As we noted in a recent rule making proceeding to modify the rules governing the amateur radio service,[/FONT]
▪ 11. Against this background, we conclude that certain state and local laws, as described below, conflict with the Commission's regulatory scheme designed to promote a strong amateur radio service. Scanner laws that prohibit the use of transceivers that transmit and receive amateur frequencies because they also receive public safety, special emergency or other radio service frequencies frustrate most legitimate amateur service mobile operations through the threat of penalties such as fines and the confiscation of equipment. As noted by ARRL, virtually all modern amateur service equipment in use today can receive transmissions on the public safety and special emergency frequencies at issue, and the majority of amateur stations are operated in a mobile fashion. Consequently, the mobile operations of the vast majority of amateurs are affected by such laws. In addition, the record statements by amateurs that the costs would be substantial to modify existing transceivers are unchallenged. The scanner laws, then, essentially place the amateur operator in the position of either foregoing mobile operations by simply avoiding all use of the equipment in vehicles or other locations specified in the laws, or risking fines, or equipment confiscation. This very significant limitation on amateurs operating rights runs counter to the express policies of both Congress and the Commission to encourage and support amateur service operations, including mobile operations, and impermissibly encroaches on federal authority over amateur operators. It conflicts directly with the federal interest in amateur operators being able to transmit and receive on authorized amateur service frequencies.
▪ 12. For these reasons, we find it necessary to preempt state and local laws that effectively preclude the possession in vehicles or elsewhere of amateur service transceivers by amateur operators merely on the basis that the transceivers are capable of reception on public safety, special emergency, or other radio service frequencies, the reception of which is not prohibited by federal law. We find that, under current conditions and given the types of equipment available in the market today, such laws prevent amateur operators from using their mobile stations to the full extent permitted under the Commission's Rules and thus are in clear conflict with federal objectives of facilitating and promoting the Amateur Radio Service. We recognize the state law enforcement interest present here, and we do not suggest that state regulation in this area that reasonably attempts to accommodate amateur communications is preempted. This decision does not pertain to scanner laws narrowly tailored to the use of such radios, for example, for criminal ends such as to assist flight from law enforcement personnel. We will not, however, suggest the precise language that must be contained in state and local laws. We do find that state and local laws must not restrict the possession of amateur transceivers simply because they are capable of reception of public safety, special emergency or other radio service frequencies, the reception of which is not prohibited by federal law, and that a state or local permit scheme will not save from preemption an otherwise objectionable law. Finally, we note, as stated by APCO in comments filed previously in this proceeding, that any public safety agency that desires to protect the confidentiality of its communications can do so through the use of technology such as scrambling or encryption.
V. CONCLUSION
▪ 13. We hold that state and local laws that preclude the possession in vehicles or elsewhere of amateur radio service transceivers by amateur operators merely on the basis that the transceivers are capable of the reception of public safety, special emergency, or other radio service frequencies, the reception of which is not prohibited by federal law, are inconsistent with the federal objectives of facilitating and promoting the amateur radio service and, more fundamentally, with the federal interest in amateur operator's being able to transmit and receive on authorized amateur service frequencies. We therefore hold that such state and local laws are preempted by federal law.
▪ 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the request for a declaratory ruling filed by the ARRL IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and in all other respects IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton
Acting Secretary[/FONT]
▪ 8. There are three ways state and local laws may be preempted. First, Congress may expressly preempt the state or local law. Second, Congress may, through legislation, clearly indicate its intent to occupy the field of regulation, leaving "no room for the States to supplement." Last, and most important for this discussion,[/FONT]
- [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica][e]ven where Congress has not completely displaced state regulation in a specific area, state law [may be] nullified to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law. Such a conflict arises when "compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility,"...or when state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."[/FONT]
▪ 9. The amateur service is regulated extensively under Part 97 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 97. As we have stated in the past:[/FONT]
- [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica][T]here is...a strong federal interest in promoting amateur communications. Evidence of this interest may be found in the comprehensive set of rules that the Commission has adopted to regulate the amateur service.
Those rules set forth procedures for the licensing of stations and operators, frequency allocations, technical standards which amateur radio equipment must meet and operating practices which amateur operators must follow. We recognize the Amateur Radio Service as a voluntary, noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications. Moreover, the Amateur Radio Service provides a reservoir of trained operators, technicians and electronic experts who can be called on in times of national or local emergencies. By its nature, the Amateur Radio Service also provides the opportunity for individual operators to further international goodwill.[/FONT]
▪ 10. The strong federal interest in the preservation and advancement of the amateur service is also demonstrated by Congress's recent recognition of the goals of the amateur service in a "Sense of Congress" provision in which Congress strongly encouraged and supported the amateur service. Congress therein directed all Government agencies to take into account the valuable contribution of amateurs when considering actions affecting the amateur radio service. We believe that the strong federal interest in supporting the emergency services provided by amateurs cannot be fully accomplished unless amateur operators are free to own and operate their stations to the fullest extent permitted by their licenses and are not unreasonably hampered in their ability to transport their radio transmitting stations across state and local boundaries for purposes of transmitting and receiving on authorized frequencies. Indeed, as a result of advances in technology making smaller, lighter weight radios commercially available, the Commission has expressly amended its rules to facilitate and encourage unrestricted mobile amateur operations. As we noted in a recent rule making proceeding to modify the rules governing the amateur radio service,[/FONT]
- [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]In the age of the microprocessor and the integrated circuit [amateur] equipment is highly portable. It is common for amateur operators to carry hand-held transceivers capable of accessing many local repeaters in urban areas and also capable of reasonably good line-of-sight communication. It appears that the concept of fixed station operation no longer carries with it the same connotation it did previously. For this reason, we propose to delete current rules that relate to station operation away from the authorized fixed station location.[/FONT]
▪ 11. Against this background, we conclude that certain state and local laws, as described below, conflict with the Commission's regulatory scheme designed to promote a strong amateur radio service. Scanner laws that prohibit the use of transceivers that transmit and receive amateur frequencies because they also receive public safety, special emergency or other radio service frequencies frustrate most legitimate amateur service mobile operations through the threat of penalties such as fines and the confiscation of equipment. As noted by ARRL, virtually all modern amateur service equipment in use today can receive transmissions on the public safety and special emergency frequencies at issue, and the majority of amateur stations are operated in a mobile fashion. Consequently, the mobile operations of the vast majority of amateurs are affected by such laws. In addition, the record statements by amateurs that the costs would be substantial to modify existing transceivers are unchallenged. The scanner laws, then, essentially place the amateur operator in the position of either foregoing mobile operations by simply avoiding all use of the equipment in vehicles or other locations specified in the laws, or risking fines, or equipment confiscation. This very significant limitation on amateurs operating rights runs counter to the express policies of both Congress and the Commission to encourage and support amateur service operations, including mobile operations, and impermissibly encroaches on federal authority over amateur operators. It conflicts directly with the federal interest in amateur operators being able to transmit and receive on authorized amateur service frequencies.
▪ 12. For these reasons, we find it necessary to preempt state and local laws that effectively preclude the possession in vehicles or elsewhere of amateur service transceivers by amateur operators merely on the basis that the transceivers are capable of reception on public safety, special emergency, or other radio service frequencies, the reception of which is not prohibited by federal law. We find that, under current conditions and given the types of equipment available in the market today, such laws prevent amateur operators from using their mobile stations to the full extent permitted under the Commission's Rules and thus are in clear conflict with federal objectives of facilitating and promoting the Amateur Radio Service. We recognize the state law enforcement interest present here, and we do not suggest that state regulation in this area that reasonably attempts to accommodate amateur communications is preempted. This decision does not pertain to scanner laws narrowly tailored to the use of such radios, for example, for criminal ends such as to assist flight from law enforcement personnel. We will not, however, suggest the precise language that must be contained in state and local laws. We do find that state and local laws must not restrict the possession of amateur transceivers simply because they are capable of reception of public safety, special emergency or other radio service frequencies, the reception of which is not prohibited by federal law, and that a state or local permit scheme will not save from preemption an otherwise objectionable law. Finally, we note, as stated by APCO in comments filed previously in this proceeding, that any public safety agency that desires to protect the confidentiality of its communications can do so through the use of technology such as scrambling or encryption.
V. CONCLUSION
▪ 13. We hold that state and local laws that preclude the possession in vehicles or elsewhere of amateur radio service transceivers by amateur operators merely on the basis that the transceivers are capable of the reception of public safety, special emergency, or other radio service frequencies, the reception of which is not prohibited by federal law, are inconsistent with the federal objectives of facilitating and promoting the amateur radio service and, more fundamentally, with the federal interest in amateur operator's being able to transmit and receive on authorized amateur service frequencies. We therefore hold that such state and local laws are preempted by federal law.
▪ 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the request for a declaratory ruling filed by the ARRL IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and in all other respects IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton
Acting Secretary[/FONT]
Ok thank you for that. I guess I will print it out and carry a copy of it around with me.
Ian
Ian
- Status
