scanstockton
Member
[p]I am not a lawyer, and I am not able to give legal advice, everything included in the posting is my interpretation of the Statues, and my opinions are not reflected to any of those parties to whom I linked to or reference acknowledgement through us of linking for credit of their work.[/p]
[h1 align="center"]Introduction[/h1]
[P]This is a response to the incident in Oakland California where individuals accused of a crime, and charged where found to be in possession of a cellular device, that was able to listen to police communications of the Oakland Police. [/P]
[P]In the State of California under §636.5 of CA it is illegal for use of such devices that intercepts communications or are passed along so that someone else can use them. While it is fact that Electronics Communications Privacy Act does explicitly state that it shall not be unlawful to listen to any public communications to include fire and police. ECPA is not enough protection nor would it shield us from any liability or prosecution that came from us providing readily accessible scanner information to the public, if the California law be found to, or defined as it being illegal. Technology keeps advancing, and the mere fact that we can put a stream on the Internet and it is available to world is impressive. We must consider or at least entertain the idea, that if just like in Oakland, even though IPhone has been known to have ability to be used as a scanner from around 2007, an article was written by Police.com discussing technology;The Oakland police department was able to capitalize by drawing attention, and acting as if they did not know this was available. This reflected on sites like RadioReference.com, and other such sites in negative light. This article stirred up a lot of debate, brought negative attention to scanning, and streaming. I believe that California law as written now, streaming scanners are a potential liability, were the mere fact we provide the stream, opens us to potentially becomming party to case in which our stream is/was used in a crime that was committed.[/P]
[h1 align="center"]Chapter 1.5. Invasion of Privacy[/h1][br]
[P]Cal Penal Code 636.5 as written seems very broad in scope, therefore this law could be applied very broadly, and this could create a problem for streaming scanner communications over the Internet. There are several statues that make streaming a scanner unlawful on their face using the plain meaning of each statue. The statues that cause the greatest concern are listed under CHAPTER 1.5. INVASION OF PRIVACY [A HREF="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638" title="click here to view the full statutory code" TARGET="_blank"][+][/A]. California codified the Statue based upon Electronics Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which consolidated with The Communications Act of 1934 [A HREF="http://grove-ent.com/LL-1934.html" Title="review the The Communications Act of 1934 "TARGET="_blank"][+][/A]. To be able to understand the Statue, we must first set a standard on how we apply or interpret the Statue. The best method of review when looking at the statue is in the meaning of the words, or plain meaning. According the U.S. Supreme Court in [CITE]Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917), "It is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain, and if the law is within the constitutional authority of the lawmaking body which passed it, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms." The Court further stated "if statutory language is plain and admits of no more than one meaning, the duty of interpretation does not arise".[A HREF="http://supreme.justia.com/us/242/470/case.html" TARGET="_blank"][+][/A][/I] [/CITE][/p][p]This writing only applies to the State of California, I am fully aware of the ECPA, and the federal laws that expressly permit through readily accessible device the interception of police and fire communications.[/p]
[h1 align="center"]Introduction[/h1]
[P]This is a response to the incident in Oakland California where individuals accused of a crime, and charged where found to be in possession of a cellular device, that was able to listen to police communications of the Oakland Police. [/P]
[P]In the State of California under §636.5 of CA it is illegal for use of such devices that intercepts communications or are passed along so that someone else can use them. While it is fact that Electronics Communications Privacy Act does explicitly state that it shall not be unlawful to listen to any public communications to include fire and police. ECPA is not enough protection nor would it shield us from any liability or prosecution that came from us providing readily accessible scanner information to the public, if the California law be found to, or defined as it being illegal. Technology keeps advancing, and the mere fact that we can put a stream on the Internet and it is available to world is impressive. We must consider or at least entertain the idea, that if just like in Oakland, even though IPhone has been known to have ability to be used as a scanner from around 2007, an article was written by Police.com discussing technology;The Oakland police department was able to capitalize by drawing attention, and acting as if they did not know this was available. This reflected on sites like RadioReference.com, and other such sites in negative light. This article stirred up a lot of debate, brought negative attention to scanning, and streaming. I believe that California law as written now, streaming scanners are a potential liability, were the mere fact we provide the stream, opens us to potentially becomming party to case in which our stream is/was used in a crime that was committed.[/P]
[h1 align="center"]Chapter 1.5. Invasion of Privacy[/h1][br]
California Statutory Discussion
[P]Cal Penal Code 636.5 as written seems very broad in scope, therefore this law could be applied very broadly, and this could create a problem for streaming scanner communications over the Internet. There are several statues that make streaming a scanner unlawful on their face using the plain meaning of each statue. The statues that cause the greatest concern are listed under CHAPTER 1.5. INVASION OF PRIVACY [A HREF="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638" title="click here to view the full statutory code" TARGET="_blank"][+][/A]. California codified the Statue based upon Electronics Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which consolidated with The Communications Act of 1934 [A HREF="http://grove-ent.com/LL-1934.html" Title="review the The Communications Act of 1934 "TARGET="_blank"][+][/A]. To be able to understand the Statue, we must first set a standard on how we apply or interpret the Statue. The best method of review when looking at the statue is in the meaning of the words, or plain meaning. According the U.S. Supreme Court in [CITE]Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917), "It is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain, and if the law is within the constitutional authority of the lawmaking body which passed it, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms." The Court further stated "if statutory language is plain and admits of no more than one meaning, the duty of interpretation does not arise".[A HREF="http://supreme.justia.com/us/242/470/case.html" TARGET="_blank"][+][/A][/I] [/CITE][/p][p]This writing only applies to the State of California, I am fully aware of the ECPA, and the federal laws that expressly permit through readily accessible device the interception of police and fire communications.[/p]
