Legal use of scanner in vehicle

[del1964]

I have a question and it may have already been asked but as a live feed provider, I have noticed a lot of cell phone apps are now carrying scanner feeds as a way to listen to ..........a scanner.........is this considered against the law and how in the world could you enforce it? I could carry a scanner in my car and get in trouble but be listening to my live feed on a cell phone and no one would know. Anyways, makes me wonder if that's part of the reason while it seems agencies are leaning towards encrypting their communications......hmmmmm Law enforcement probably isn't even aware of it......oops....

 

[usswood]

Cell apps are letting people circumvent the LAW...so easy to listen and if you get pulled over, just turn the app off and the LEO hasn't a clue...this will be one of the MAIN reasons for ENCRYPTION...nothing else

 

[rdale]

usswood is telling a late April Fool's joke, so completely ignore what he said. Everything.

Anyways, you are completely legal listening on a cellphone using an app.

 

[usswood]

usswood is telling a late April Fool's joke, so completely ignore what he said. Everything.

Anyways, you are completely legal listening on a cellphone using an app.

Im not going to argue with you bout INDIANA LAW rdale...STAY IN MICHIGAN

I would ignore someone who is not a resident of this STATE on matters of this STATE

all it takes is someone to pull up to a State trooper and try it...let him hear SAFE-T on your phone and see what he does...

subsection C says it all

(c) As used in this section, "police radio" means a radio that is capable of sending or receiving signals transmitted on frequencies assigned by the Federal Communications Commission for police emergency purposes and that:
(1) can be installed, maintained, or operated in a vehicle; or
(2) can be operated while it is being carried by an individual.
The term does not include a radio designed for use only in a dwelling.

notice that is says capable of sending OR receiving signals....I believe a cellphone is in the receiving category

 

[rdale]

I would ignore someone who is not a resident of this STATE on matters of this STATE

I was a resident of your state for quite a few years. Thankfully the ability to read and comprehend the English language crosses the state line still.

notice that is says capable of sending OR receiving signals

"a radio that is capable of sending or receiving signals transmitted on frequencies assigned by the Federal Communications Commission for police emergency purposes"

If you read the whole sentence, it says that the radio must be able to send or receive signals that the FCC allocated to police communications. No cell phone now, or ever, is capable of doing that. Therefore this does not apply.

I believe a cellphone is in the receiving category

I know (and believe) that you are complete wrong.

When you say that these apps are the main reason for encryption, it just makes you look worse. Hurry up and edit that out before others see...

 

[jerk]

Then there is Nextel... same exact band as Safe-T
which is swapping frequencies with Safe-T

no dog in this fight... just saying

 

[rdale]

There shouldn't be a fight in the first place

 

[usswood]

all im saying is an app turns the phone into something other than a phone when the app is running...whole purpose for the app, make the phone do something a normal phone won't do...I would bet this could be turned into a gray area that might take a lot of money to an attorney to prove other wise if something was to happen to someone in that position...IE Caught with there phone app broadcasting H MA 1 or ILEEN .....

I understand OR as being either......something that can Transmitt....OR something that can recieve...as we all know there are things that will TRANSMIT and RECEIVE...and there are things that will RECIEVE only....the LEOs I know feel that scanners are not police radios per say because they don't transmitt...but they do RECEIVE and that is covered by the LAW...just ask how many people that have had scanners taken from them over the years for just receiving and not transmitting...

Rdale...you also seem to think if you belittle someone they will run and hide from you....NOT ME SON....I run from NO MAN, and I FEAR NO MAN...say all you want, but your words mean little when your view is so narrow

and if you didnt know this also...a bill was introduced in the state Senate to amend the scanner law to include electronic devices to make sure they took out the gray area with phone apps and other devices...don't know how far it went, but obviously lawmakers understand what is going on also with phone Apps http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/IN/IN0377.1.html

Which will be the leading cause for ENC like I SAID....

 

[AK9R]

As much as I hate to wade into this...but I own a Motorola Droid and I occasionally run DroidLive to listen to scanner feeds, so I guess have a dog in this hunt.

all im saying is an app turns the phone into something other than a phone when the app is running...

Separate in your mind the medium from the message. In this case, the message is the content of the police transmissions. The medium that originally carried the message was the police radio system where the message was broadcast. Someone running a live feed connected to their scanner transferred that message to a new medium, the Internet. Someone running an app on their phone then caused that message to be transferred to yet another medium, the cell phone frequencies that their cell phone provider uses. The message may still be the same, but the medium certainly isn't.

The app does not turn your phone into something other than a phone. It is still a phone and it is still only receiving data via the cell provider's medium (or via the Internet, in the case of a Wi-Fi connected phone). The app does not magically make the phone a device capable of receiving the medium used to broadcast police calls.

Yes, I can make my Droid receive police calls, the message, but I cannot make my Droid receive police frequencies, the medium. The law specifically refers to devices that can receive police frequencies and my Droid or your iPhone cannot do that.

Senate Bill 377 seems to carefully skirt this issue by only addressing possession of an "electronic listening device" while committing a crime. The wording seems to recognize that they can't make my Droid or your iPhone illegal simply because it can receive the message...as long as we don't do it will committing a crime or to avoid detection. Note that SB 377 did not make it out of committee. Apparently, the committee members did not feel the bill had merit.

 

[usswood]

As much as I hate to wade into this...but I own a Motorola Droid and I occasionally run DroidLive to listen to scanner feeds, so I guess have a dog in this hunt.


Separate in your mind the medium from the message. In this case, the message is the content of the police transmissions. The medium that originally carried the message was the police radio system where the message was broadcast. Someone running a live feed connected to their scanner transferred that message to a new medium, the Internet. Someone running an app on their phone then caused that message to be transferred to yet another medium, the cell phone frequencies that their cell phone provider uses. The message may still be the same, but the medium certainly isn't.

The app does not turn your phone into something other than a phone. It is still a phone and it is still only receiving data via the cell provider's medium (or via the Internet, in the case of a Wi-Fi connected phone). The app does not magically make the phone a device capable of receiving the medium used to broadcast police calls.

Yes, I can make my Droid receive police calls, the message, but I cannot make my Droid receive police frequencies, the medium. The law specifically refers to devices that can receive police frequencies and my Droid or your iPhone cannot do that.

very good W9RXR...that is a very well thought out and explained point and would possible persuade a jury of your peers, however, I'm not sure if that would be an argument an LEO would understand if a person was put in that position...an arrest is a possibility and then a lengthly (expensive) court battle would follow...but I do understand your positions which is why someone felt they needed to amend Indiana Law to take that gray area out...

Senate Bill 377 seems to carefully skirt this issue by only addressing possession of an "electronic listening device" while committing a crime. The wording seems to recognize that they can't make my Droid or your iPhone illegal simply because it can receive the message...as long as we don't do it will committing a crime or to avoid detection. Note that SB 377 did not make it out of committee. Apparently, the committee members did not feel the bill had merit.

also...the avoid detection could be construed as something as simple as trying to avoid traffic enforcement...RIGHT??

again good point unlike some who just say NO its not that way cause I can read....

 

[del1964]

I had a feeling this thread would spark a heated discussion... Guess we'll have to wait and see how it turns out. I do strongly believe that many many people will begin to subscribe to these wireless internet apps for Facebook and this and that and yes a few will learn about these live scanner feeds as primarily a means to just know what's going on around them such as "Why are those police cars zooming around me?" or just hundreds of reasons to just want to know what's going on.
The greatest benefit to someone with a cell phone and no interest in buying a scanner or learning how to program it that they can still get that listening ability that a lot of people want but are afraid to take the leap and invest in a scanner and all that comes with that.

I sorta feel a little cheated in a way because this is a hobby that I've been involved with all my life that takes a bit of work to learn with how to get the frequencies and program them in the scanner in the first place, etc, etc.

 

[AK9R]

also...the avoid detection could be construed as something as simple as trying to avoid traffic enforcement...RIGHT??

Violating a traffic law is an offense under Indiana Code. Not as serious as murder, rape, or armed robbery, but an offense nonetheless.

SB 377 could be interpreted as prohibiting traffic radar detectors, too. They've been illegal in some states for many years.

 

[rdale]

Rdale...you also seem to think if you belittle someone they will run and hide from you....

No one is belittling you - just pointing out when you are wrong. If you wrote 2+2=3 on your math test in school, the teacher was belittling you when she marked it incorrect.

You said a cellphone can be considered a police radio under the law, and it cannot.

You said that online streaming will cause systems to be encrypted, and it is not the reason.

Nothing personal.

 

[Viper43]

Simple fix: 1: obey the law 2: get a HAM license.....

I have both a ham license and media credentials, been stopped a few times but never once did I get asked about the scanners or laptop mounted in the car. They didn't even ask for my ham license let alone drivers license

 

[JacobInIndy]

In my line of work, I am monitoring two to three scanners in my car at all times. Two of which are mounted right on top of the dash, in plain sight. I have never been pulled over in my work vehicle, but I have pulled up next to police, scanners blaring, with the windows open...never had a problem.

Now whether they just assumed anyone with that much radio equipment in their car is media, or they didn't care to pull me over to check, I don't know. My car is unmarked.

My thought is, yes, the phone app could cost you a lengthy court battle over semantics and wording and police frequencies vs. cell phone frequencies, etc. A police officer can write you up for violating the law and let the court handle it, if he sees fit.

It's a risk that, in my eyes, is pretty low.

 

[rbecker1963]

The one thing that never seems to get any mention in these debates is the Fact that we pay for all of it. Every bit of Gov't Spending is on our backs. There has been such an arrogance for so many years by those in Government and Law Enforcement. Take for example the Cruiser going 90 MPH to a court hearing. Who pays for that fuel?

When it comes to surveillance and protecting the Public, I'm okay with some encryption, however, WE PAY FOR EVERYTHING, we'll decide what is and what isn't. And we do that with the only remedy we have left; Voting. If you voted for some idiot, don't complain. If you didn't vote at all; don't complain. I'm so fed up with the Holier Than Thou attitude of Government.

Some cop gives you the business and you know they're wrong, fight it. I'll pitch in to that legal fund. Fight it because they're able to do what they do because of ordinary citizens like us. Just like 1776. No different. Citizens shed the blood, not the other way around. We need to stop being so candy assed. My 2 cents.

Happy Easter.

 

[usswood]

The one thing that never seems to get any mention in these debates is the Fact that we pay for all of it. Every bit of Gov't Spending is on our backs. There has been such an arrogance for so many years by those in Government and Law Enforcement. Take for example the Cruiser going 90 MPH to a court hearing. Who pays for that fuel?

When it comes to surveillance and protecting the Public, I'm okay with some encryption, however, WE PAY FOR EVERYTHING, we'll decide what is and what isn't. And we do that with the only remedy we have left; Voting. If you voted for some idiot, don't complain. If you didn't vote at all; don't complain. I'm so fed up with the Holier Than Thou attitude of Government.

Some cop gives you the business and you know they're wrong, fight it. I'll pitch in to that legal fund. Fight it because they're able to do what they do because of ordinary citizens like us. Just like 1776. No different. Citizens shed the blood, not the other way around. We need to stop being so candy assed. My 2 cents.

almost exactly as I feel!!!!

 

[usswood]

I have been told twice now, by City and State that I'm not allowed to possess a scanner in my vehicle, not once have I been asked if I was a member of the media or a licensed HAM....when I pointed out that I was a licensed HAM and therefore exempt from the LAW, City officers couldn't believe that until I told them to do what they had to do and we will go from there. (they didn't do anything after that). State seemed ok after I told him about the exemption and then showed him my HAM license

 

[Viper43]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8520/4.6.1.314 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

I would say your problem comes down to ATTITUDE and that's why the city gives you a hard time. I go to TH a lot and never had an issue with the LEO there or anywhere else in the state.
Heck I don't have problems in Ky either and they are famous for confiscating scanners even from hams!

 

[GTO_04]

and if you didnt know this also...a bill was introduced in the state Senate to amend the scanner law to include electronic devices to make sure they took out the gray area with phone apps and other devices...don't know how far it went, but obviously lawmakers understand what is going on also with phone Apps Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0377

I missed this one. How did you find out about it? I missed it on the general assembly website. What was it listed under in the subject listing?

GTO_04