Legality of RadioReference Live Audio Broadcasts and Archives

[zerg901]

LEX18 | Lexington, KY | News, Weather, Sports, Kentucky | Florida Woman Indicted for Sending Interstate Threatening Communications

I guess this is a indication (of sorts) of the federal interest in "interstate" communications. Peter sz

 

[Citywide173]

LEX18 | Lexington, KY | News, Weather, Sports, Kentucky | Florida Woman Indicted for Sending Interstate Threatening Communications

I guess this is a indication (of sorts) of the federal interest in "interstate" communications. Peter sz

That's a stretch....with regards to this topic.

1) The woman made threats, which is illegal at the state level in almost every jurisdiction I'm aware of

2) The woman did it over a telephone with her own voice, no streaming involved

2) The woman lives in Florida

3) The threats were received in Kentucky

4) Kentucky authorities have no jurisdiction in Florida, so to properly charge her, it had to be done at the Federal level.

That's the ONLY reason the Feds are involved in this. If all of it happened in Kentucky, you never would have heard of it. I'm sure once she's in Kentucky to appear on the Federal charges, the local officials will charge her under the state laws and it will all be transferred to the state level.

 

[mule1075]

i have been watching this thread since it came up and i just have one and yes only one thing to say or maybe two or could be three things to say.alot of good points have been brought up and alot of not so good points have been brought up also.it seems to me about every 3 months or so this subject comes up and the same he said she said is being told time and time again.this is my take on the point and please forgive me as my spelling is more than likely wrong and my punctuation is worse.why continue beating this dead horse every other month.lets just let it rest and see what happens.just a thought and sorry for the rant or me being disgruntled or whatever you want to call it.their is alot more to worry about out their than i cant here this or i cant do that or they are out to get me.just a thought.Adam

 

[zerg901]

Dave S - can you talk about federal laws vs state laws? State law enforcement vs federal law enforcement? (Maybe federal laws concern events with nationwide implications.)

If someone is distracted while driving in California while listening to a scanner feed from NY, in which court system should they file suit - California, NY, or federal? Peter Sz

 

[JoeyC]

If someone is distracted while driving in California while listening to a scanner feed from NY, in which court system should they file suit - California, NY, or federal? Peter Sz

File suit? How bout taking responsibilty for their own actions and drive instead of worrying about who to blame.

 

[zerg901]

I got to "confusing enough" and I stopped reading. Peter Sz

#
Law of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At both the federal and state levels, the law of the United States was .... Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), there is no general ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States - 16 hours ago - Cached - Similar
#
Preemption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Federal preemption, displacement of U.S. state law by U.S. Federal law; Federal preemption, displacement in the European Union of national law by the Law of ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption - Cached - Similar

 

[Citywide173]

If someone is distracted while driving in California while listening to a scanner feed from NY, in which court system should they file suit - California, NY, or federal? Peter Sz

I hope you're only trying to be a troll with this one....

This statement (at least by my interpretation) is saying that a person who is distracted by a scanner feed shouldn't be responsible, but the feed provider should. By that same reasoning, the person on the other end of a cell phone conversation is responsible when a person gets distracted while on the phone. If a person gets distracted while listening to talk radio (and yelling at the radio) and causes or gets into an accident, the talk radio show is responsible and charges should be brought wherever the show originates from. What if I get distracted driving in Attleboro, MA listening to my scanner BUT the transmission originates in Rhode Island?

Maybe you should get the opinion of the guy in Chicago that wants scanner listeners licensed, as it seems your thought processes are starting to parallel.

 

[talkpair]

I'm probably going out on a limb by saying this, but as long as there are "official feeds" being streamed here, it's going to be more difficult to build a case against an individual doing the same thing.

It would be nice if more agencies would stream directly.
Listeners could have access to the same signal quality as public safety.
Public safety could also block traffic of a sensitive nature.

 

[SCPD]

I'm probably going out on a limb by saying this, but as long as there are "official feeds" being streamed here, it's going to be more difficult to build a case against an individual doing the same thing.

It woul
d be nice if more agencies would stream directly.
Listeners could have access to the same signal quality as public safety.
Public safety could also block traffic of a sensitive nature.

I'll agree with this post!

 

[zerg901]

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AoX8tpb0l73sdHpram8zOGR1WGE4azZFRVRtRkN4dWc&hl=en#gid=0

Agencies with scanner feeds - updated May 2010

https://sites.google.com/site/scannerstorys/

List of good deeds done by scannerists

 

[blantonl]

Ok, I'm closing this thread now.

 

[texasemt13]

...now?

Sorry, I had to when I saw it wasn't closed yet.

 

[jmbrowning]

Civil liability for criminal misuse of feed

Nitpick: RadioReference.com LLC is not "incorporated". It's not a corporation. It's a "Limited Liability Company".

Perhaps (and this is, of course, just a wild-ass guess, with no intended offense to Lindsay) this LLC designation has something to do with RR's intransitive position on the subject. In Texas, Lindsay should be pretty-well shielded from personal liability for nearly all of the LLC's acts. Note that Lindsay has NOT recommended, anywhere in this thread, that any individual "streamers" are OK - he's only referred to RR's position with regard to RR's acts. EDIT: Lindsay has also not said that it is his personal position - just the position of the LLC.

I was thinking about providing a public safety feed on this website as I have an old scanner and a thin client lying around, but I may reconsider now.

I was wondering why Radioreference had been organized as an LLC, which is designed to limit civil claims to the assets of the LLC itself rather than the principals running it.

With the widespread popularity of scanner feed listening on mobile phones, I could see how it might be claimed to be used in the commission of a crime. If a link is proven by subpoena of IP records from radioreference and the mobile service provider of the criminal, this might open the provider of the feed and Radioreference to civil liability for the crime (a couple hundred bucks for a car stereo, but who knows for wrongful death). As Radioreference has limited its "deep pockets" by LLC structure, the next obvious target would be the scanner feed broadcaster.

Especially given the sticky nature of this thread in a forum for broadcasters, I think it would be hard for any scanner feed broadcaster to be able to claim that there are no legitimate questions regarding the legality of broadcasting scanner feeds.

I certainly hope that the above scenario of civil litigation never plays out for any current or future feed broadcaster, but I do not put it beyond possibility that such legal action might be executed just in the hopes of obtaining some easy settlement money from a scanner Joe.

 

[SCPD]

Here is are a few questions (Let me re-fill my coffee and I'll ask it them)

A: In some states the use of a Scanner in a Car is illegal - So how does a Mobile scanner app on a phone fit into this? or does it?

B: In some states use of a scanner by a convicted felon is a crime - Is this the same for a scanner app on a phone?

C: Tactical activity and Surveillance Activity is commonly "in the clear" to the public - Do we not air these out of a common courtesy to our Undercover folks?

D: If a new 911 occurred in the US and it was found that the foreign or Domestic Terrorist used devices which aired these feeds and allowed them to carry out their attacks - What would, or how would Radio Reference defend itself and / or its VOLUNTEER PROVIDERS?

This probably won't get a good answer as the thread was closed - I didn't notice that till after the post. whoops.

 

[ibagli]

A: In some states the use of a Scanner in a Car is illegal - So how does a Mobile scanner app on a phone fit into this? or does it?

B: In some states use of a scanner by a convicted felon is a crime - Is this the same for a scanner app on a phone?

I imagine that would depend on the individual law. Indiana's law refers to radios that are "capable of sending or receiving signals transmitted on frequencies assigned by the Federal Communications Commission for police emergency purposes." A mobile scanner app on a phone clearly doesn't do that. Rhode Island's law bans use by a convicted criminal of an "operational police radio, police scanner, or any other device capable of monitoring police broadcasts." Does a phone "monitor police broadcasts"? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[usswood]

I imagine that would depend on the individual law. Indiana's law refers to radios that are "capable of sending or receiving signals transmitted on frequencies assigned by the Federal Communications Commission for police emergency purposes." A mobile scanner app on a phone clearly doesn't do that. Rhode Island's law bans use by a convicted criminal of an "operational police radio, police scanner, or any other device capable of monitoring police broadcasts." Does a phone "monitor police broadcasts"? Maybe, maybe not.

I would think in Indiana (where I'm from) you could be charged, as the law says "capable of sending OR receiving signals...the key word there is OR, in which the phone running an app would now be capable of Receiving signals....doesn't say that you had to be in control of those signals your receiving...only that you are receiving those signals...

 

[SCPD]

And the fact that the wording doesn't say that it has to stop at receiving them on the scanner. Anywhere else you move that audio has "received" the signals!

 

[ibagli]

I would think in Indiana (where I'm from) you could be charged, as the law says "capable of sending OR receiving signals...the key word there is OR, in which the phone running an app would now be capable of Receiving signals....doesn't say that you had to be in control of those signals your receiving...only that you are receiving those signals...

But it's not receiving any "signals transmitted on frequencies assigned by the Federal Communications Commission for police emergency purposes." I suppose it could hinge on the definition of "signal." Is a signal that induces a phone to produce a waveform similar to what a police officer's radio would produce the same as the signal that was transmitted on the police frequency? I don't see how it could be, seeing as how it's on a different frequency, coming from a different location, and modulated totally differently, but my opinion probably isn't that relevant to a judge in Indiana.

It would be interesting if it was covered, though, because Indiana bans even the possession outside of a dwelling or place of business of anything considered a "police radio" by the law.* If a mobile phone with a scanner app counts as a "police radio," then it's illegal to possess a phone on which such an application could be installed (anything that's "capable" of receiving such signals and isn't designed solely for use in a residence is a prohibited "police radio").

*Of course, there's the nebulous exemption for "a person who possesses or uses a police radio during the normal course of the person's lawful business."

 

[DaveNF2G]

Indiana cannot enforce any such restriction against possession of cellphones. There is a clear doctrine of federal preemption in effect for mobile telephones.

 

[SCPD]

Here's a possible twist on the Indiana law quoted above.

A number of laws add additional penalties if a crime is committed while possessing a scanner. Imagine driving into Indiana, say from Mishawaka to South Bend, and getting a speeding ticket. You weren't talking or texting on your fancy smart phone, but because of one app installed on your smart phone, you get a higher fine.

Some of these absurd sounding examples are a strong sign that the underlying law is wrong. In this case, Indiana citizens bear the responsibility to do something.

Off topic warning: I'm surprised we haven't seen a crowd source distributed smart phone app for reporting speed traps with GPS precision.