New Michigan Scanner Law passes MI House

Status
Not open for further replies.

markbajek

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2003
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Location
metro detroit
HB4544 has passed the house and is winging its way to the Senate.

The new law will criminalize the use of a scanner to commit a crime or use of the information received from a scanner to commit a crime.

(So don't commit a crime while in possession of your radio gear....that includes inside a dwelling too)

Below is a link to the text.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?age=getObject&objName=2005-HB-4544

Please contact the Michigan Senate to voice your opinions of the proposed changes to MCL750.508b if you wish.

It's not perfect........but it should do what MCL750.508 should have done close to 75 years ago. Criminalize criminal use of a lawful object.

Aside from MCL750.508 targeting the wrong people (US instead of criminal folk).

While its not passed yet........
Thanks to everyone who complied with the current provision of MCL750.508 and requested permits (in mass). This very well may have broken the camels back since a full time trooper position was required to
push paper.

Your current MSP permits may eventually become a collectors item.

Regards,

Mark Bajek
Westland, MI
 

BaLa

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
38
Location
4GRC+83; Temple, TX 76502
The new law will criminalize the use of a scanner to commit a crime or use of the information received from a scanner to commit a crime.
A lot of states have laws like that, I really don't see the point in that.

I guess if you get caught robbing a bank while in possesion of a scanner (for ex.) it's just another conviction to add.
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,380
Reaction score
6
Location
Lansing, MI
"A lot of states have laws like that, I really don't see the point in that."

Because as of today you are considered a criminal if you have a scanner in the car, even sitting disconnected in the trunk, unless you obtained a permit from the Michigan State Police.
 

BaLa

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
38
Location
4GRC+83; Temple, TX 76502
rdale said:
"A lot of states have laws like that, I really don't see the point in that."

Because as of today you are considered a criminal if you have a scanner in the car, even sitting disconnected in the trunk, unless you obtained a permit from the Michigan State Police.

somehow I missed the permit part.

But what is the point in that also?
except that the state gets some money for the permits. :roll:

I tried to read the whole text this time.
But I got an erorr.

Page Not Found
The page or document you have requested could not be found on MichiganLegislature.org.
 

John_M

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,485
Reaction score
0
Location
Rochester, N.Y.
I can go along with that law here in N.Y.S. Just don't encryp
all public safety just because a few instances where scanners are related to crimes. I would really like to to see some data showing instances where scanners were related to crimes. I haven't seen any data from N.Y.S. or any other state.

But, there is one reason not crime related for imposing a no
mobile scanner law. A mobile scanner makes it very easy for scanner listeners to go and investigate what they hear on the radio. Which is one thing the police/fire/ and EMS don't want you to do. Why some states
allow mobile scanners and others don't? I have no idea.
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,380
Reaction score
6
Location
Lansing, MI
"But what is the point in that also?"

Nobody really knows, that's why there is an attempt to change the law.

"except that the state gets some money for the permits."

The permits are free, so it actually costs the state for paperwork and mailings and record-keeping.
 

W4ELL

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
637
Reaction score
68
Location
Maryville, Tennessee
So this means that if you are pulled over for speeding and your scanner is in the car... you can be charged with this?

Sounds kinda scary to me.
 

Dubbin

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
4,462
Reaction score
1
Location
Findlay Ohio
Scanmikey said:
So this means that if you are pulled over for speeding and your scanner is in the car... you can be charged with this?

Sounds kinda scary to me.
Yes that is how it has been.
 

John_M

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,485
Reaction score
0
Location
Rochester, N.Y.
rdale said:
"But what is the point in that also?"

Nobody really knows, that's why there is an attempt to change the law.

"except that the state gets some money for the permits."

The permits are free, so it actually costs the state for paperwork and mailings and record-keeping.

Does the Michigan State Police do a background check on issueing
mobile scannner permits? Just interested.
 

JnglMassiv

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
856
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago / 016
I've been under the impression that using a scanner for the commission of a crime has always been criminal under Federal laws. Is this the case?
 

markbajek

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2003
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Location
metro detroit
Minor Traffic infractions don't count as crimes?

Scanmikey said:
So this means that if you are pulled over for speeding and your scanner is in the car... you can be charged with this?

Sounds kinda scary to me.

1)
UNTIL HB4544 changes the rules.......anyone without a mobile permit....is in danger (except hams and cops).under MCL750.508b.

2) Thanks for helping change this law.

I believe most traffic offenses are civil infractions (not crimes) so the new law should hold hobbyists harmless...if caught for casual speeding etc with a scanner. (The intent of this new law is to NOT punish hobbyists ).

Trespassing is a "crime" so railfans who park on or walk on rail road property to snap pictures of rolling stock need to take heed (the state's gunnin' for ya')

Generally MCL750.508b as it stands is a catch and release with warning law. It certainly does little to keep criminals from having a scanner in a car and made law abiding AWARE hobbyists jump through a needless paperwork hoop.

It for the most part held UNAWARE hobbyists in peril of a fine. I don't think any hobbyists ever went to jail (did time) specifically for violation of MCL750.508b. But the potential is there, hence the need for change. It certainly dropped a few fines here and there, caused some vehicle searches and some frisking now and again and possibly some wet pants.

The law has/had no provisions for confiscation of gear although a few counties( Berrien, Branch.) somehow thought it did.

In most instances you'd have incidental contact with the police. they'd see a scanner anywhere in the car and if that officer is aware that it's currently illegal to possess a radio of that type without a permit or other exemption.....they may investigate further and possibly arrest you for possession.

IT doesn't matter where that radio is in the vehicle , if it was on, Off , Blue, RED , Silver , in your trunk in your luggage, in the open . IF it has the capability to receive PSB....and it's discovered....you are potentially a criminal. IF it's in a motor vehicle without a permit.....start phoning your lawyer or AAA for bond money.


Or during a traffic stop on I-94 at 6 p.m., YOU may be asked if the officer can search your car.

Feeling you have absolutely nothing to hide and hoping that cooperation may yeild some lenency regarding your ticket....you consent to the search.

"Sure Officer, I have nothing to hide.....go ahead and search".

And while the officer is fishing......he finds a TURNED OFF hand held scanner lying on the floor of the backseat under a bag containing some whitecastle jalapeno cheesburger containers and a empty box of clam strips....and a losing mega millions lottery ticket. (You've just come back from a NASCAR event, or the Muskegon Air Fair and recently fueled up on some gut bombs ).

The first question the cop may ask is : " What's all this then?"
You may say (from the backseat of the patrol car) : "Oh, officer that's my lunch and a losing ticket"

"No I mean the scanner.....Don't you know it's illegal in Michigan to have a scanner in your car?"

"Really..????? Ummm, Gosh no officer.....I had no idea......since when?(nervously you pass wind)"

"Forever.......and Whew what's that smell?"

Pleading ignorance of the law and innocence regarding the odor worked in my case.(the flatuation was purely a natural defensive mechanism and not intentional) .....but....surely set off a hornets nest especially after the friskings. (BTW it was Taco Bell not white castle and the brand new Pro 92 was OFF on the front seat in plain view not the back seat and it was at 1 A.M. on a deserted country road on my way to Frankenmuth and I wasn't speeding.......just miles from home and suspect for being out of my neck of the woods. .)

A troubling law indeed....Certainly in need of change and redirection of target from hungry radio hobbyist with very high cholesterol numbers to truely opportunistic criminals risking a tossed salad.

I've only heard of a few times something like this happened.

The "sleeper" of the Alger 202 rest stop story, my experience near frankenmuth, some hams (one who was popped for drunk driving and the scanner law violation was just pile on, some experiences of volunteer firefighters, the odd ball trucker and out of state hunters with radio gear

....but the POTENTIAL along with the HUGE numbers of UNaware scannists in our midsts (NASCAR fans, vacationers etc) in peril due to shear ignorance of MCL750.508b and it's unconforming nature to other nearby states is why the initial 2000 movement to modify MCL750.508b started way back when without unintended consequences (Plan A aka one p'd off scannist)

(remember when Rep Kowall nearly got hams to have to request permits......that was a great time wasn't it! Law of unindended consequences.)

OR at the very least one goal was to publicize the current statute in communications magazines (billboard coverage) and via the internet (since many MI radio retailers weren't making their customers aware at the time of purchase, still aren't.). We the few AWARE hobbyists of Michigan in 2000 had to consider our fellow hobbyists.... first and foremost.

And the effort began to swamp MSP with requests for permits so they would on their own determine a change in policy was needed. (Plan b )

The radio community in Michigan sorta rallied around the idea of getting all known newbies permitted.....Identifying other current user bases (fire/ems) and asking that their members join in compliance. Their members being in great threat of penalty (daily usage) and informing their departments to get these folks permitted before harm came to them.

When the state raised the fine to $1000.00 in 2003....many fire departments made sure their volunteers and even their family members who used private vehicles equipped with radio gear were compliant.

Now you can't get on a Michigan based scanner BBS forum without permit questions popping up nearly every week. (how long, what's it cost, can anyone get it etc) And that is simply hobbyists trying to protect other hobbyists against harm since the law wasn't changing quickly. The requests for permits apparently kept MSP fairly busy.

Again thanks to everyone who applied, publicized and contacted the powers that be to get this law.....MODIFIED. It isn't perfect...and it isn't LAW YET............. so if you wish to change the proposed HB4544 please suggest changes to the MI Senate promptly.

Here's hoping this law works to everyone's satisfaction, our's and the state's....and doesn't cause blanket police questioning of persons wandering into a donut shop near you with a scanner on their hip .

Please Remember in Kentucky the officer is swarn to back his crown vic over your scanner....so You Michigan/Ohio NASCAR fans heading to Kentucky speedway..beware. Indiana.........NO scanners in public or vehicles, SD no scanners in cars, MN,NY no scanners in cars and florida.........NO police freqs programmed in to your scanners in cars...

Michigan may be changing.......but there's a few others above that need addressing and greatful Michigan scannists should support the efforts of other state radio hobbyists to help change their laws if requested.

Regards,

Mark Bajek
 

n1das

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
398
Location
Nashua, NH
How does Michigan and other states get around the "it shall NOT be unlawful" clause in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986? This is a FEDERAL law.

The "it shall NOT be unlawful" clause in ECPA'86 specifically states that it SHALL NOT BE UNLAWFUL to monitor police and other public safety radio transmissions. ECPA'86 is vague and doesn't specify which radio transmissions made by police shall not be unlawful to monitor. It also doesn't specify WHERE they can be monitored. The law very simply and explicitly states that it SHALL NOT BE UNLAWFUL to monitor them, period.

State scanner laws that prohibit WHERE (i.e., in vehicles) you can listen to a scanner based on WHAT (i.e., police radio transmissions) you are listening to are in direct conflict with federal law, since the state law's primary intent is to prohibit reception of police radio transmissions in vehicles by ordinary citizens.

If you read FCC 93-410, the Declaratory Ruling issued by the FCC in 1993 regarding pre-emption of state scanner laws for hams, you notice that it was narrowly worded to apply to a ham transceiver that has public safety freq reception coverage. It does NOT apply to scanners the way it reads. HOWEVER, there is a way around it. There's no legal requirement that says a ham transmitter and receiver in an amateur radio station MUST be part of the same piece of equipment, i.e., packaged as a "transceiver". The transmitter and reciever in an amateur radio station CAN BE ENTIRELY SEPARATE PIECES of equipment, and there can also be multiple transmitters and receivers. It's therefore not hard to prove that a scanner counts as a valid piece of ham equipment since it covers amateur radio service frequencies. Prohibiting scanners but exempting ham "transcievers" still conflicts with the operation of a licensed ham operator's station. If you study the legalese and how the FCC Commissioners arrived at their decision, you'll see that the same legal arguments could be applied to scanners used by licensed hams.

States may have grouped mobile scanner prohibitions in the state's Motor Vehicle Code to try to get around federal pre-emption issues. The Communications Act of 1934 is legally silent on the issue as it doesn't prohibit radio reception (it's not the FCC's department). The Act regulates who transmits, etc., and prohibits divulging/using contents of communications monitored if you're not the intended recipient but doesn't say what radio transmissions you must 'avoid' receiving. This may have left the door open for states to enact mobile scanner laws because no conflict existed at the time between state law and the Communications Act of 1934.

Now enter ECPA'86...the ill-conceived and commercially-serving federal law that helped the cell phone industry perpetuate commercially-serving lies about cell phone privacy. ECPA'86 contains the "it shall not be unlawful" clause originally put in the law to appease radio hobbyists and others who opposed ECPA'86 when Congress was considering it. The "it shall not be unlawful" clause specifically states that it shall NOT be unlawful to monitor radio transmissions made by police and other public safety agencies. Because of the wording of ECPA'86, a direct conflict now exists between federal law and state scanner laws regarding monitoring of police radio transmissions.

IMHO, it looks like there's grounds for federal pre-emption of state mobile scanner laws, regardless of whether or not you're a licensed ham operator. Codifying a state mobile scanner law under the state's motor vehicle code doesn't resolve the conflict with ECPA'86 either. Excellent lawsuit material in federal court, IMHO.

I'm not a lawyer, and these are just my opinions and $0.02 worth.


~ n1das
 

n1das

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
398
Location
Nashua, NH
Re: Minor Traffic infractions don't count as crimes?

markbajek said:
Please Remember in Kentucky the officer is swarn to back his crown vic over your scanner....so You Michigan/Ohio NASCAR fans heading to Kentucky speedway..beware. Indiana.........NO scanners in public or vehicles, SD no scanners in cars, MN,NY no scanners in cars and florida.........NO police freqs programmed in to your scanners in cars...

Michigan may be changing.......but there's a few others above that need addressing and greatful Michigan scannists should support the efforts of other state radio hobbyists to help change their laws if requested.

Regards,

Mark Bajek

States can't do this legally because they technically don't have jurisdiction over radio matters. It's federal territory. They can't do this without stepping on federal toes. This also directly conflicts with the "it shall not be unlawful" clause in ECPA'86.

Good lawsuit material in federal court, IMHO. Again, I'm not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be. These are just my opinions and $0.02 FWIW.


~ n1das
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top