New York's Highest Court Says Possession of Handheld Scanner in Vehicle Violates VTL

Status
Not open for further replies.

Prospect62

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
95
Location
Oneida County, NY
The ignorance in this thread is absolutely immeasurable. Lots of Johnny Law Degree types or people with their own little ax to grind.

The law is the law is the law guys. You cannot carry a radio capable of receiving police frequencies unless you're a police/peace officer and you're acting pursuant to your duties, i.e. doing something official. You can't...you just can't. That's what the law says. Full stop. The end. Does that include cell phones? Yep, sure does...if you wanna push the legal definitions. It's a misdemeanor. Are you gonna get dragged out of your car and into the station in cuffs? Not unless you're displaying the attitude exhibited in this thread, you won't. What you MIGHT get is an appearance ticket and that's a BIG "might". I think the intent of this law back in the old days was to target the old time bad guys who would grab a scanner and stake out a bank or a retail place to burglarize and wait until they knew the cops were busy to hit it. Even today, some criminals use scanners to further their cause. This law exists to make it easier for the police to hold and question them, and I'm sure that was the original intent. As I said above, technically speaking this law makes anyone with cell phone and a scanner app guilty of a misdemeanor.

Stopping and harassing radio nerds, nozzle-knockers, TOW TRUCK DRIVERS or just curious citizens was not the intent of the law and in MOST cases, it simply doesn't happen. Tow truck driver's can be salty, and I'm sure the tow truck driver in this court case dished out enough salt to get the Trooper to issue the final f*ck you to him.

If you don't like the law, contact a state legislator. I am of the sincere belief that this law needs to be revisited by the legislature and the focus narrowed significantly, especially with the advent of cell phones and the progression of public safety communications. The technology is simply too expansive to cover with a law this vaguely written. The language needs to be narrowed and defined better, if nothing else to avoid conflicts between police, EMS, fire, tow trucks, HAMS and others who are using these radios for GOOD and not BAD.

Conversely, badmouthing "bored" jerk cops who are looking through the VTL in search of a "big bust" is the most despicable rubbish I have ever heard and it reminds me of why I don't come here much anymore.
 
Last edited:
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
The ignorance in this thread is absolutely immeasurable. Lots of Johnny Law Degree types or people with their own little ax to grind.

The law is the law is the law guys. You cannot carry a radio capable of receiving police frequencies unless you're a police/peace officer and you're acting pursuant to your duties, i.e. doing something official. You can't...you just can't. That's what the law says. Full stop. The end. Does that include cell phones? Yep, sure does..

Nope, sorry. Cell phones are in a separate provision of law.

I think the intent of this law back in the old days was to target the old time bad guys who would grab a scanner and stake out a bank or a retail place to burglarize and wait until they knew the cops were busy to hit it. Even today, some criminals use scanners to further their cause. This law exists to make it easier for the police to hold and question them, and I'm sure that was the original intent.

Your opinion. Which is incorrect. The original intent was to stop tow truck operators from racing each other to accident scenes and injuring others while doing so.

As I said above, technically speaking this law makes anyone with cell phone and a scanner app guilty of a misdemeanor.

No, it does not. This is not just a legal opinion, but a technical one. A cell phone with a streaming app is not a receiver that can be placed on police frequencies by the user. A cell phone does not contain any receivers that operate anywhere other than the cell bands, GPS and/or FM broadcast.

Stopping and harassing ... TOW TRUCK DRIVERS ... was not the intent of the law

Wrong. I researched the history of this law about 12 years ago. Tow truck drivers were the intended target.
 

ten13

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
646
Location
ten13
Cell phones, and the appropriate app, were discussed in the oral arguments in court.

Although the Bench brought up the topic of cell phones, it was not pursued, or part of the Decision. There will have to be another "arrest" to bring this point up for a final decision (but don't bet on it).

This DMV law was initially brought up much earlier that 12 years ago. Perhaps as far back as the 1940s. The legislative intent was criminals, not tow truck drivers.

As Prospect say, yes, you are subject to arrest. As a practical matter, discretion is the by-word. Sitting around your car at the local ice cream stand during the summer with the local police blaring from your car may not be the wisest thing to do.

As I've said earlier, the upstate NY crowd will have to have this address in one of two ways: get your local town administration to have permits issued, or seek out your state legislature to amend the law to carve out a few exemptions.

It would be a shame if some hillbilly cop in upstate NY decided to break someone's chops, someone who belongs to a volunteer ambulance corps or FD, and make an issue out of this just to get his rocks off.

Don't get caught short. Act now.
 

RadioDitch

Signals Identification Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
3,074
Location
All over the map.
The ignorance in this thread is absolutely immeasurable. Lots of Johnny Law Degree types or people with their own little ax to grind.

The law is the law is the law guys. You cannot carry a radio capable of receiving police frequencies unless you're a police/peace officer and you're acting pursuant to your duties, i.e. doing something official. You can't...you just can't. That's what the law says. Full stop. The end.

I agree there's a lot of misinformation and ignorance. And while I don't have a law degree, I'm trained in communications law as part of my job. So here's the simplied factual summary.

No, you cannot possess a radio capable of receiving police communications if you are not a police officer/peace officer actively involved in the performance of your duties. The one and only exception, per federal determination superseding New York law, is an FCC licensed ham radio operator utilizing an FCC approved Part 97 radio capable of wideband receive. That means a ham radio, not a scanner.

That's what the law says. Full stop. The end.
 
Last edited:
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
This DMV law was initially brought up much earlier that 12 years ago. Perhaps as far back as the 1940s. The legislative intent was criminals, not tow truck drivers..

To clarify the history:

The scanner law was originally enacted in 1933 as section 1916 of the Penal Law. It was moved to the V&T in 1965 and was last amended in 1980 (when the definitions of police officer and peace officer were clarified in state law).

Excerpts from my 2005 monograph:

"Letters written in support of this law and of some later amendments indicate that the legislative intent was to prevent criminals from compromising modern methods of police work involving radio patrol cars either by monitoring police activities in hopes of evading apprehension or by causing interference by jamming police communications.14

"The State Police complained about tow truck operators engaging in dangerous races to crash scenes after overhearing police dispatches in their trucks.15

"The so-called “ham exemption” excluding federally licensed amateur radio operators from Penal Law Section 1916 was added in 1948.16

"Amateur radio operators and clubs writing in support of the amendment referred to arrests of amateur operators by police officers who were unaware of the extent of the rights and privileges granted with FCC licenses.17"

14 Letter from the Comm. on Criminal Courts, Charity Org. Soc’y, City of New York, Apr. 17, 1933, Bill Jacket, L 1933, ch 405, at 11 (copy on file with author).

15 Letter from Sup’t of the N.Y. State Police, Feb. 26, 1948, Bill Jacket, L 1948, ch 183, at 14 (copy on file with author).

16 1948 N.Y. Laws 183.

17 Letter from the New York (City) Radio Club, Feb. 28, 1948, Bill Jacket, L 1948, ch 183, at 17 (copy on file with author).
 

Prospect62

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
95
Location
Oneida County, NY
A cell phone with a streaming app is not a receiver that can be placed on police frequencies by the user.

But it's a "radio capable of receiving signals on the frequencies allocated for police use". It can receive the signals which are on the frequency. It (your phone) doesn't do it the same way a normal radio would go about receiving them, but it can receive them nonetheless. The law does not specify that the receiver be "placed on" police frequencies...only that it be capable of hearing the signals on the frequency. So it's in violation of the law. Your argument would be great fodder for a defense attorney though. Like "ten13" said, it remains to be clarified by the courts. But to say that I'm wrong is...wrong.

You're partially right on tow truck drivers - but according to your own citation:

"Letters written in support of this law and of some later amendments indicate that the legislative intent was to prevent criminals from compromising modern methods of police work involving radio patrol cars either by monitoring police activities in hopes of evading apprehension or by causing interference by jamming police communications.14 "

The fact that the State Police later complained about tow truck drivers is secondary. Therefore you can't say that my statement about the intent of the law is "my opinion", let alone that my opinion is incorrect. The intent of the legislation (originally) was pertaining to criminal activity, and rightly so.

DaveNF2G you obviously have done your homework on this subject but you're making a ton of assumptions, too - many of which are not proven. You certainly have no grounds to say that anything I said was incorrect. The bottom line here is whether the police officer can reasonably justify his/her enforcement action when encountering someone listening in on police signals or possessing a device capable of doing so. If the average Officer catches you listening or it's found you listened in on police signals to further a crime or violation, he won't care HOW your cell phone does it. Neither will a judge or juror.
 

ipfd320

Member
Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
751
Location
W.Babylon N.Y. 11704
Im Just Tossing this Out There--as for the Talk on a Cell Phone--It is Actually is a Receiver it also Txmitts on a Wireless Frequency

Your Cell is Actually a 2 way Radio if You Think About It--It Uses a Frequency i/e 800 mhz / 2.4 gig and so on--So Listening to a Stream being Txmitted by Airwaves to the Phone which is Now the Receiver

I Actually Think this can be Argued in Court as for the Outcome ? No One on Here will Know Unless you the Lucky One to be in Front of the Judge
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
6,859
"tow trucks equipped with police radios for the purpose of securing towing business at [the] scene of automobile accidents."

Jumping calls. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that illegal? I've heard about taxi companies doing the same. They will listen in on other cab companies; get the location of the pickup and take their customer from them. I would think that's illegal. Same as the tow truck responding to an accident. He wasn't called there. He was jumping the call to make $ $ $ $ $ $

They should enact a law that makes the tow and storage free if the tow company is not the one from rotation listed on the police report. Also the tow driver should be charged with auto theft. That would end this quickly.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
If you have a scanner or radar detector mounted permanently what are you supposed to do remove them when you go through NY? Come on!
 

ipfd320

Member
Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
751
Location
W.Babylon N.Y. 11704
It was a free for all in the 80,s to the mid 90,s with the chase trucks in ny--especially queens & brooklyn---i dispatched for a collision company in brooklyn overnites when the accident rate was high on the weekends--back then the cops didnt care just as long as the roadway was cleared up--let me tell you most of the time the chase trucks caused more wrecks for their companies to profit from---yes there was alot of hit and runs with pedestrians some fatal-but that chasing finally came to a halt real quick as the statistics went up--the company i worked for 1 of our drivers Fatally tagged a pedestrian and it was game over for the companys tags
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
Lazarus, come on out!

The solution to call jumping is already available in federal law. They just need to get the feds to prosecute for violation of section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 - utilizing intercepted signals for personal gain.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
But it's a "radio capable of receiving signals on the frequencies allocated for police use". It can receive the signals which are on the frequency.

The most obvious interpretation, consistent with the original intent, excludes a cellphone from the definition because it is not receiving signals on police frequencies. It is receiving signals on cellular phone frequencies. However, you correctly point out that judges and juries can be somewhat creative in interpreting statutes at the trial level.

Another argument that might fly is that most police communications are on Public Safety Pool frequencies because the FCC no longer uses the old allocations. (Actually, the old types are in Part 90, so it is a weak argument.) However, NY does not have a specific offense for actually monitoring police communications from a motor vehicle. The statute only prohibits the hardware that can be used to do so.
 

FDNY216

Was JETBLUE1424
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
379
The politicians do as they please the dems

I do what I want the 🔥 with them and the judges to
 

ten13

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
646
Location
ten13
LISTEN TO THE ORAL ARGUMENTS OF THIS CASE: "cell phones" as scanners were only mentioned in passing by the Court and the Defense attorney, but the Court purposely dropped that point immediately, knowing that bringing in an item that EVERYONE carries with them is an open invitation to police abuse...or ignorance.

But if YOU want to be the test case in NYS for cell phones used as police receivers, then make sure the scanner app is on while stopped for a light next to a police car with all your windows open, and the phone hooked up to the car's speaker system.

Then we'll all have the final answer.

Otherwise, don't mention it, bring it up in conversation, or advertise the fact, and use discretion (also known as "acting maturely") while listening and traveling.
 

Theo

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
242
Location
New Port Richey, FL
Cell phones, and the appropriate app, were discussed in the oral arguments in court.

Although the Bench brought up the topic of cell phones, it was not pursued, or part of the Decision. There will have to be another "arrest" to bring this point up for a final decision (but don't bet on it).

This DMV law was initially brought up much earlier that 12 years ago. Perhaps as far back as the 1940s. The legislative intent was criminals, not tow truck drivers.

As Prospect say, yes, you are subject to arrest. As a practical matter, discretion is the by-word. Sitting around your car at the local ice cream stand during the summer with the local police blaring from your car may not be the wisest thing to do.

As I've said earlier, the upstate NY crowd will have to have this address in one of two ways: get your local town administration to have permits issued, or seek out your state legislature to amend the law to carve out a few exemptions.

It would be a shame if some hillbilly cop in upstate NY decided to break someone's chops, someone who belongs to a volunteer ambulance corps or FD, and make an issue out of this just to get his rocks off.

Don't get caught short. Act now.
Back in the 80's the local PD issued a permit for me to have a scanner in my car because I was a line officer in the FD. In the 90's the PD said it was no longer necessary to have a permit. Now in 2018 things may have changed because like you said it's discretion of the PD whatever agency if you prove your in the FD I'm sure they will look the other way.
 

Hans13

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
995
Otherwise, don't mention it, bring it up in conversation, or advertise the fact, and use discretion (also known as "acting maturely") while listening and traveling.

That could also be viewed as sneak around, act like a slave, and would not be knows as "acting maturely" but rather acting like a criminal.
 

scosgt

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
1,295
The Appellate Division of the NYS Supreme Court is not "New York's highest court."

The decision in this case is only binding within the judicial district covered by the First Department (Bronx and Manhattan).

WRONG
It was the Court of Appeals.
AND
It is a misdemeanor, NOT a Felony
 

scosgt

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
1,295
I read through this entire thread just to see if ANYONE was paying attention.
NEGATIVE-K

This case was ONLY about the Accusatory Instrument, which was dismissed in the Appellate Term.
The case had not yet gone to trial (and probably did not, he was probably given a plea to a violation).
This opinion MERELY reinstated the Accusatory Instrument, which then sends the case forward. It could still fall on a bad search or other grounds.
OR, the driver might be acquitted at trial.
If convicted, he would still have a right to appeal!

Now in my opinion, the cellphone stuff was interesting. If that ever comes to pass, aside from the technical aspects of the question (a cellphone does NOT receive Police Frequencies, any more than a standard building fire control PA system receives AM radio - but you can play one through it, that does not make it a radio!) the Waze comparison is ripe for argument. By using Waze, you can then see where Police roadblocks and speed traps are set up, the SAME as listening to a scanner.
And there is simply no way for the Legislature to regulate that.
Which makes a great argument for trial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top