D
DaveNF2G
Guest
Hooray, somebody else who "gets it"!
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..
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 ... TOW TRUCK DRIVERS ... was not the intent of the law
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.
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..
A cell phone with a streaming app is not a receiver that can be placed on police frequencies by the user.
"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 $ $ $ $ $ $
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.
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.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.
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.
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).
And there is simply no way for the Legislature to regulate that.