recent SCOTUS decision against "unreasonable"criminal forfeitures and FCC NALs

Status
Not open for further replies.

needairtime

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
383
Location
CO, USA
Anyone following this, and what this means for FCC NALs?
While for regular crimes, like if someone is caught with some illegal drug, I agree with the recent ruling that the car they found the drugs in should not be forfeited, that doesn't make sense.

However if someone is caught transmitting without a license and interfering with licensed use, or if someone is using a non-part 95 Baofeng on GMRS frequencies, should the NALs include the confiscation of the equipment? What should the consequences/fines be to deter interference of licensed use?

Obviously putting someone in jail for radio interference is unreasonable, it doesn't fit the crime at all. But taking equipment away will at least slow down further interference, it does somewhat fit the crime? With the recent ruling, can out-of-license transmit only be fined with a monetary penalty but not equipment confiscation?
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
It is completely reasonable for the FCC to remove a radio from an offender's possession in order to prevent further violations.
 

bchappuie

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
162
Location
Olathe, Kansas
I'm prng pretty sure there's gonna have to be lots of discussion to determine what is unreasonable. The original suit was local police seized a guys $42K car in a drug arrest and he and the ACLU claimed it was unreasonable. It's been known for long time local law enforcment depend on seizures from drug arrest to fund their budgets. They seem to make seizures and keep it even when no crime has been determined or charged. As long as FCC doesn't go off their historic NAL's and fines,it should be OK. Ultimatly a judge somewhere will have to make the determination.
 

AK9R

Lead Wiki Manager and almost an Awesome Moderator
Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
9,293
Location
Central Indiana
Link to New York Times article: Supreme Court Limits Police Powers to Seize Private Property

Link to U.S. Supreme Court ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

However, this recent SCOTUS decision refers to the power of cities and states to levy fines and seize property. It says nothing about the power of an agency of the Federal government to levy fines or seize property. Therefore, to answer the OP's question, it would seem that this SCOTUS ruling will have no impact on FCC NALs.
 

needairtime

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
383
Location
CO, USA
Yeah, the SCOTUS ruling is not directly related to the FCC - but it does set a sort of precedent. I don't know what exactly the rules are currently in terms of penalty when someone breaks FCC rules but now people may end up citing the drug case when they are found interfering -- which would be bad for us who are doing things legally.

Again the long hard question is that it's tough to gauge the loss when someone gets interfered by someone else. What is reasonable?

I'm all for the status quo (i.e. seizure of equipment that is found to interfere with others) but if someone challenges federal with this ruling, this could be more headaches for the rest of us.
 

wa8pyr

Technischer Guru
Staff member
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
6,982
Location
Ohio
Link to New York Times article: Supreme Court Limits Police Powers to Seize Private Property

Link to U.S. Supreme Court ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf

However, this recent SCOTUS decision refers to the power of cities and states to levy fines and seize property. It says nothing about the power of an agency of the Federal government to levy fines or seize property. Therefore, to answer the OP's question, it would seem that this SCOTUS ruling will have no impact on FCC NALs.

The Court had previously affirmed that the Eighth Amendment limits the ability of the federal government to seize property. This most recent decision affirms that limitation applies to state and local governments as well under the 14th Amendment.

So the Feds have already been covered under a previous decision by the Supremes.
 

Golay

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
494
What I like about the SCOTUS decision is that municipalities can no longer come up with exorbitant fees for hams to erect ham towers, or excessive building code variances.
 

bharvey2

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
1,842
If I understand the ruling property ( I haven't read it but have only heard snippets from a few lawyers ) The case in point is a bit different than an FCC NAL. In the case specified in the SCOTUS decision, the documented fine for the particular crime was $10K. Had the defendant been fined just $10K in cash, it wouldn't have been an issue. However, since the value of his vehicle was over $40K, the penalty rises to the level of excessive based on the previously determined penalty. My understanding was that it was proven that the vehicle was not purchased with ill-gotten gains (rather it's been documented that is was legitimately purchased with some sort of inheritance funds) and therefore forfeiture rules didn't apply. Since FCC violations have pre-established penalties assigned (both monetary and hardware forfeiture) I don't think that will fall under this ruling. However, If the FCC decided they want your car or house too, I think that would fall under this ruling. Though not related, I hope they get a case regarding asset forfeiture without due process which I find far more egregious.
 

WPXS472

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
226
Location
Heflin, AL
Interesting stuff. It is good to see that the notorious RBG is still writing opinions. As I understand it, if the DEA were to find someone growing marijuana on my farm without my knowledge or consent, they could seize my farm, and I would have no recourse. I don't think this ruling would affect that. Things have gotten a little out of hand.
 

wa8pyr

Technischer Guru
Staff member
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
6,982
Location
Ohio
What I like about the SCOTUS decision is that municipalities can no longer come up with exorbitant fees for hams to erect ham towers, or excessive building code variances.

This decision doesn't have anything to do with such fees; the recent SCOTUS decision forbids state and local governments imposing excessive forfeiture penalties in a situation where an individual's property is confiscated due to criminal acts. For example. . . you get busted for doing 35 in a 25 zone, the fine is $100, and the court orders your car (worth $10,000 or 100 times the original fine) confiscated.
 

needairtime

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
383
Location
CO, USA
Okay, now it makes a bit more sense though what got me is that interference, especially against other hams, technically should not have a financial impact because we should have no pecuniary interest in the communication. However for using it for emergency responses, there is a "opportunity cost" where lives could be lost... but that's less of a chance of getting interfered as that's a random event versus say a net at a specific time...

Because there is no financial impact, getting ones equipment confiscated seems "excessive" ... but if there is a specific "do this and you get this fine" list somewhere (which also seems a bit nebulous as the more watts/more spur noise power you do, the more potential harm you do), then this isn't really as applicable as I thought.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
On a side note, the current asset forfeiture rules are based on a legal principle called "guilty property".
 

needairtime

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
383
Location
CO, USA
Speaking of these interferers, if they interfere on HF, their VHF/UHF gear are off limits, or is their PTT finger and their mouth fair game?
 

zz0468

QRT
Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
6,034
If this decision paves the way to put W6WBJ in prison for his crimes I'm all for it. I wonder if the death penalty will ever be considered for amateur jammers like WBJ?

Back when Jack Gerritsen was being a problem I kept hearing rumors about some hams planning to take take him out. The source I heard them from had a direct line to FCC/DOJ people who had serious concerns something was going to happen.

You'll never see a capitol case for jamming, but I think it's just a matter of time before we have street justice occur. We damn nearly did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top