Senate proposes amendment to VAT Section 397

[DaveNF2G]

In the first legislative action involving Section 397 in several years, the State Senate has introduced S.6166, a bill proposing to add DHSES employees to the exemption from the mobile police receiver ban.

The bill is now in the Transportation Committee.

 

[kb4mdz]

Hate to ask you to re-hash old news, but since I haven't lived in the Empire State for a whole bunch o' years, can you expand on this a little bit? What group is DHSES? What is the basic provision of this addition?

 

[APX8000]

This was hard:
LMGTFY


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ant9270]

I’ve never heard or personally have seen someone be fined or charged with a misdemeanor charge for having a scanner/portable in the Vehicle. Sure, I’ve seen guys on the job judge people for it, and check to see if the unit transmits. But most guys “On The Job” don’t want to be bothered with the paperwork and everything that comes with it. Of course, this is just my PERSONAL experience but I’m sure people have had their stones broken PLENTY of times. Makes sense DHSES employees will be exempt.. They are after all an integral part of Public Safety in a disaster.

 

[KC2zZe]

It would make better sense to repeal the section in it's entirety. At the very least replace it with wording similar to what's contained in New Jersey's equivalent of the VTL...banning possession in a vehicle while the vehicle is being used during the commission of a crime.

 

[ten13]

I’ve never heard or personally have seen someone be fined or charged with a misdemeanor charge for having a scanner/portable in the Vehicle.

Maybe you'd had better read this:

https://forums.radioreference.com/t...dheld-scanner-in-vehicle-violates-vtl.362867/

 

[esu78]

that worked

NYS Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Services - OIEC

This was hard:
LMGTFY


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ant9270]

Maybe you'd had better read this:

https://forums.radioreference.com/t...dheld-scanner-in-vehicle-violates-vtl.362867/

Precisely why I said PERSONALLY

 

[chrismol1]

It would make better sense to repeal the section in it's entirety. At the very least replace it with wording similar to what's contained in New Jersey's equivalent of the VTL...banning possession in a vehicle while the vehicle is being used during the commission of a crime.

There already is a penal code section for using a scanner in commission of a crime. This VTL is an ambulance chasers/tow truck restriction probably originated in big city NYC

I really wonder how this all started I'm gonna say some DHS employee was probably mouthing off to a trooper and got a ticket

 

[SteveC0625]

I really wonder how this all started I'm gonna say some DHS employee was probably mouthing off to a trooper and got a ticket

NYS V&TL 397 has been around for several decades. We argued about it back on the 1970’s, same debate as today. DHS did not exist prior to 2001.

But I do suspect that it originated in NYC as you suggest. Much of the absurd law in this state comes from down there.

 

[chrismol1]

As you say its been around for decades, I'm asking what brings about the change now. What became the problem that the solution was to amend it to exempt NY DHSES employees. Im making the assumption somewhere along the line someone in the DHSES office came upon this problem with someone who could write a ticket for it ie a cop

 

[SteveC0625]

As you say its been around for decades, I'm asking what brings about the change now. What became the problem that the solution was to amend it to exempt NY DHSES employees. Im making the assumption somewhere along the line someone in the DHSES office came upon this problem with someone who could write a ticket for it ie a cop

No hard fact, but I suspect that DHSES is flexing its muscle now that they have absorbed a number of agencies like State Fire and the Oriskany training facility. Clears the way for DHSES employees, regardless of specific agency, to have loaded radios in their personal vehicles.

Your hypothesis for the change is reasonable and likely correct.

 

[DaveNF2G]

It should be noted that every proposed amendment has died in committee, even the ones to exempt firefighters, EMTs and paramedics. It will be interesting to see if DHSES has enough "muscle" to move this bill anywhere.

 

[W2ZXN]

It should be noted that every proposed amendment has died in committee, even the ones to exempt firefighters, EMTs and paramedics. It will be interesting to see if DHSES has enough "muscle" to move this bill anywhere.

Truth of the matter is that DHSES can be called up to mobilize with little notice, so in order to be prepared, it makes sense that they carry “loaded” radios, scanners and such. Realistically, that is likely true of a lot of radio repair vendors as well, who could also be charged under the law.

 

[DaveNF2G]

As noted in the article linked above, a radio repair tech near Albany was harassed by local police for having a portable that had been consigned to him for repair. However, his contract with the police agency that owned the portable was evidence that he was not in violation. As noted several times in the article, local police tend to jump people for activity that they think is illegal.

 

[ten13]

Apparently, a tow truck driver was PERSONALLY found guilty of having, in his possession, a police radio...

a tow truck operator who had a scanner in his pocket violated section 397 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (originally enacted in 1933), which prohibits "equipping" a motor vehicle with a radio

 

[ten13]

As noted several times in the article, local police tend to jump people for activity that they think is illegal.

Correct, which is something that many here seem to want to ignore, or are too naïve to accept.

And with reports, as above, that the state legislature seems uninterested in bringing the VTL up to date to accept all the "interoperability" that has been advocated and put into place by other, unknowing, politicians, the only other way of becoming compliant, as discussed elsewhere, is to go to your LOCAL town council to discuss the radio "permits" which are discussed in the VTL. Unfortunately, they may get some resistance from the local police chief, who thinks he's the king of his kingdom, and talk the local council out of it.

It's interesting that the vast majority of "emergency" and "first responders" in NYS outside of NYC are volunteers. And while all these out-for-themselves politicians will heap praise on the vollies for their votes, when it comes to "walking the walk" instead of just "talking the talk," they are absent. Despite all the advances in emergency communications, they still expect all these vollies to be notified by some type of "phone chain" rather than grant them legal access to modern communications hardware. And when the idea of having access to communications devices comes up, their tune changes to, "Nah...they're all psychos....they'll be showing up at cop runs and getting themselves hurt or interfering with the cops....," and the topic is dropped.

It really is disgraceful.

 

[APX8000]

As noted in the article linked above, a radio repair tech near Albany was harassed by local police for having a portable that had been consigned to him for repair. However, his contract with the police agency that owned the portable was evidence that he was not in violation. As noted several times in the article, local police tend to jump people for activity that they think is illegal.

I take exception with your use of “harass” and “think.” Since you are a CJ professor, maybe “investigative” and “verify” would be more appropriate. While I do not see the article you are referencing, it sounds to me the subject had a police radio in his possession. Such possession would justify an investigative detention to ascertain if a violation of law occurred. Once it was verified that his company had a contract with said police agency, he was released.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[W2ZXN]

I’m glad I’m not the only one who is not seeing the same article. I also have a hard time with the wording. I was once pulled over by a Trooper for “suspicion of not wearing a seatbelt” which was suspect to me as I was driving on a dark road at 9:30 at night. That trooper believed that my ham radio could be some kind of police radio, in spite of the fact that it didn’t have a single public safety frequency in it. When I presented my valid amateur radio license to the trooper and attempted to explain what it was, the trooper threw the license back in the car. That trooper then ran my license in his vehicle and came back to advise me that scanners are not allowed and that he was sure that is what it was. He claimed I was lucky that the DMV was down and threatened to arrest me if he saw me driving in his area with an antenna on my car. I didn’t argue. I just went home, printed section 397 and wrote letters to NYSP Oneida - Troop D HQ. While I was irritated about the event, I later worked with that Trooper. And while he was a tool, not all of them were/are like that. And I refused to think differently about law enforcement as a group or as a whole due to a bad egg here or there. My favorite phrase is “there’s always one” and it’s true of just about everything!

 

[DaveNF2G]

I take exception with your use of “harass” and “think.” Since you are a CJ professor, maybe “investigative” and “verify” would be more appropriate. While I do not see the article you are referencing, it sounds to me the subject had a police radio in his possession. Such possession would justify an investigative detention to ascertain if a violation of law occurred. Once it was verified that his company had a contract with said police agency, he was released.

Yes, I have a degree in Criminal Justice. I also have experience and contacts. I know things.

One of the things I know is that theory is great in the classroom but tends to fall apart on the street.

Cops do in fact "harass" people because of what they "think" about things. Not all of them. But some of us are not at all surprised to read cases (including events described in court cases) or see videos of real cops not working according to theory.