What is up in Wytheville?

[n4jri]

The primary issue of this

I don't think that this is a matter of interference to Wytheville PD from a Wal-Mart FREQUENCY. I think that that this is a matter of transmitting on a police freq on a personal radio that had a Wal-Mart channel in it.

The search warrant affadavit states that the radio was capable of transmitting on WPD frequencies, and nothing that we've seen contradicts that. The defendent himself claims he did not know that the radio was modified--which appears to be an acknowledgement that the radio WAS modified. No one appears to be claiming that the radio was NOT transmitting on a police frequency--and let's not forget that forfeiture of three radios is part of this deal.

I've been to Wytheville a couple of times and the predominant freq seems to be the 154.785 [141.3]. Can't remember if I found the input, but have no reason to believe that a repeater that encodes CTCSS on the output would not decode it on the input.

It sounds to me like this was a situation where the local police got way out of their expertise, and this combined with the common practice of dismissing charges against first-offenders if they can muster a year of good behavior.

It would also be interesting to know if the FCC was consulted in any way, at any time in this process.

Musicman: Does the fact that this didn't get past General District Court mean that we can't get any technical specifics of the actual transmission or the actual modification?

73/Allen (N4JRI)

 

[W4UVV]

More to it

I don't think that this is a matter of interference to Wytheville PD from a Wal-Mart FREQUENCY. I think that that this is a matter of transmitting on a police freq on a personal radio that had a Wal-Mart channel in it.

The search warrant affadavit states that the radio was capable of transmitting on WPD frequencies, and nothing that we've seen contradicts that. The defendent himself claims he did not know that the radio was modified--which appears to be an acknowledgement that the radio WAS modified. No one appears to be claiming that the radio was NOT transmitting on a police frequency--and let's not forget that forfeiture of three radios is part of this deal.

I've been to Wytheville a couple of times and the predominant freq seems to be the 154.785 [141.3]. Can't remember if I found the input, but have no reason to believe that a repeater that encodes CTCSS on the output would not decode it on the input.

It sounds to me like this was a situation where the local police got way out of their expertise, and this combined with the common practice of dismissing charges against first-offenders if they can muster a year of good behavior.

It would also be interesting to know if the FCC was consulted in any way, at any time in this process.

Musicman: Does the fact that this didn't get past General District Court mean that we can't get any technical specifics of the actual transmission or the actual modification?

73/Allen (N4JRI)

After reading newspaper article post, you're correct about the subject radio used not being a Walmart radio. I read it to mean Walmart had given him permission to use his personal radio on the 154.5700 mhz. Walmart frequency. I suspect there are more facts to this incident than what has been published. If one radio only was the "offender" per an alleged "signature" then why are the police confiscating and keeping his other two radios?

If FCC assistance had been consulted and a field agent personally observed the interference and subsequently through DF identified this gentleman as the RFI source, then he would be cited for a "show cause" order why he should not pay probably a $10,000 fine and lose his amateur license. I haven't read anything about that happening.

I guess the cops didn't contact the FCC because they figured they knew who the "criminal" was probably by relating some of the "bleed over" interfering comms. to Walmart and could prosecute him under a state law faster than waiting for a FCC resolution.

Per the incident resolution, this appears to be another example of cops overreacting and using poor judgement.

 

[gcgrotz]

When I looked up that law, it was dated in the 90's. Not being a legislative exoert i suppose it could have been modified at that time so I'm not sure about it dating to WW2. I'm trying to find my state legislator at home sometime and inquire about it. It still potentially makes felons out of a lot of people, not just hams.