-> I don't know how much clearer it can be:
-> -> EXCLUSIVELY ALLOCATED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  TO
-> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
-> -> DULY LICENSED RADIO AMATEURS.
-> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
-> ->
-> It states that we are allowed to only listen to frequencies allocated
-> hams, not business, not fire, not police not cell or anything else.
It doesn't say what we CAN listen to, it only says if you're not a ham
you can't have "a radio receiving set capable of receiving signals on
the frequencies allocated for police use."
It then says ham frequencies have to be in the radio and it has to be
associated with a (ham) transmitter. It doesn't say once it meets those
conditions, the receiver can't contain other frequencies.
Also there is no prohibition in the law against monitoring anything
other than "frequencies allocated for police use." Fire, business,
weather, etc. would apparently be OK within the limits of the ECPA.
Then there's also the issue of why the local authorities would be
looking at the radio to start with. There's still an issue of probable
cause. The mere presence of radios in a vehicle does not likely
constitute probable cause nor a legal search unless the universally
search every vehicle with any radio equipment in it. If you start
chasing police calls and showing up at crime scenes, that's another
story.
Would I personally challenge the law, no. Back in my pre-ham days, when
I used to have a scanner in the car, it was trunk mounted and remote
controlled to avoid problems. I didn't chase calls anyway.
-> Besides, when was the last time the court allowed in favor of the
-> citizen, verses finding in favor of the regulatory agency?
Wasn't there a case recently down South where an overzealous local cop
seized somebody's ham gear and was required to return it? I agree it's
rare, but it does happen. The problem is (and the courts have
recognized) is that most cops aren't qualified to make that
determination. In the cases of ham equipment, local authorities probably
lack the authority to seize it.
-> Also, this is not endorsement or even acceptance of the law, only
-> a statement of fact.
I'm not suggesting anybody violate or challenge the law either. The
"facts" are very gray and subject to interpretation.
Ben
N2YDM
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------