FCC admits it cannot search your home

[Sonwatcher]

Yeah, I had my suspicions from the start. That's ok. Gave something to do during the rain storm

 

[EDUK8TR]

Like I said before. Where is the link to the original information.:headbang If it doesn't exsist then the line cast has hooked a bunch and reeled them in.:blink:

 

[Shioda]

Transcript will be done next week, and then posted.

 

[Shioda]

What woman is that ? If it was what was said to be stated by Laura Smith it is the same thing the FCC site states. I hadn't heard she lost her job nor have I read an account of her statement other than what was posted in the first thread.

She did not lose her job, she still works for the FCC. She just gave a deposition. She was forced to admit that the FCC does not have the power to do a warrantless search or to seize any equipment without a warrant. Otherwise, the FCC would be deemed to have "police powers" and would be subject to a malicious prosecution lawsuit for some of the actions the FCC has taken.

 

[Sonwatcher]

Then I guess someone legally challenged what was stated in the article ?

 

[Shioda]

Came up in a lawsuit involving the FCC on an unreleated matter. There was no challenge, per se, to the FCC's authority to search in that lawsuit.

 

[StomperX]

This might be a stupid question. Would this imply on vehicles, too? I do apologize if it is.

 

[dudmuck]

This might be a stupid question. Would this imply on vehicles, too? I do apologize if it is.

It is not a stupid question. It is answered here Motor vehicle exception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But the question would be whether radio equipment in a vehicle would qualify as contraband.

 

[Moleculo]

I can't wait to see this transcript.

 

[C W Morse]

I believe I understand the rationale for this. The whole reason is to find a "loophole" to prevent enforcement when it comes to illegal radio stuff, and we are seeing two different things. First off, FCC has NEVER been able to arbitrarily demand to come into your house for a FULL search of your house; I don't think anything has changed there. What they WILL do, and rules of Part 95 require YOU to do, is to PERMIT inspection of your CB radio station (or broadcast TV station, FM radio station, commercial, marine, or amateur station). And they will ASK you to permit such inspection as the rules require you to do. The basis for THIS is, you are voluntarily agreeing to abide by ALL the rules of Part 95 which CLEARLY requires you to submit to inpection. FCC never could FORCE themselves into your house and they WON'T!!!!! They will ASK you to permit the inspection AND YOU MAY REFUSE TO ALLOW THE AGENT INTO YOUR HOUSE (OR CAR). BUT, you CLEARLY AGREED to not ONLY abide to ALL of Part 95, you also AGREED to permit INSPECTION by the ACT of transmit-ting. You may REFUSE to permit the agent to enter. But you will get FINED NOT for not allowing a SEARCH of your house, but FOR FAILURE TO ABIDE BY PART 95 WHICH STATES THAT YOU MUST ALLOW INSPECTION. IMHO, it is not Constitutional search and seizure amendments that are at issue here, it is the fact that you are required by regulations to permit inspection of your CB station and, because you do not HAVE to have a CB as part of your "rights", you can simply.......well, not have a CB transmitter in your house! You don't HAVE to have a driver's license or own a car. If you ain't DRIVING, you can't get a ticket! If you've got no CB, you can't be required to submit to a station inspection.
I ain't no lawyer, but it's just an opinion of the logic behind it. To me, it's TWO different things.


CWM

 

[Moleculo]

CWM, this thread stemmed from an earlier one that was based on a recent article in WIRED magazine where the FCC claimed that they had the right to inspect any home that had any type of wireless device: i.e. baby monitor, cordless phones, etc. This wasn't even mentioned in context of part 95 or any of the ham/cb laws. That's what the beef is. As you can imagine, it raised a lot of eyebrows, not just in the radio community.

 

[C W Morse]

I understand. And it has likely opened up a can of worms FCC didn't intend. It does make for a curious mix where the rule the FCC applies now originated in the days before "license-less" devices. The licensee of a private, land-mobile system is likely accepting and understanding he has an obligation to accept inspection of his licensed station whereas the general public treats the current crop of "license-less" devices as consumer gadgets that are a part of everyday life. To him, it is an appliance no different from a steam iron. He has no idea (maybe) how it works, and the idea that he might be asked to allow an FCC agent into his home...............well, it carries a whole new meaning just as confusing as it is often to the license-less (well, actually a CB IS licensed) CB operator who has never read Part 95. WHUT? I don't need no stinkin' license!!!"

Most of these gadgets and "hickeys" fall under Part 15. How many consumers ever bother to READ the label. Probably not many.

With respect to the Land Mobile rules, I see the inspection requirement as an entirely different animal that has no bearing on Constitutional Law. IMHO, it is two separate things.

73

CWM

 

[C2]

CWM, you'd make an excellent bible thumper...

It could be extrememly satisfying for you too. Fisrtly, the scriptures immediatly apply to everyone, not just a select group, and you could ram them down every passerby's throat on sight. Secondly, divinity is even more powerful than the FCC.

 

[C W Morse]

CWM, you'd make an excellent bible thumper...

It could be extrememly satisfying for you too. Fisrtly, the scriptures immediatly apply to everyone, not just a select group, and you could ram them down every passerby's throat on sight. Secondly, divinity is even more powerful than the FCC.

What in the WORLD are you talking about? I thought I 'explained' my opinion as clear as mud! I just don't see the the brouhaha over this.
FCC has NEVER been able to just bull their way into your house without a warrant. They are NOT police officers. They will ASK you to permit an inspection of your radio station as Part 95 requires. Now, whether you "agree" with this or not, you AGREED to abide by PART 95, Title 47, US Code by the very ACT of keying your transmitter which overtly signifies your willingness to obey those rules. It is YOUR own responsibility to READ those rules; they aren't going to do it FOR you. Now, again, FCC agents cannot FORCE themselves into your home without a warrant. They will ask you to PERMIT the inspection of your radio equipment AND YOU MAY REFUSE TO ALLOW THEM INTO YOUR HOME. There is NO Constitutional issue involved here. You have exercized your rights in that respect. BUT.
The "catch" is, it is the refusal to allow inspection that will trigger a fine. Its just that the equipment happens to be in your house or car. You CAN refuse to let a police officer search your car if they suspect drugs, but they will detain you until the drug dog sniffs it out. If the dog
reacts, then they can enter your vehicle. THAT's part of the law, too.


Inspection IS part of the requirement for being allowed the privilege of operating a transmitter. So it is the REFUSAL to allow said inspection that caused the fine, a violation of Part 95, that triggers the fine, NOT the fact you didn't let them in your house as per Search and Seizure. They ASKED to inspect. They DIDN'T come in (without permission). You violated Part 95 by refusal. They fined based on that refusal. The FCC NOF won't SAY
"due to failure to permit ENTRY", but, FAILURE TO PERMIT INSPECTION!

Having a transmitter to enable or enhance "free speech" is NOT a "right"; that's been established in previous case law. People have already tried to squirm out of inspection/fines and the precedents have already been established

To me, (and it is simply an opinion) the two issues are not related. I KNOW what you are trying to achieve by wrapping up in the Constitution. So far, it's been tried quite a few times! When there's smoke, there's fire, and those who try to avoid inspection make me wonder what they are hiding! LOL! I'm not worried about "the MAN":drool:! He wants to visit my shack, he can come right in cuz I've nothing illegal to hide.



CWM

 

[Robb]

See? Now this is the 'catch 22' of this situation?
They really don't need to see your station - they have already gathered ALL of the tech data that they could possibly want or need with their state-of-the-art equipment that we have all paid for.

Q: So - why would they need to see the gear and your station?
ANS: They don't; they want the visual confirmation to make their case solid.

Q: By refusing to let them in - would that mean automatic license cancellation?
ANS: IF you are a Ham - yes; because you violated part 95 of the license agreement.

If you are a CB operator - no. You have no license to begin with and allowing them to see your station permits them to have visual confirmation of their digital/RF findings. So - don't allow them unless they have a warrant. Because you must if they do have a warrant.

Better than that - just keep your station legal - if a Ham. But if you are a CBer with a linear that bleeds over your neighbor's toaster - then you can expect a visit. If they get a visual confirmation - it is a good as a confession by the fact that you allowed them in.

Distinctions, distinctions, distinctions...