• You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
  • Click here to find out how to win free radios from Retevis!

Once again, CB Operator Mistakenly refuses Inspection!

Status
Not open for further replies.

C W Morse

Active Member
Apr 3, 2005
1,022
12
48
Retired
Another operator has received a $7,000 fine for refusing to allow FCC agents to inspect his station.
******************************************






Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554


)

In the Matter of )

Donald Winton ) File Number: EB-07-HU-007

Licensee of Citizen Band Radio ) NAL/Acct. No.: 200732540003
Station
) FRN: 0016201386
Corpus Christi, Texas
)

)


FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted: July 10, 2007 Released: July 12, 2007

By the Regional Director, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we issue a monetary forfeiture in
the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to Donald Winton for
willful violation of Section 95.426(a) of the Commission's Rules. The
noted violation involves Mr. Winton's failure to make his CB radio
station available for inspection.

II. BACKGROUND

2. On February 21, 2007, in response to a complaint that a CB radio
station in Corpus Christi, Texas was jamming communications on CB
channel 19 by continually re-broadcasting the programming of a local
AM broadcast station, an agent from the Commission's Houston Office of
the Enforcement Bureau ("Houston Office") monitored communications on
CB channel 19 in the Corpus Christi area. The agent observed a radio
signal on CB channel 19 re-broadcasting the programming of a local AM
broadcast station; and using radio direction finding techniques
determined that the signal originated from an antenna mounted on a
house in Corpus Christi, Texas.

3. Still on February 21, 2007, while the agent was making measurements on
the radio signal from the CB radio station, Donald Winton exited the
house and walked down the driveway. The agent introduced himself as an
FCC agent, and requested to inspect the CB radio station inside the
house. Mr. Winton confirmed this location was his residence and that
the CB station belonged to him, but refused to make the station
available for inspection. The agent advised Mr. Winton that the
Commission's Rules require the operator of a CB radio station to make
the station available for inspection. Mr. Winton still refused to make
the station available for inspection. The agent then requested that
Mr. Winton go inside and take the station off the air because it was
blocking communications on CB radio channel 19. Mr. Winton walked into
the house and the station's transmissions ceased. Mr. Winton returned
and continued to refuse to make the station available for inspection,
so the agent left the area.

4. On April 23, 2007, the Houston Office issued a Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture to Mr. Winton in the amount of seven thousand
dollars ($7,000), for the apparent willful violation of Section 301 of
the Act. Mr. Winton submitted a response to the NAL requesting a
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

III. DISCUSSION

5. The proposed forfeiture amounts in this case was assessed in
accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, ("Act") Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules
to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997),
recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement").
In examining Mr. Winton's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires
that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances,
extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator,
the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to
pay, and other such matters as justice may require.

6. Section 95.426(a) requires that if an authorized FCC representative
requests to inspect your CB station, you must make your station and
records available for inspection. Section 303(n) of the Act authorizes
the Commission to inspect all radio installations associated with
stations ... which the Commission has by rule has authorized to
operate without a license. Mr. Winton admitted to an agent from the
Houston Office that he had a CB radio station within his residence. In
addition, Mr. Winton demonstrated he had access to and control of the
station by entering his residence and turning the transmitter off,
while the agent waited outside. On February 21, 2007, in response to
several requests by agent to inspect his station, Mr. Winton refused
to make his CB station available for inspection. Based on the evidence
before us, we find that on February 21, 2007, Mr. Winton willfully
violated Section 95.426(a) of the Rules by refusing to allow an
inspection of his CB station.

7. In response to the NAL, Mr. Winton asserts that his CB transmitter was
not on when the agent arrived, and that, if it was on, it must have
been operated by homeless people, whom he allows access to his home.
He claims that he did not allow the agent access to his home, because
the agent did not have a warrant and because he was concerned that his
dogs might injure the agent. Finally, he states that he was not aware
of any of the Commission's Rules governing CB radios.

8. We do not find Mr. Winton's response to the NAL persuasive. It is
irrelevant whether the CB transmitter was on or whether homeless
people were operating it when the agent requested to inspect Mr.
Winton's CB station. In his response to the NAL, Mr. Winton admits
that the CB transmitter was his property. He also admits that he
refused to provide the agent access to his CB station located in his
residence. Section 303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426(a) of the
Rules authorize inspection of all CB stations by the Commission.
Accordingly, agents are not required to obtain a warrant to inspect a
CB station. The agent informed Mr. Winton of these provisions when he
requested to inspect the station. Moreover, if Mr. Winton was
concerned about the agent's safety, he should have confined his dogs
to a separate room, prior to allowing the agent to inspect his CB
station, rather than refusing the inspection.

9. Finally, Mr. Winton asserts that a $7,000 forfeiture would produce a
financial hardship and requests that the forfeiture be cancelled or
significantly reduced. However, Mr. Winton failed to submit sufficient
documentation regarding his finances. Accordingly, we are unable to
determine whether a reduction based on inability to pay is warranted
and deny his request for reduction of the proposed forfeiture.

10. We have examined Mr. Winton's response to the NAL pursuant to the
statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy
Statement. As a result of our review, we find no basis for
cancellation or reduction of the $7,000 forfeiture proposed for this
violation.

IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and
1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Donald Winton IS LIABLE FOR A
MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000)
for violation of Section 95.426(a) of the Act.

12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case
may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant
to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made
by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No.
and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O.
Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may
be sent to Mellon Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670,
Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA
Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account
number 911-6106. Requests for full payment under an installment plan
should be sent to: Associate Managing Director, Financial Operations,
445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.

13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First
Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Donald Winton at
his address of record.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Dennis P. Carlton

Regional Director, South Central Region

Enforcement Bureau

47 C.F.R. S: 95.426(a).

Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200732540003
(Enf. Bur., Houston Office, April 23, 2007) ("NAL").

47 U.S.C. S: 503(b).

47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

47 C.F.R. S: 95.426(a).

47 U.S.C. S: 303(n).

Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1), which applies to
violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the
Act, provides that "[t]he term `willful,' ... means the conscious and
deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent
to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the
Commission authorized by this Act ...." See Southern California
Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).

However, Mr. Winton has no explanation for how the agents used direction
finding techniques to locate the source of the signal on CB Channel 19 to
his residence or how they were able to observe the signal right before he
came out of his house.

Although Mr. Winton was informed of Section 95.426 of the Rules, because
Mr. Winton consciously refused to allow the agent access to his CB
station, his violation was willful even if he was unaware of the Rule.

According to the agent from the Houston Office, Mr. Winton did not mention
his dogs when he refused to allow the inspection.

47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4), 95.426(a).

47 U.S.C. S: 504(a).

See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3098

2

Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3098
 

Not quite. There's where the confusion comes in AND folks don't read Part 95, Title 47, US Code. There is NO "protection" from inspection of a radio station because you are voluntarily agreeing to abide by the rules of the service. You ARE still a "licensee" of FCC even if you do not have to be issued a paper document. Part 95 clearly states that, in order to use a radio to transmit your voice over the airwaves, you MUST agree to and abide by ALL the rules of Part 95. Therefore, it is up to YOU to read those rules and it is not their fault if you choose not to. It goes back to the principle of "ignorance of the law" (or regulations) is no excuse. It is your responsibility to know that your station is subject to inspection. Yes, you may refuse to allow the agent in your house. This is what happened: the agent asked to inspect the station, and the suspect refused to allow him in. There is NO "constitutional" issue here as no "rights" were violated. You do NOT have a right to operate a radio; it is a privilege granted to citizens just as drivers licenses are granted under regulations. You have a right to free speech (within certain limits--you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded threater)! :D The concept of using a radio to transmit your voice wasn't even thought of in 1776.

This is where the confusion comes in when people 1) don't read the rules regarding radio and 2) then wrap themselves up in the Constitution in a mistaken effort to protect themselves when it is THEY who are committing an offense (like the guy who got nailed here for jamming other users and re-broadcasting music, etc). ALL radio stations, TV stations, police radio stations, amateur and CB stations, ANY station that transmits signals in the US are subject to inspection upon request. Yep, you CAN refuse to let the man in, BUT........................!
If you DO, the fine for the refusal is likely to be MORE than if you had let the agent in to look at your station! And that's how it works.

You do not HAVE to use a CB radio! You do NOT have to violate Part 95 rules. Operating a CB station and violating those rules are voluntary, and READING the rules and accepting RESPONSIBILITY for your actions is up to YOU! :D And that's why this happens to people! If people would actually READ Part 95, this would happen much less!

73

CWM
 
This type of situation will always fire up the arguments.
Fact is, like it or not, a "free society" does not mean you can do what the hell you want, when you want. That is anarchy, not democracy.

In this case, his 4th Amendment rights were not violated, because there was no illegal search and/or seizure. By operating a CB radio, he had agreed to submit to a station inspection by the issuing authority (the FCC). The imposed fine (for failing to agree to the inspection) is not "coercion", although it sounds to many like it may be. In this matter, it is simply a fine for a violation of an agreed upon set of rules. Claiming ignorance of the rules is not a valid defense ('I didn't know it was wrong to stab my neighbor repeatedly with a knife?, so can we just over look it this time???)

Now, if the FCC were to inspect your station, and in the process, observe the meth lab you are operating in your house, the question of 4th Amendment rights violations would definitely be argued by some clever attorney :roll: .

The same is true about driver's licenses. In most states, by obtaining a driver's license, you have given implied consent to submit to a test of blood, breath or urine, if you are suspected of driving under the influence. Your 4th Amendment rights don't come into play because you have agreed to the terms upon accepting the license. If you refuse to submit to a test, you likely aren't charged with drunk driving, since there is no evidence to show blood alcohol levels (although that doesn't necessarily rule out criminal charges based upon the circumstances). Rather, the DOT will revoke your license for failing to follow the rules that you had agreed to. Same sort of deal with CB radio.

In the case cited above, we have another loser causing interference to public airwaves, and the agency responsible for maintaining the radio service took action to eliminate the nuisance, to the extent that they can.

I don't like government interference in our lives, but the way to reduce government interference is to play by the rules, or at least bend the rules only so far as to not interfere with other's liberties.
 
This is why i have a radio that is ready to hand over the threashold. Don't want my lab comming into question. As a matter of fact, they can keep the radio.
 
Man I'm glad I read this I shouldn't have any problems from the FCC all legal here just don't want then to find my power source maybe I should buy some electricity from the electric company just to keep the suspicions down don't want then to find my nuclear reactor in the basement but no electric bill for ten years is nice and I can leave all the lights on I want to. :frky
 
In this case, his 4th Amendment rights were not violated, because there was no illegal search and/or seizure. By operating a CB radio, he had agreed to submit to a station inspection by the issuing authority (the FCC). The imposed fine (for failing to agree to the inspection) is not "coercion", although it sounds to many like it may be.

Show me where the Fourth Amendment allows for that.

Any of the actions taken in this case.
 
74IN said:
In this case, his 4th Amendment rights were not violated, because there was no illegal search and/or seizure. By operating a CB radio, he had agreed to submit to a station inspection by the issuing authority (the FCC). The imposed fine (for failing to agree to the inspection) is not "coercion", although it sounds to many like it may be.

Show me where the Fourth Amendment allows for that.

Any of the actions taken in this case.

It might fall under Probable cause to search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Searches

Read it and decide for yourself.

Possibly the on-the-air activities was enough evidence to be a probable cause to search.
 
I don't think this is a 4th amendment thing.

Here is an analogy that is also a true story:

Your a light, 100 pound Asian lady cooking dinner and have an argument with your mentally unstable partner. The argument is heated and in the heat, your toddler manages to work himself out the front door and wander out into the street. You've discovered this and gone out to get him back inside, but not before a neighbor saw the toddler wandering around out in the street, has heard the heated argument, and called the cops.

Well, Two big burly police officers show up to the house and find that the front door is open. They can hear the yelling and the now crying child inside. You are in the kitchen across the living room, but in plain view from the front door. The cops start shouting orders for everyone to stand over there in the open.

You see the police officers and yell at them to get off your frequency, I mean property. You gesture with a vegtable peeler because they ain't moving quick enough for your current temperment. Of course, the cops don't like to be bossed around and they feel threatened from your puny little 100 pound body 20 feet away waving that vegtable peeler, and they don't know what your saying really because your Engrish kind of suks, so they immediately pull their pistols and blast some holes in you, right through your tiny little heart, and you promptly die.

See, now you were wrong and that is why your dead. You waved your tiny arm at those offficers, which are highly trained in deadly hand-to-hand combat, with extra training in the use of a night-stick to inflict severe damage to large strong males and put them down on their kneeds crying for mommy, and armed with fists, peper spray, batons, stun guns, and of course, their pistols as a last resort.

So just remember, the next time an American Gestapo official arrives to request a rim job from you, you just better pucker up and yield to your master.
 
OK, it is very simple. When you operate a CB radio, you agree to follow the rules of the service:

Sec. 95.426 (CB Rule 26) Do I have to make my CB station available for inspection?

(a) If an authorized FCC representative requests to inspect your CB
station, you must make your CB station and records available for
inspection.
(b) A CB station includes all of the radio equipment you use.


Sec. 95.421 (CB Rule 21) What are the penalties for violating these rules?

(a) If the FCC finds that you have willfully or repeatedly violated
the Communications Act or the FCC Rules, you may have to pay as much as
$10,000 for each violation, up to a total of $75,000. (See section
503(b) of the Communications Act.)
(b) If the FCC finds that you have violated any section of the
Communications Act or the FCC Rules, you may be ordered to stop whatever
action caused the violation. (See section 312(b) of the Communications
Act.)
(c) If a Federal court finds that you have willfully and knowingly
violated any FCC Rule, you may be fined up to $500 for each day you
committed the violation. (See section 502 of the Communications Act.)
(d) If a Federal court finds that you have willfully and knowingly
violated any provision of the Communications Act, you may be fined up to
$10,000 or you may be imprisoned for one year, or both. (See section 501
of the Communications Act.)


It seems that refusing to allow an inspection is a violation of Sec. 95.426 and the FCC may impose a fine of up to $10,000 (Sec. 95.421a);

HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you go to court and plead guilty of violating the FCC Rule of Sec. 95.426, then the court can only impose a $500 fine (Sec. 95.421a)
 
So just remember, the next time an American Gestapo official arrives to request a rim job from you, you just better pucker up and yield to your master.

That's about it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In other words, no warrant isuued without probable cause.

The only exception is a LEO witnessing a crime in progress.

Officials who violate this are criminals.
 
I am sorry but this is wrong. It is not even a Constitutional issue because the FCC official only ASKED to inspect the radio station. He did NOT enter the home. However, see the Part 95 rule posted above. It states, for one thing, that in order to operate a CB station, you agree to abide by ALL the rules by your very keying the mike. You must allow your station to be inspected in situ by FCC agents (now it can also be the local police if there is an enabling ordinance). You CAN refuse to allow the agent in, thus NO Constitutional issue has been raised; the man did NOT COME IN! BUT! It is the REFUSAL to allow said inspection that triggered the fine. ALL radio stations, ships, broadcast, police, fire, rescue, amateur AND CB stations must allow inspections. This man was clearly violating the rules by 1) blocking the frequency with a dead key, and 2) retransmitting the signal of a broadcast station---both violations of the law. He refused to allow the agent in. This caused the agent to issue the fine for the portion of the regulations that were violated. Now, if he had just let the agent IN, he may have gotten a Citation or a SMALLER fine.

Another scenario is driving a car. Such is a
privilege, not a "right"! Operating a radio is a privilege, again, not a "right". Privileges are granted, and regulations that govern such privileges are designed to control such privileges. You do NOT have a "right' to a CB radio. And it's like driving that car. It is YOUR responsibility to know the rules for driving said car (state law) and it is your responsibility to READ and know the rules (Part 95, Title 47, US Code) for operating a CB. If you blast past a speed limit sign at 75 and get stopped, you cannot use the excuse, "I didn't know it was 35 MPH." If you fail to read the rules governing CB radio, it is YOUR fault and YOUR consequences if you get caught. Ergo, "search and seizure" with regards to inspection of a CB station does not apply because it is NOT a Constitutional issue. KNOW the rules so they doesn't become a "consti-PA-tion-al" issue if that agent catches you throwing a carrier! :D :D

73

CWM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.