Once again, CB Operator Mistakenly refuses Inspection!

[chipotle]

Actually, this goes under "implied consent laws". When you use a CB radio, you are impliedly agreeing to waive your right to avoid warrentless and unreasonable searches. So you are impliedly agreeing to waive your fourth amendment constitutional right to search and seizure aka "fourth waiver". It is the same as "implied consent" laws in states where by accepting a drivers license you agree to take a field sobriety test (regardless of whether there is cause or not for the test) by a police officer or you will automatically loose your license for a year. Many people have appealed this law, but not a single one has ever won.

The obvious problem, some may argue, is that less than half of all people who take field sobriety tests have any alcohol or drugs in them. Police routinely use this procedure as a mechanism to punish "undersirable" citizens. Half of these "innocent" people will have been deemed to fail the test and than put in jail for a day; let out of jail with no charges ever being filed. Since these undesirables have waived their rights by driving a car, they have no recourse against the police for a civil rights violation.

Law abiding citizens believe that such laws keep a check on "gangster looking" drivers of cars, so no change in such laws is forthcoming.

 

[C2]

Yea, well the latest issue is the disparity in the number of whites in our prisons compared to blacks and hispanics.

New proposals in sentencing is being discussed to address this problem. They want to throw out the mandatory sentencing rules and give more leniency to our judges.

That means that whites will likely become the example and get more frequent and much longer prison sentences to help balance the prison diversity. The next order will be the random arrest and incarseration of innocent white folk to help balance the disparity.

 

[park]

C2 you got me wondering :shock: I am getting off topic here but ebay sent me a nasty gramm for saying something I should not have in a feedback (i ask the person if they were a raghead) because of his user name. He won an auction of mine and did not pay AND I, get in trouble. Par for the course.

 

[dudmuck]

Hello GADFLY

aka K4KWH

 

[CHARLEYMARBLES]

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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OK but here's the problem with the driving analogy THERE ARE NO STATE LAWS pertaining to driving.

Fact is that when you accept and sign your lience you are signing a contract to abide by the state MOTOR CODE. and therefor if you brake that contract you have to pay the fee (fine) for that breach of contract. YOU HAVE NOT BORKEN ANY LAW!!!

The reason for this is that we also have a constutional right to travel FREELY AND UNIMPEADED and by enacting ANY law the goverment would be infringing on those rights.
This is why some states have gone to useing a court of equity to handle driving offences as it is actualy not an infraction of the LAW and should not therefore be handled in a court of LAW.

Ok I said my peice I'm off the soapbox

Chuck

 

[CDX8412]

Chuck,
You are right about the Constitutional right to travel freely, but since there were no automobiles or planes or trains, when the founding fathers drafted the Constitution, do we think it applies to the mode of travel?

Your right to travel is not inpinged. There are no borders, no checkpoints when traveling between states. Certainly, you are free to travel, but you don't have a right to ride the bus without paying for the ride, since you don't own the bus.
The same is true of automobile travel.

You may own the car, but you don't own the roadways you would drive on. Yes, your tax dollars pay for the roads, but like it or not, you don't own them. The governing agency that maintains them (DOT, local municipality, etc) has the final say over your use of the roads. And the motor vehicle laws are laws, enacted by legislation under the authority of your state legislators. Those laws pertain to the licensing of operators, registration of vehicles and operation of vehicles on the roadways.

So you can travel freely, but if you don't subscribe to local conventions and obtain a driver's license, then you are not allowed to use the roadways that are provided to us for that purpose. You can drive all you want on private property without a license, as long as you have the property owner's permission to do so. And if you could find enough private property that connected together to get you from coast to coast, you could travel freely by car without needing a license, but thats not going to happen.


At least, that is how I interpret the Right to travel freely.

 

[C2]

what did the founding fathers mean then?

It's not like I can walk on the roads, so my right to travel FREELY AND UNIMPEADED has been infringed. I live on an island surrounded by roads. I cannot legally walk to work without trespassing on highways or someone elses private property. then.

When I get a speeding ticket, I am charged with a misdemeanor. I can go to court and talk to the judge. It sounds like a law to me.

The whole thing is just a racket anyway. Mushrooms sheeple, go out and bork some laws.

 

[74IN]

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.

:roll:

Can you really belive this contortional logic?
Fined for standing on rights?

 

[dudmuck]

Can you really belive this contortional logic?
Fined for standing on rights?

If you were fined in for standing up to your rights, you certainly have the option of hiring a lawyer and fighting it. It certainly would be wise to talk to a lawyer who is competent in this area of law before paying this fine. However, it is possible that in the end, considering any evidence gathered by the fcc field officer, that the lawyer fees could exceed the fine amount.
If a lawyer was able to get such a fine dropped, it would be interesting indeed.

 

[C W Morse]

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.

:roll:

Can you really belive this contortional logic?
Fined for standing on rights?

You do N O T have a "right" to use a radio; it is a privilege. You have a right to free speech--with certain limits. IOW, you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. But you do NOT have a "right" to use a radio, argue all you like. Our lawmakers have enacted regulations that govern voluntary actions, for example. YOU do not HAVE to use a radio. You do NOT HAVE to drive a car---also a privilege. You can WALK if you choose to. It is up to YOU to read the vehicle code that covers driving and/or the manual of regulations for same. It is up to YOU to read Part 95, Title 47, US Code that spells out YOUR responsibility to obey the regulations for operating a CB radio. In that section it states that 1) you are to agreeing to obey ALL the rules WRT CB radios and 2) the fact that you MUST allow said station to be inspected. If you do not LIKE that fact , then you can forego the use of a radio and do without. Again, it is N O T a "right"! 3) It also states in those regulations that REFUSAL to allow the inspection will cause fines or other action against you.

Therefore, there is nothing "contortional" about it. The agent ASKED to inspect the CB station according to Part 95, and was refused! The agent did NOT force his way in. He did NOT "violate" any so-called "rights" because he never came in. BUT Part 95 regulation prescribes/spells out the discipline that will be assessed IF you refuse to allow the inspector in. It is spelled out clearly, and has been for FIFTY
years,and you will suffer the consequences. If you don't WANT to agree to that, you may choose to throw the CB out and not use it! That is what happened here, no doubt because of the mistaken belief that there is some sort of a "right" attached to the use of a radio.

It is up to YOU to READ those rules and know that you must permit an inspection of ANY radio station in the USA.

CWM

 

[CHARLEYMARBLES]

CW you need to do a bit of research on the driving stuff, it just like the income tax is just sorta grandfathered into existance. If you lived in Michigan you would be at the time of issuance signing your licence. That is you agreeing to abide by the Michigan MOTOR CODE. Not the Michigan motor LAW as enacting it into LAW would violate the constitution.
The judge that I was in front of stated "we give it the WEIGHT OF LAW" and so if I had the money and willingness to I could argue that the state had oversteped it's boundrys and in fact violated my rights by doing so.
Now I have a family to provide for and the money I could have thrown at it was better used to take the kids on a family vacation and afford them a chance to see a bit of our country's history and some historic places.
Like wise if I wanted to toss some money at challenging the FCC's athority to INVADE my privacy I bet I could find some precidence that would support the fact that once again the Government has tryed to assert power BEYOND what they are athorized to.
You can argue all you want that my opperations are a privilage but I bet if you did some digging in the law books you could find precidence to support my claim.
It realy is no differant then ANY other search and seizure case in that due prosess has to be falowed and that INCLUDES a valid warent to search a private residance.
Say a neighbor says to the police that they seen you hualing in a bale of pot in your back door, now the cops can do one of two things. A) they can ASK for PERMISSION to search OR B) they can obtain a valid search warent. There is no other way for them to search your residance without losing the evidance due to the protection provided by the 4th ammendment.
So for the FCC to ASK to search indicates they either do NOT have enuff evidance to obtain a warent (or they would) OR they think they can curcimvent the 4th ammendment by claiming YOU AGREED to allow the search by keying the mic.
Mind you that the 4th ammendment is repetedly used in traffic stops where you have also AND in this case SINGED a contract agreeing to certain regulations.
Please don't get me wrong I agree with rules but I also think they go BOTH ways.

Chuck

 

[C2]

this whole argument is like the sobriety checkpoints. they can do either, whether it is right or wrong don't matter anymore. they do it anyway.

 

[CDX8412]

As I said in my first post on this topic, this type of thing always triggers some strong opinions on government interference and authority.
My question to those who think the FCC pushes the constitutional envelope is, ... how should a guy like this, jamming ch.19, be handled?

Let him be?
Cut his coax?
have an angry mob show up to his house and beat him?

I don't want government to interfere with my life either, but in order for that to happen, I have to live within the rules we have.
I don't blindly agree with the rules, but accept them as a way to maintain public order.
That's why I have a driver's license, have registration and insurance on my vehicles, pay my taxes, and operate my CB radio within the boundries of rules.

Now for those of us that think that our constitutional rights provide a bit differently, how would we, as a society, handle the jammer on ch. 19?

 

[Peddler]

As I said in my first post on this topic, this type of thing always triggers some strong opinions on government interference and authority.
My question to those who think the FCC pushes the constitutional envelope is, ... how should a guy like this, jamming ch.19, be handled?

Let him be?
Cut his coax?
have an angry mob show up to his house and beat him?

I don't want government to interfere with my life either, but in order for that to happen, I have to live within the rules we have.
I don't blindly agree with the rules, but accept them as a way to maintain public order.
That's why I have a driver's license, have registration and insurance on my vehicles, pay my taxes, and operate my CB radio within the boundries of rules.

Now for those of us that think that our constitutional rights provide a bit differently, how would we, as a society, handle the jammer on ch. 19?

Well said Paul....
I think this bantering has gone far enough.

 

[chipotle]

Contrary to what others are saying here, you do not have to allow a CB inspection if asked. Why would they ask if you have to do it anyway? Think about it. If you have to allow an inspection they would'nt ask. They would bust down your door and hold your 5 year old children at gunpoint.

Warrantless searches are illegal (absent "exigent circumstances" i.e. law enforcement sees drugs through a window in your living room, or hears you beating your wife, or sees a gun in your pants they can search your body, etc.). No U.S citizen ever has to allow someone to search them, or their house without a warrant (again absent extreme circumstances). This is the Fourth most important right we have in this country.

In the CB world, you are offered a choice, allow the inspection or get fined (sometimes it may be worth taking the fine i.e. you have drugs on your coffee table). These type of implied consent laws have been tested in every court in the United States a hundred times over when Law Enforcement try to force someone to blow into a breathalizer, or in extreme circumstances force the suspects stomach to be pumped when he swallows the bag of Meth to hide the evidence when he is being chased by Law enforcement. You never can be forced to blow into a breathalizer. But you almost always should because the judge and jury will hammer you if you don't.