gee! i thought the gerbils ate all the threads pre 2000.
shows to go ya.
Yup. 47 USC 301 requires a license for the transmission of electromagnetic emissions for the purpose of communication from one place to another place. Noncommunicative emissions, such as those used by radar guns, are still subject to FCC regulation (including requiring licensure in some cases), but only to the extent required to prevent interference with communicative uses.
Using noncommunicative radio emissions to interfere with communicative radio emissions, or with other noncommunicative uses of radio, may (and usually will) violate other laws, but it doesn’t violate 47 USC 301.
Actually 47 USC 301 requires a license for transmissions of energy, communications or signals by radio. There is no requirement that the transmission be for the purpose of communication, or for any other purpose for that matter. All radio frequency transmissions in the US must be licensed, either by issuance of an explicit license from the FCC or by operation under “license by rule” applications.
Relevant text: " No person shall use or operate any apparatus for the
**transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio **"
(bolding added)
In fact, 47 USC 301 doesn’t even consider whether the transmission was for “communications purposes” or not, you’re misinterpreting the entire point of the chapter. First, it provides that the available spectrum is not “owned” by anyone, and that the only rights conferred upon licensees will come from the license itself. Second, 47 USC 301 only provides that all RF transmissions in the US must be legally & properly licensed.
I am not a lawyer but I have been in the two way radio industry for more than 15 years.
The FCC and the courts has long interpreted Section 301 this way, regardless. The FCC regulates noncommunicative uses of RF almost entirely for noninterference (covered mainly by part 18 of the FCC regulations), while it regulates communicative uses far more broadly. And Part 15, which covers devices for which no license (not even a Part 95-style license-by-rule) is required, applies completely different standards for devices designed for communicative versus noncommunicative purposes.
It’s actually the “from place to place” restrictions in 301 that mainly serve to define the legal boundary of the FCC’s authority. Your cordless phone doesn’t require a license because it’s not being used for the transmission of communications or signals from one place to another place. However, the manufacturer is required to obtain certification to ensure that the device, as manufactured and sold, cannot be used in such a way as to not create interference for licensed users; and if your device does start causing interference, then the FCC will force you to stop using it. And most Part 18 (industrial, scientific, and medical) devices are used entirely within one “place”.
In any case, in the OP’s case the OP is attempting to communicate from place to place using RF, so a license would be required.
When I was in college (Maryland, around 1990), I made an X-band radar emitter so I could screw with my friends on the freeway. I was pulled over by the police and accused of using a “jammer” to avoid detection. I sincerely doubt that it would have been any good at jamming police radar signals, but I guess they have some way of detecting anyone who’s trying to do so, and I lit it up, and that’s all that mattered?
Anyway, as far as I could tell, they were pretty sure I was violating something, but had no idea what. They spent 20 minutes on the radio with the dispatcher, and kept walking back to ask me questions about it. Eventually, they said if I handed over the “jammer” they’d let me go with a verbal warning, and that was the end of that.
Oops, nevermind!
Uh huh. :dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious:
What was the reasonable suspicion for pulling you over? Did you have some sort of antenna hanging out the window?
As far as I know (I’ll be quick to admit error if someone proves me wrong) Maryland doesn’t have a prohibition against radar detectors and, therefore, doesn’t use radar detector detection devices. So WHY did they pull you over? If you’re device set off the RFI detector on their radar units that still isn’t probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to pull someone over as the door openers at the grocery store or a linear amplifier on a ham radio can trigger it. WHY were you pulled over?
A second radar emitter on the same band as the one being used by an officer will cause the radar gun to give highly anomalous readings, and on some models will specifically give an interference warning. It’s not hard from that to figure out where the interference is coming from, not with some intelligence applied by the officer.
Give some cites as to state statutes that give an officer reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain someone because the RFI indicator on their radar unit said their was interference from an outside source. Give a cite that gives an officer authority to pull someone over on federal regulations regarding radio transmissions.
Police officers are sometimes not above giving themselves ‘rights’ they are not entitled to. As falcotron said, the officers who stopped him were ‘pretty sure’ he was in violation of ‘something’ but they didn’t know what.
Back when I was first employed in the frequency control industry, we (the company where I was employed) received a visit from the local FBI office; it was the agents intent to ‘shut us down’ because we had sold quartz crystals for use in a police scanner that was in the automobile of a foiled bank robber. He was absolutely positive sales of quartz crystals operating on ‘police frequencies’ was illegal. He insisted he was right until he was shown a copy of an FCC(?) publication that listed the operating frequencies of police and fire departments throughout the USA. I can’t give the name or number of that handbook because I’ve forgotten it and therefore can’t use it as a cite. IIRC, the frequencies used by local FBI offices were included but I can’t be positive of that. All this happened back in the early to mid 1960s.
Uh huh. And hen I pull someone over for “I know they did something wrong I just didn’t know what” and come across an actual violation like contraband sitting on the passenger seat, that’s going to get admitted into court how?
UPDATE:
Both of my sons said they have no idea what I’m talking about regarding the OP. I haven’t spoken with her yet but I’d be stunned if my daughter did it. The OP doesn’t sound like something she’d type. And either way, this is a question all of my kids would have asked me about, not gone on the internet for. I’ve had radar guns at home that I bought after my department decided to get rid of them because they were old. I’d taken them to my sons baseball games. They would know I’m the guy to ask question like this of.
So that leaves my brother-in-law. The next time I talk to the drunk I’ll ask him. I doubt he’ll remember, though.
Not my problem.
I don’t think that’s the same as pulling someone over for having a radar jammer (even if you can’t name the statute off the top of your head), and then finding one sitting on the dashboard.
I’m assuming the police either thought there was a law against using radar jammers, or thought, “Anyone using a radar jammer is probably speeding, and is also interfering with our job, and is just a general smartass who’s making the road more dangerous for other people.”
Maybe they made a mistake, and that wasn’t reasonable suspicion. Maybe I could have even sued them for something or other and won. (I doubt it, but what do I know?)
But it sounds like you’re arguing that not only was that definitely a mistake, but that therefore it’s impossible. Are you insisting that police never make mistakes?
About 10 years after that, I was pulled over in LA for speeding because the cop apparently didn’t know that the street had been changed from 35mph to 45mph a year or two ago and didn’t read any of the posted signs. I fought the ticket and won. But wait a second, where’s the reasonable suspicion for pulling me over in the first place? I was going 45 in a 45 zone. And yet, I was pulled over anyway. It happens.
So every grocery store, Target, Wal-Mart, etc. have an FCC license to operate their automatic door openers?
Funny, I never heard about that in the years I worked for SuperValu. And I just don’t think I believe it.
Different types of radar equipment fall under different rules laid out by the FCC. All you have to do is read it yourself…
For example, due to their smaller aperture and antenna length, automatic door openers fall under Part 15, as do radar guns designed for sport use, which requires no license to operate, however these devices are prohibited from causing interference to any other device on the same band.
Other folks than law enforcement officials use radar to monitor traffic speeds, such as traffic engineers and technicians, for speed studies, often required before changing or setting non-statutory speed limits. I don’t know if they have licenses or if their employers(DOTs/consulting firms) may have “blanket” licenses.
$199.95 plus s&h can buy a shirtpocket sized unit (of unknown accuracy
Let’s understand something:
Wayyy back in 1982 when I first got into law enforcement, I did indeed have to have an FCC license to operate traffic radar. It was kept on file at the department I worked for.
But I was told by our traffic supervisor that the individual officer requirement was eliminated some years ago. As far as I know legally (in this state) I don’t even need to be trained nor certified to use it (though I am both).
Not radar (but still covered by the FCC I believe) is LASER. When we first got a laser gun (an LTI 20/20) in 1991 there was no licensing (that I know of) and no official training. I received my laser training from a company rep. I’ve never lost a laser ticket in court.
The FCC has no jurisdiction over laser devices; their jurisdiction ends at 300 GHz and a laser that low in frequency would be more correctly called a maser anyhow. Laser rangefinding and speed measurement devices are subject to FCC regulation only to the extent that they use or generate RF internally as Part 15 unintentional radiators, in the same way as a calculator or computer.
Laser devices are regulated by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health over in the Department of Health and Human Services. Their jurisdiction encompasses any device sold in commerce that emits or uses electromagnetic energy of any wavelength for any purpose whatsoever, but is limited to health and safety issues. They’re probably best known for imposing regulations on the level of X-rays that televisions may emit.
Ya know, you’re a smart ass (:Djust kidding! Just kidding!) but you’re right! According to a buddy of mine I just called that is still the radar officer for the department I took a full retirement from (the department I work for now part-time uses radar, not laser) when it comes down to it ultimately it’s the FDA that regulates them. I’m assuming the “Center for Devices and Radiological Health” falls under that. He said there is some certificate at the end of the manual that explains it. It’s been 19 years since my training, so I don’t recall such info.
The FDA!
Strange, huh?
Mattel makes a radar gun for kids: