I don’t understand how it can be legal to criminalize radar detectors.
Have such laws been challenged, or do they continue to exist simply because it’s just too much trouble to fight against them?
So that’s my question.
Peace,
mangeorge
They have been challenged in Virginia a lot. Challenger always losses. But there may be hope. http://www.beltronics.com/detector-news.html When I got caught they confiscated mine.
But they aren’t illegal everywhere. In Maryland they are legal, but if you are on I-495 heading into Virginia there are signs that say they are illegal.
They are only illegal in Virginia, as far as I know.
I assumed they were illegal in California, probably because of how they’re marketed.
I should check.
They don’t appear to be illegal in California
Well now, see what you get when you investigate!
“Radar jammers. Radar detectors are legal, but jammers, or any device which interferes with radar signals, are illegal (28150 VC).”
That makes sense. Detectors are passive, while jammers (not roller derby 
) are not.
Why would such laws be invalid?
Because, I think, laws should protect and serve the public. It’s still debatable whether such devices contribute to, or detract from, safe driving. Government shouldn’t pass laws against something simply because they don’t like it.
And they’re not supposed to, by law. I think.
Are detectors legal in Australia?
Huh? The government passes all sorts of laws for safety. They’re not outlawing radar detectors because they “don’t like them,” they’re outlawing them because their only real use is to allow people to speed without getting caught. Do you think they shouldn’t be able to have speed limits, either?
You’re not seriously claiming that these things make driving safer, are you? The only things they’re making safer are the driver’s wallet.
That would be a moral or ethical question, not a legal one.
RADAR detectors are illegal here in Ontario, Canada (not California). I have no problem with that. On the other hand, we are used to driving 15% to 20% above the posted limit here and will usually never be ticketed for the “marginal” increase. I understand some states are less forgiving, but am not sure if RADAR detector legality enters into the equation.
Perhaps someone can enlighten?
There is an ethical principle from the world of radio that dictates they shouldn’t be made illegal.
If somebody sends out radio frequency energy and hits you or your property with it, they are in no reason to complain if you notice it or measure it or pay attention to it. Whoever puts the radiation out there is essentially responsible for any problems and has no rights other than those conferred on tramsmitters on a band-by-band basis.
I don’t know whether anybody pays attention to this principle in the radar speed measurement world. The cell phone companies managed to get laws passed making it illegal to listen to what they send through your body, so this must not be a very powerful consideration.
By the way, I don’t think radar detectors should be sold. It seems to me that their practical purpose is to aid one in breaking the law and creating some additional hazard. Whether banning them contradicts other legal principles is an important question.
Do you capitalize “scuba” and “laser,” too, Leaffan? No one else I know does.
Laws that don’t do what you think they ought are not laws that should be invalid. They are laws that shouldn’t be passed, a whole different kettle of fish.
When you ask how it can be “legal” for the government to do something, you are asking how it is constitutional. Fortunately for us, the Constitution of the United States doesn’t forbid governments from doing “stupid” things, or “self-serving” things, or even really idiotic things (by most everyone’s opinion!). It precludes government from doing certain things we don’t want government doing, not for reasons of “stupidity” or “self-interest,” but rather because those are things that we consider a gross violation of the sorts of freedoms and liberty we expect to have by being resident here. For example, we expect due process of law before losing life, liberty or property. That doesn’t preclude the government from depriving us of property for stupid reasons. It does preclude the government from depriving us of property because we are African-American, or because we are a citizen of Mexico, or because they didn’t bother to give us a chance to be heard on the issue, etc.
Given that this is is GQ I’m not going to enter into debate about the aspects of this subject that are debatable.
However, you say you don’t understand how it can be legal to criminalize radar detectors. Subject to certain very specific restrictions, governments can pass any laws they think protect and serve the public, and furthermore the very fact they have done so gives rise to a presumption that the government thinks that the law in question is a law that protects and serves the public. The government’s job is precisely to decide what laws will protect and serve the public. A court is not going to strike down a law simply because in the court’s judgment (or yours), a law is not one that protects and serves the public.
You say that it is debatable whether such devices contribute to or detract from safe driving. So what? Any number of subjects are debatable. That doesn’t stop a government from passing a law on that subject. It just means that sometimes governments come down on one or other side of the debate.
You’re asking a moral question. However, if the government dislikes something because the government thinks something endangers the public, then by your own logic they should pass a law against that thing to protect and serve the public. On the other hand if you are suggesting that it is wrong for the government to pass a law banning something for its own purposes without true regard to the protection and service of the public then at a moral level you may be right. However, it is not up to courts to decide the point and the remedy lies at the ballot box.
I don’t think so, but I’ve never really looked into it.
It says no such thing.
Also, the 1934 Act was supplanted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Your cite is a little behind the times.
Someone needs to make a plug-in-the-lighter-has LEDs-thing to mount on your dash. Or perhaps a real radar detector that has its operational bits taken out. Drive around until the police try to take it. Penis then ensues.