![](media/image1.png){width="1.2902777777777779in"
height="1.229861111111111in"}

July 9, 2007

**[VIA CERTIFIED MAIL]{.underline}**

**[RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED]{.underline}**

Mr. Lance McCuistion, d/b as

LM Services and

Scorpion Jammer Technology

1224 West 96^th^ Avenue

Thornton, CO 80260-5467

[]{.mark}

> Re: File No. EB-05-SE-253

Dear Mr. McCuistion:

This is an official **CITATION**, issued to Mr. Lance McCuistion, d/b as
LM Services and Scorpion Jammer Technology ("Scorpion") pursuant to
Section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
("Act")[^1] for marketing unauthorized radio frequency devices in the
United States, specifically, the Scorpion "Ultimate" KA Jammer and
Scorpion Jammer devices,[^2] in violation of Section 302(b) of the
Act,[^3] and Section 2.803 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules").[^4] In
addition, you have failed to respond to directives of the Enforcement
Bureau to provide certain information and documents. As explained below,
future violations of the Commission's rules may subject your company to
monetary forfeitures.

On June 14, 2005, December 15, 2006, and January 25, 2007, staff from
the Spectrum Enforcement Division observed on your website,
www.scorpionjammers.com, that Scorpion was marketing[^5] the
above-listed radio frequency devices. On July 2, 2007, staff from the
Spectrum Enforcement Division observed that Scorpion was marketing the
above-listed radio frequency devices on another website,
www.activejammers.com.

By Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") dated September 1, 2005,[^6] the Spectrum
Enforcement Division of the Enforcement Bureau initiated an
investigation into whether Scorpion is manufacturing and marketing in
the United States unauthorized radio frequency devices, specifically,
police radar jammers.[^7] In response to our LOI, we received a letter
from Max McCuistion in which he stated that Lance McCuistion is
Scorpion's sole proprietor and that Lance McCuistion conducts all
business operations.[^8] The response also stated that any further
request for information would have to be addressed to Lance McCuistion
at Scorpion Jammer Technology, 1224 West 96th Avenue, Thornton, Colorado
80260. On February 5, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division sent a
second LOI to Scorpion,[^9] addressed to Lance McCuistion at the address
provided by Max McCuistion. The February 5, 2007, LOI directed Scorpion
to provide the answers to specific questions concerning its equipment
and to provide samples of its devices for testing. Scorpion has neither
provided a response to the questions posed, nor provided samples of the
specified devices. United States Postal Service records show that the
February 5, 2007, LOI was delivered to your address on February 10,
2007.

Section 302(b) of the Act provides that "\[n\]o person shall ... offer
for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or
use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant
to this section." Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules,[^10] provides that:

> \[N\]o person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease
> (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or
> distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale
> or lease, any radio frequency device unless ... \[i\]n the case of a
> device subject to certification, such device has been authorized by
> the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is
> properly identified and labeled as required by § 2.925 and other
> relevant sections in this chapter.

Pursuant to Section 15.201(b) of the Rules,[^11] intentional radiators
must ordinarily be authorized in accordance with the certification
procedure prior to marketing in the United States. It does not, however,
appear that the jammer devices identified above are capable of receiving
a grant of certification. In this regard, the stated purpose of police
radar jammers is to block or interfere with licensed police
communication. Such use is clearly prohibited by Section 333 of the
Act,[^12] which prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously
interfering with or causing interference to any radio communications of
any station licensed or authorized by the Commission. Thus, devices such
as police radar jammers that intentionally interfere with licensed radio
communications are not eligible for certification. Further, Section
2.803(g) of the Rules[^13] provides in pertinent part that:

> \[R\]adio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally
> operated under the current rules ... shall not be operated,
> advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or
> otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this
> chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the Commission.

Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Act,[^14] afford the Commission
broad authority to investigate the entities it regulates. Section 4(i)
authorizes the Commission to "issue such orders, not inconsistent with
this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions."
Section 4(j) states that "the Commission may conduct its proceedings in
such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch business and to
the ends of justice." Section 403 grants the Commission "full authority
and power at any time to institute an inquiry, on its own motion, in any
case and as to any matter or thing concerning which complaint is
authorized to be made, to or before the Commission by any provision of
this Act, or concerning which any question may arise under any of the
provisions of this Act." Pursuant to this authority, we sent you LOIs
(copies enclosed) directing you to provide certain information and
documents on September 1, 2005, and February 5, 2007. A representative
of Scorpion, Max McCuistion, submitted an incomplete response to the
September 1, 2007, LOI. As of this date, we have received no response to
the February 5, 2007, LOI. Your partial response indicates that you
received the first LOI. The certified mail tracking system provided by
the United States Post Office indicates that you received the second
LOI. Accordingly, we find that you violated Commission orders by failing
to respond fully to Enforcement Bureau directives to provide certain
information and documents.

The record before us indicates that Scorpion apparently is and has been
marketing the Scorpion "Ultimate" KA Jammer and Scorpion Jammer devices.
Accordingly, it appears that Scorpion has violated Section 302(b) of the
Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by marketing the devices, which are
not eligible for a grant of equipment certification because they are
intended to interfere with licensed police radar, in violation of
Section 333 of the Act. Furthermore, Scorpion apparently violated
Commission orders by failing to respond to Enforcement Bureau directives
to provide certain information and documents.

A party may not ignore the directives in a Bureau inquiry letter.[^15]
You are again ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j) and 403 of the
Act, to provide the information sought by our letter of February 5,
2007. You must provide this information within 14 days of the date of
this citation. If sent by mail, this information should be sent to Susan
Stickley**,** Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room 3-A463,
Washington, D.C. 20554. Scorpion must also transmit a copy of this
information via facsimile to 202-418-7290.

**[If, after receipt of this citation, Scorpion violates the
Communications Act or the Commission's rules in any manner described
herein, including the continued marketing of police radar jammer devices
and the continued failure to respond to the letter of inquiry issued by
the Spectrum Enforcement Division, the Commission may impose monetary
forfeitures not to exceed \$11,000 for each such violation or each day
of a continuing violation.]{.underline}**[^16]

If you choose to do so, you may respond to this citation within 30 days
from the date of this letter either through (1) a personal interview at
the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business, or (2)
a written statement. Your response should specify the actions that
Scorpion is taking to ensure that it does not violate the Commission's
rules governing the manufacturing and marketing of police radar jamming
devices in the future.

**Your nearest Commission field office is the** **Denver Field Office.
Please call Susan Stickley at 202-418-0871 if you wish to schedule a
personal interview. You should schedule any interview to take place
within 14 days of the date of this letter. You should send any written
statement within 14 days of the date of this letter to:**

> Kathryn S. Berthot

Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

Enforcement Bureau

Federal Communications Commission

445-12^th^ Street, S.W., Rm. 3-C366

Washington, D.C. 20554

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(e)(3), we are informing
you that the Commission's staff will use all relevant material
information before it, including information that you disclose in your
interview or written statement, to determine what, if any, enforcement
action is required to ensure your compliance with the Communications Act
and the Commission's rules.

The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the
concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

Kathryn S. Berthot

> Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

Enforcement Bureau

Enclosures

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5).

[^2]: Our information indicates that Scorpion may have discontinued
    manufacturing and marketing radio frequency devices designated as
    the Phantom RCD and the Phantom RDC XP. If Scorpion is continuing to
    market the Phantom RCD and/or the Phantom RCD XP, this citation also
    applies to those devices.

[^3]: 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.803.

[^5]: "Marketing is defined as "sale or, or offering for sale or lease,
    including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment,
    or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering
    for sale or lease." 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(e)(4).

[^6]: Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
    Division, to Max McCuistion, Scorpion Jammer Technology (September
    1, 2005).

[^7]: Based on your website, it appears that you have manufactured
    similar devices in the past:

    > We are the manufacturer of the Phantom "RCD," Phantom XP and
    > Scorpion Active Radar Jammers. Lance McCuistion has been involved
    > in the production of these units since they started out being made
    > by Phantom Technology in 1996. Lance acquired the sole rights to
    > keep producing the "active" radar jamming product called the
    > Phantom after Phantom Technology went out of business. Now we have
    > upgraded the old technology to manufacture the most powerful
    > jammer yet capable of beating the new digital radar guns that have
    > hit todays highways called the "Scorpion."

    However, we currently do not have sufficient evidence to confirm the
    manufacture of the noted models.

[^8]: Letter from Max McCuistion, Customer Service, Scorpion Jammer
    Technology, to Federal Communications Commission (Letter undated,
    received September 26, 2005).

[^9]: Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
    Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Lance McCuistion, Scorpion Jammer
    Technology (February 5, 2007).

[^10]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a)(1).

[^11]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.201(b).

[^12]: 47 U.S.C. § 333.

[^13]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(g).

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154 (i), 154 (j) and 403.

[^15]: *See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc.,* Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 7589, 7591 (2002). In *SBC Communications*, the Commission
    assessed a \$100,000 forfeiture against a carrier for its willful
    refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement
    Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "\[T\]he order here
    was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event,
    parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they
    believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." *Id*. at
    7591.

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3).