From: k9jma@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (edwin.m.schaefer)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:57:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


I believe that most of the advice thus far given on the subject of what to
do in interactions with police may lead to dangerous consequences.
I believe the proper course of action in interactions with police is:

0. Always _obey whatever orders the police give_; submit quietly.
1. Always, no matter how provoked, be calm, respectful and polite.
2. Answer all questions responsively but avoid giving more information than
you have to; don't amplify a response _until_ asked directly.
3. Do not attempt to assert your "rights" to an armed policeman. The Judge and
Jury will determine later what law was violated; the police only bring cases
to the court. The court decides the law - not the police.
5. Do not antagonize police by ostentatiously noting names, badge numbers, etc.
or implying later reprisals.
6. Don't get mad - and forget the idea that you can get even.

Also, the last thing we need is for government to come to view amateur radio
operators as "the enemy" in the same way that they now view general aviation
pilots. We should be _very_ circumspect in asserting any privilege with
respect to interactions with police.

I've appended the original article and several of the followups with my
comments included.

Just another point of view...  73 de Ed K9JMA
=============================================================================
>Because of this, my friend was "printed up."  We're not even sure exactly what
>that means.  But whatever it was, the whole thing seemed very unfair.

That means your friend is now on the list of "usual suspects" that the police
will consider probably involved in some classes of crimes. He is now a
"known troublemaker". Fair is the event we have once a year at the fairgrounds
and isn't related in any way to police.

>I am just looking for people who have had an experience like this.  I am also
>looking for some suggestions on how to deal with this.

Don't get involved - so far they have no interest in _you_.

>One last question...  My friend was right and they were wrong...correct?

No, the cop is _always, by law, right_.
=======================================================================
>   Your friend needs to go to that police department during the day & ask to
>speak to a command officer (Sgt., Lt., Captain, etc.) about the incident. If
>you provide him with the date & time of the incident, he/she ought to be
>able to look at the report or 'dispatch card' & see the officer's version.
>     Ask the command officer for the # of the city ordinance which prohibits
>the use of ham radio (and/or scanners).
> 
>  Most likely, there isn't one.  Tell the command oficer that you think
>Officer ________ acted very unprofessionally and in your opinion, discredits
>the whole police force in that city.  I suppose for good measure you could
>briefly mention ham radio public service stuff like ARES, RACES, & Skywarn
>at this point.
>   Tell him/her that you were so irritated that you had planned on going to
>the media with this 'ham radio harassment' story, but that since the command
>officer seemed so sincere (heh...), you'll hold back on that, & settle for a
>note from the officer in question stating that he was made aware of the
>legality of amateur radio/scanners in his venue.

Very dangerous advice. Talking to cops in a _threatening manner_ like this
will get you lots more of the treatment you don't like...and _they_ have 
clubs and guns as well as radios. "You _can't_ fight city hall."

>when it comes to suspicion.  Most cops don't like people being able to
>listen in on their radio transmissions, & relatively few have actual
>knowledge as to whether or not it is legal to have a scanner in the car, but
>most think it shouldn't be.  That, in their mind, is good grounds to hassle

Damn right they don't like the idea of public scrutiny; and their mind(?) is
the one that controls the finger on the trigger...  If they have good grounds
to hassle, they _will_ do it - in spades, doubled, and redoubled.

>   *IF* your friend truly was 100% innocent, & isn't wimpy, he should be

No one can be 100% innocent; they can _always_ pin something on anyone.
All they have to do is keep up surveillance until the victim crosses some
yellow line somewhere, or have the building inspector, or health department,
or .... keep looking.

>willing to go to the PD & have a nice, calm chat with a command officer.

And get his name remembered even as having caused _more trouble_!
Only if he's a real glutton for punishment.
>
>    Tim
> Tim Tyler   Internet: tim@ais.org  MCI Mail: 442-5735  C$erve: 72571,1005
=========================================================================
>The problem was, he has a totally clean record.  He didn't want anything to

No, he _had_ a clean record, now he has a record...

>smudge it.  My friend is following up with it as we speak.  I wouldn't say that
>    ..........lines deleted.............
>This should be interesting.  And it should get his name off the record or

_No_ way can the "record" be erased ... cops have _long_ memories...
and they share the information nationwide under the auspices of the "feds"
so the record may propagate forever.

>whatever.  I guess the offending city has a collection of amateur radio
>operators on file for things like this ??  I don't quite understand the
>processes behind this.  I mean, they didn't take the radio... yet his name
>is on a list of sorts somewhere.  Can someone clear this up for me?
>
>I don't know much about what exactly happens when a person is stopped for
>something in the way of getting something on the record.  

In general, the police organizations maintain records of _everyone_ with whom
they have _any_ contact detailing information believed relevant to the contact.
Whenever a cop interacts with anyone the _fact of the interaction_ is recorded
and becomes probable cause to suspect criminal activity in future.
>
> * Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
===========================================================================
>whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) wrote:
>
> 2> It is also a good thing to carry a copy of the state law/statute in
> 2> your car since it provides a documented proof to any officer that
> 2> may question the ham gear that the state of Minnesota specifically
>
>This is a good idea.  I think I will try to grab the actual law and carry it
>myself.  This whole story seems to be getting a good ending.  I'll update
>everyone on it here.

Be careful. A cop isn't going to be interested in looking at some scrap of
paper while he's trying to keep his attention on a suspect. Save the talk of
laws for the judge; he _may_ be interested, the cop _isn't_ because he is
more concerned with whether _this_ suspect also has a gun and will attack _him_.
>
>It should be interesting to hear what sort of response this produces :)
>
>So it looks as if this story has an actual good ending.  I'll keep you folks up
>to date if anything more should happen.  I might just call the Owatonna police
>dept and make a little complaint.

But don't call from your _own_ telephone, _don't_ let them know who you are,
and be aware that if they react negatively to your interference they may
direct their reaction against your friend even if they don't know you.