From: tewheele@iastate.edu (Todd E Wheeler)
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:13:54 GMT

In <1992Sep9.195719.21221@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> k9jma@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (edwin.m.schaefer) writes:


>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.


===

What is this?  Meekly back down from a improper police action?

Sounds like  k9jma@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (edwin.m.schaefer) is rather paranoid
about police.  

- don't let them know who you are???
- don't call from your own phone???

Sounds like bad advice to me.

Don't be afraid to find out who is right and who is wrong here.  

Good luck.
Todd N0NUM
tewheele@iastate.edu





















Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy