From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: HAM Friend harassed by police because of HAM equiptment
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:21:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UMCC

In article <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.
    
    The above advice seems to be common sense to me, & I don't recall
reading any responses which seemed to be anathema to the above.  In regards
to #6, I don't recall anyone stating anything that would be the equivalent
of "getting even" with the 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.
>
>
>>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."
>
    OK, I don't think I need to quote you any more.  I don't know what sort
of nasty experience you've had with a police officer or department, but I
think you are rather paranoid & have some sort of notion that the police are
gestapo who can & will do as they please without checks & balances, & that
the only escape we civillians have is to stay out of their way.  
 
   I'm not a cop, but I have worked alongside them as well as in command
positions above & below them.  It is true that they are (naturally) suspect
of people that walk in off the street to talk to them, but that comes with
the job.  If you don't act like a jerk or a lawyer, or tell them you pay
their salaries, etc. they'll listen to you.  These days of 'community
oriented policing,' they are very receptive to comments & even criticism,
especially since it might avert a lawsuit in the future.   They don't have
the time or the resources to try & maintain some sort of database on every
person who disagrees with them, either.
 
   "Printed up" probably just means that the officer ran his name & plate
thru the databases to make sure he wasn't wanted.  That's a routine
procedure, once the officer has made the stop.  A brief report, perhaps just
a paragraph *might* have been written, which will just state that subject
_____, who was driving ______ was stopped at time/location for _____, & that
he had radio equipment in the vehicle.
 
   This is a routine procedure that is carried out each time an officer is
dispatched to a scene or runs a plate/ID.

    If you live in a town with a population of about 3, perhaps the police
will have time to "harass" each person that they've encountered in the past.
In reality, there are too many serious criminals that the police have to
contend with.


-- 
 Tim Tyler   Internet: tim@ais.org  MCI Mail: 442-5735  C$erve: 72571,1005
P.O. Box 443     Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
Ypsilanti MI
48197-0443                  PADI, USPA, AFCEA, INEOA, P226, VFR700, etc.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy