Subject: Laws against scanners in cars?? [was Re: Radios in crime (was: Re: (#1 in series) Listen to store security guards catch shoplif
Message-ID: <269@ccop1.ocpt.ccur.com>
As was mentioned on the net, modification of the "NJ Scanner Law" is unlikely in this term of the legislature. Therefore we have to live with the old (1936) one for a bit longer. Here's the text of the old law.
2A:127-4. Installing short wave radios operative on frequencies assigned
for governmental uses; exceptions. Any person who installs or has in any
automobile, a short-wave radio receiver operative on frequencies
assigned by the Federal Communications Commission for fire,
police, municipal or other governmental uses, is guilty of a misdemeanor,
unless a permit threfor has first been obtained from the chief of the
county police, or the chief of the police of the municipality, wherein
such person resides.
This section does not apply to any fire, police or other governmaental
official of the State or of any county or municipality thereof.
The term fire official, as used in this act, shall include all active
members and officers of any municipal fire department or force or any
first aid and emergency or volunteer ambulance or rescue squad whether
said department, force or squad be paid, part-paoid, or volunteer.
I asked my brother, who is an assistant prosecutor for Bergen County, to
interpret what this law really means. Here is my summary of his comments.
(Incidently, he has prosecuted people using this law).
1. The law is one of the few misdemeanors left in NJ from the old
criminal code. Most of what the public calls misdemeanors are really
disorderly persons offenses (DO). A DO can be brought by a municipal
prosecutor; misdemeanors and felonies are brought by the county and are
indictable offenses.
Therefore prosecution under this law usually requires
indictment by a grand jury. As a result, this law is normally used only
when a prosecutor is already going to a grand jury for a concurrent felony,
e.g. roberry, etc. In addition, he calls this law "plea fodder"; a charge
the prosecutor will give up if you a cop a plea to the underlying
crime. Since most courts are so backed up, the chances of you being
arrested, indicted, convicted and going to jail for this offense only
are virtually nil.
2. Permission from your local chief of police is good for any frequency
anywhere in the state. This is the same procedure as for firearm permits
which are issued by your local chief of police as well and need not be obtained
from each municipality which you visit. The permit is for the radio, not the
frequency.
3. The fact that police frequencies are VHF & UHF and not "shortwave" is
irrelevant. The intent of the law is to prevent you from listening from police or fire frequencies and going to an incident and getting in the way.
4. Technically, carrying a scanner in your trunk home from Radio Shack is
illegal. But once again, that wasn't the intent of the legislature in passing
the law and wouldn't go to court. (There weren't scanners in 1936).
5. He feels that the law might be overturned if it ever was appealled through
the three levels of the state court system to a Federal court. Got $100,000
and a prosecutor with nothing better to do in order to test this ?
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but thought you'd like a prosecutor's
opinion on the subject. (There are lots of other obsolete laws on the
books as well. Don't tie your horse so the reins go across the sidewalk!)
When I was young, I visited England, and one year I went, I
carried a TRS-80 Mod 100, portable with two 6 volt Ni-Cd batteries
taped together with duct tape, I went through all security and back,
and no one even questioned my set-up.
However, on my trip through detroit airport, security searched my
mini-mag flaslight I guess for drugs.
This was during the height of the TWA bombings, on my flight back, the
previous flight had been delayed due to a bomb scare,
and I make it through with two mysterious duc tape packages that had
wires leading out of them.
anmar
------------------------------
Date: 8 Dec 89 16:31:50 GMT
From: stout!elmore@handies.ucar.edu (Kim Elmore)
Subject: Telephone Interference
Message-ID: <5609@ncar.ucar.edu>
In article <1260006@hpmwtlb.HP.COM> timb@hpmwtd.HP.COM (Tim Bagwell) writes:
>I also have this problem on my phone (a Panasonic) and a neighbors phone. The
>RFI seems to be worse on 15 and 20 meters. I agree with Al that the main source
>of pick-up is through the handset cord.
>
>I have a feeling this is going to be a big headache with the advent of "cheap"
>phones (I have never had this problem with ATT phones, Al). It would be nice
>if someone would look into this problem and find a quick and inexpensive
>solution so I can fix the neighbors phones if the need arises. For those of
>us living in populated areas, this is a major pain.
>
>I wonder what the FCC requirements are on RFI susceptability for telephones?
>
>Please post, on the net, any results that you find to work.
>
>73's de WB9MVP/6
I sent a reply to the original poster, but thought I'd quickly share my
experiences with the net. I've successfully treated telephone RFI in my
cheapie phones, and two types of Western Electric phones. I've also treated
RFI on my and a neighbor's answering machines using this method with additions.
I use a standard filter that I saw in a Tab book on interference who's
title and author escapes me. He suggested a 680 uH choke in the tip and ring
lines terminated with a 0.01 uF capacitor, like this:
680 uH
---------mmm-----|-- tip
|
= 0.01 uF
|
---------mmm-----|-- ring
680 uH
1 mH chokes would work, but all the ones I could find were too big to
fit inside the phone. The capacitor should be rated for *at least* 100 V and
150 would be better. I've used 100 V monoblock capacitors and they haven't
quit yet, but I'm told that the ring signal is 90 V RMS, so I'm pushing my luck.
I place one filter in the phone body where the line enters the
instrument, one on the handset cord where it leaves the body and one on the
handset cord where it enters the handset. I also place a 0.01 uF capacitor
across the earpiece element (speaker) and one across the mouthpiece, which
consists of electret elements in most modern phones. This technique has not
yet failed to eleminate RFI or at least reduce it to the point that it is
not a problem. I suppose two filters could be placed in series in severe
cases, but I've never tried it.
On old-style dial phones, I've treated the problem with just 0.01 uF
capcitors across the earpiece and mouthpiece elements. Nothing more was needed,
but I was ready to put one of these filters in if that didn't work. My
answering machine has one of the above filters built in where the telephone
line enters, which solved most of the problem. The final solution was to
wrap the power cord coming out of the wall transformer around a ferrite bar.
I close-wound the cord over the length of the bar. Now the machine never
acts up. A neighbor about 120 feet away just wrapped the power cord around
a ferrite bar and has had no problems since. I utilize power levels of about
850 W from 160 m through 20 m. My amp will crank out only 500 - 600 W
on 15, 12 and 10 m.
As an ARRL Asst. Tech. Coord., I've advised other hams to try this and
it has always seemed to work. I've also been with FCC engineers investigating
RFI complaints and the FCC takes the approach that "We don't protect telephone
equipment," which translates to "We don't address RFI problems to telephone
instruments. It's your problem that you have phones suseptable to RFI."
I don't know of any RFI standards that phones are supposed to meet and
manufacturers are uniformly worthless when it comes to addressing the problem.
Looks like this one will be with us for the forseeable future...
73 and Merry Christmas!
Kim Elmore, N5OP
********************************************************************************Disclaimer: Be acreful if you choose to modify a neighbor's phone: you may
end up with the expense of replacing it if something goes wrong
