Check this story out - also near me. The short version is that this guy who holds a GMRS license was jamming businesses at a local shopping center. The
FCC found him, filed charges and fines (not the first offense), but apparently the DA messed up and filed the wrong charges. Case dismissed by the judge.
FCC issues $24000 NAL to alleged shopping centre radio jammer
The
FCC has issued a $24,0000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to
Kevin W. Bondy, licensee of GMRS station WQGX752, in Encino, California.
This for apparently willfully and repeatedly violating Section
95.183(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules by engaging in unlicensed radio operation and intentional interference to licensed radio operations; and apparently willfully and Section 95.115 of the Rules by failing to allow an inspection of his radio equipment by Commission personnel.
You may remember our story a few months ago when an agent from the Los Angeles
FCC office used direction finding equipment to locate the source off interference to the shopping centers radio system.
Using mobile direction finding gear the agent traced the signal to Bondy's car and accompanied by deputies from the Ventura County Sheriff's office confronted him. The
FCC agent identified himself to Bondy and explained that a
refusal to allow an inspection could result in a fine. Then the agent asked Bondy if he could perform an inspection of all radios in his vehicle. Initially, Bondy refused to allow an inspection, then later agreed to allow an inspection, then refused again. Bondy's refusal was witnessed by the Sheriff's Department deputies.
Now, after weighing all the evidence the
FCC says that in its opinion that Kevin W. Bondy's actions warrant not only the base amount fine for each violation but an enhancement based an several circumstances. These include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and the statutory factors to the case, the
FCC concludes that Bondy is apparently liable for a $24,000 forfeiture.
As is always the case, Bondy was given the customary 30 days from the May 14th date of the liability notice to pay or to file an appeal. That date has long since passed. Meantime an informed source indicated to the CGC Communicator that Bondy may walk away free from the most serious criminal charges levied against him.
CGC reports that its possible that a Ventura county prosecutor filed the wrong charges with a wiretapping charge being at the heart of the matter. The presiding judge dismissed that charge on July 23, along with another charge stemming from it. As of now, the only prevailing criminal charge against Bondy is one of making annoying phone calls, but the prosecution has the option to re-file its case.
Source: ARNewsline, FCC, CGC 
FCC catches an intentional jammer then the DA screws up the case 
Linear Mode
