See the other thread. The FCC considers your wireless router and your cordless phone and your cell phone a "radio station"
-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
FCC admits it cannot search your home
- Thread starter Shioda
- Start date
See the other thread. The FCC considers your wireless router and your cordless phone and your cell phone a "radio station"
I guess there isn't a link ??? Hmmmm...... I'm not sure of the purpose of the post. It is completely inline with the FCC website.
They do not need a warrant to inspect. They do need permission to enter. They will not seize equipment without a court order. They will accept you volunteering it to them. All that is on the FCC site.
They do not need a warrant to inspect. They do need permission to enter. They will not seize equipment without a court order. They will accept you volunteering it to them. All that is on the FCC site.
See this thread where the FCC claimed it could do a warrantless search. http://www.worldwidedx.com/fcc-arrl...mission-can-search-homes-without-warrant.html
If you are trying to refute the article it would do justice to verify your quote.
As far as the article it was referring to radio frequency devices outside of Amateur or CB use. The problem is that some state that if you use a radio frequency device you agree to inspection by its use. The problem is that is not told to the consumer. I just opened a brand new wireless phone. Nowhere
does it state that one is subject to follow the rules and yield to inspection. It just states the product is found to comply with the limits with FCC regulations in Part 15. Nowhere is it remotely implied that the consumer is subject to inspection if the device is problematic. Nowhere does it state that the consumer must comply to Part 15. That is the crutch of the article.
The FCC makes this statement which the article refutes is legal-
As far as the article it was referring to radio frequency devices outside of Amateur or CB use. The problem is that some state that if you use a radio frequency device you agree to inspection by its use. The problem is that is not told to the consumer. I just opened a brand new wireless phone. Nowhere
does it state that one is subject to follow the rules and yield to inspection. It just states the product is found to comply with the limits with FCC regulations in Part 15. Nowhere is it remotely implied that the consumer is subject to inspection if the device is problematic. Nowhere does it state that the consumer must comply to Part 15. That is the crutch of the article.
The FCC makes this statement which the article refutes is legal-
With the RF devices mentioned in the article this requirement is not presented to the consumer with the purchase of said device .
It IS true they can do a warrantless inspection in that to inspect they do not need a warrant. But they do need permission to enter your home. My problem, as with the article, is that the inspection process or requirement is not stated with the documents accompanying the device. It does not state that the user must comply by certain rules of operation. It just states that the device is found to comply with regulatory requirements in its manufacturing .
The FCC has options for inspection. The 4th Amendment insures your rights to be secure in your person, property and home. The FCC has to get a search warrant if you revoke your consent. There are particular caveats to this situation, as Doc mentioned. But it is different for CBers and Hams.
CBers don't run the risk of losing their license - of course - since it isn't licensable. Just fines. Can they confiscate illegal CB equipment? Well, only if you let them in. The 4th Amendment is not only against illegal searches, but illegal seizures as well. They must have a warrant to take the stuff, or tell them to take a hike if they fail to produce one before they attempt to enter.
Now, as previously indicated, a Ham can lose his license for not allowing FCC inspection of the station. But, you can protect your 4th amendment rights by refusing access.. This was the point the FCC offical failed to make before she was fired. As a side note, she may have grounds to sue for infringement of her First Amendment right to freedom of speech for being fired because she addressed stood up for people's 4th Amendment rights. I'll have to ask my bro about that one...
The FCC doesn't need to go into your home and examine your gear either. To allow them do this, is to allow them all of the additional evidence in a courtroom to sink your boat. You have the right against self-incrimination (5th Amend.) which is implicated when you make any admissions (verbal or otherwise) regarding the legal status of your equipment. They already have the info they need from their equipment in their van - which tells them (exactly) where you are, how much power you are using, how long the transmissions are, what frequencies you've been operating on, and so on. They have everything. Do NOT think for a moment that you can send them packing empty-handed. They already have what they need with the data. You are only kidding yourself.
The thing is, to see your equipment is just a verification of the data that they have already gathered.
But - it amounts to an admission of guilt by refusal to comply - which your Bill of Rights have provided for you. Don't relinquish it -losing your license may be the cost - but you are standing for your rights. You may very well lose your license either way - in much the same way that one can automatically lose their drivers license by refusal of a blood draw or breathalyze for a drunk driving offense. They may not win the conviction for the charge; but they have been punitive by removing the privilege.
Personally, I think that woman said and did the right thing. She hung on to the essential meaning of your 4th Amendment rights by declaring what should be already obvious to us all. She reaffirmed it - though it cost her - her job/position. Furthermore, is the 'privilege' of radio use just that? By taking it away - does it impinge on your right for free speech? No one that I've read has suggested this, but it can be so. Many years ago, the only way people could discuss politics and their gov't was in public houses - or 'bars'. The numbers of bars has greatly diminished, so that there are fewer avenues for people to speak about gov't - their gov't!. As far as my opinion goes, we have that right and it shall not be abridged or infringed.
Especially abridged!
CBers don't run the risk of losing their license - of course - since it isn't licensable. Just fines. Can they confiscate illegal CB equipment? Well, only if you let them in. The 4th Amendment is not only against illegal searches, but illegal seizures as well. They must have a warrant to take the stuff, or tell them to take a hike if they fail to produce one before they attempt to enter.
Now, as previously indicated, a Ham can lose his license for not allowing FCC inspection of the station. But, you can protect your 4th amendment rights by refusing access.. This was the point the FCC offical failed to make before she was fired. As a side note, she may have grounds to sue for infringement of her First Amendment right to freedom of speech for being fired because she addressed stood up for people's 4th Amendment rights. I'll have to ask my bro about that one...
The FCC doesn't need to go into your home and examine your gear either. To allow them do this, is to allow them all of the additional evidence in a courtroom to sink your boat. You have the right against self-incrimination (5th Amend.) which is implicated when you make any admissions (verbal or otherwise) regarding the legal status of your equipment. They already have the info they need from their equipment in their van - which tells them (exactly) where you are, how much power you are using, how long the transmissions are, what frequencies you've been operating on, and so on. They have everything. Do NOT think for a moment that you can send them packing empty-handed. They already have what they need with the data. You are only kidding yourself.
The thing is, to see your equipment is just a verification of the data that they have already gathered.
But - it amounts to an admission of guilt by refusal to comply - which your Bill of Rights have provided for you. Don't relinquish it -losing your license may be the cost - but you are standing for your rights. You may very well lose your license either way - in much the same way that one can automatically lose their drivers license by refusal of a blood draw or breathalyze for a drunk driving offense. They may not win the conviction for the charge; but they have been punitive by removing the privilege.
Personally, I think that woman said and did the right thing. She hung on to the essential meaning of your 4th Amendment rights by declaring what should be already obvious to us all. She reaffirmed it - though it cost her - her job/position. Furthermore, is the 'privilege' of radio use just that? By taking it away - does it impinge on your right for free speech? No one that I've read has suggested this, but it can be so. Many years ago, the only way people could discuss politics and their gov't was in public houses - or 'bars'. The numbers of bars has greatly diminished, so that there are fewer avenues for people to speak about gov't - their gov't!. As far as my opinion goes, we have that right and it shall not be abridged or infringed.
Especially abridged!
Last edited:
What woman is that ? If it was what was said to be stated by Laura Smith it is the same thing the FCC site states. I hadn't heard she lost her job nor have I read an account of her statement other than what was posted in the first thread.
In legal terms it means-
To give testimony by affidavit or deposition.
Again the original poster has yet to verify his statement as well as the meaning of "deposed" .
de·pose (d-pz)
v. de·posed, de·pos·ing, de·pos·es
v.tr.
1.
a. To remove from office or power.
b. To dethrone.
2. Law To take a deposition from: Investigators will depose the witness behind closed doors.
3. To put or lay down; deposit.
v.intr. Law
To give testimony by affidavit or deposition.
________________________
So as you can see, the word has multiple meanings. It's really not the issue here. I'm not sure if she was fired or not; as it hasn't been made clear to me either. The gist of what I am saying here - is that your rights cannot be infringed. If it means losing your license - or losing your license with other punitive measures - because you let them - means further admiision of guilt.
That's all...
v. de·posed, de·pos·ing, de·pos·es
v.tr.
1.
a. To remove from office or power.
b. To dethrone.
2. Law To take a deposition from: Investigators will depose the witness behind closed doors.
3. To put or lay down; deposit.
v.intr. Law
To give testimony by affidavit or deposition.
________________________
So as you can see, the word has multiple meanings. It's really not the issue here. I'm not sure if she was fired or not; as it hasn't been made clear to me either. The gist of what I am saying here - is that your rights cannot be infringed. If it means losing your license - or losing your license with other punitive measures - because you let them - means further admiision of guilt.
That's all...
Last edited:
I don't think the first post was based on a factual statement. I believe it was used to stir debate .
I dont think most of us had to do a search on this in the first place LMAO! I also wondered why the hell this hornets nest was tampered with besides for getting or obtaining factual information. This was a given when there was no link posted to back this crazy thread although now people that thought they knew REALLY KNOW THE TRUTH!!
- No one is chatting at the moment.