FCC can search homes without a warrant?

[kr4ey]

I guess you don't get it.

This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules.
Operation is subject to the following two conditions

To me as long as you use these devices, you are abiding to the FCC part 15 rules and are subject to search or fines from the FCC.

OET -- Rules & Regulations Page

INSPECTION AUTHORITY



Section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Act) gives the Federal Communications Commission the "authority to inspect all radio installations associated with stations required to be licensed by any Act, or which the Commission by rule has authorized to operate without a license under section 307(e)(1), or which are subject to the provisions of any Act, treaty, or convention binding on the United States . . ." 47 U.S.C. 303 Both Section 303 of the Act, and the Rules which implement the Act, grant the right to inspect most radio operations to the Commission, and by delegated authority to the Commission's Bureaus and agents. The Enforcement Bureau conducts inspections of radio installations as part of the Bureau's function to "[e]nforce the Commission's Rules and Regulations." 47 CFR 0.111(a).

** Both licensees and non-licensees must allow an FCC Agent to inspect their radio equipment. Along with the privilege of possessing a license come responsibilities such as knowing the applicable rules, including allowing the station to be inspected. Licensees should be aware of the Commission's right to inspect. Equally important, FCC Agents are allowed to inspect the radio equipment of non-licensees. Non-licensees include those individuals or entities operating in accordance with Part 15 of the Rules. Non-licensees also include those who should have a license to operate their equipment but have not obtained a license and are operating without authority. **

Radio equipment is generally used in a commercial setting (e.g., commercial broadcast station, land mobile station, commercial delivery service) or a residential setting (e.g., amateur, citizen's band (CB) radio). Home-based businesses may also operate radio stations. This fact sheet addresses inspection of radio stations in both the commercial and residential settings.

And this from part 15 rules

Section 15.29 Inspection by the Commission.
(a) Any equipment or device subject to the provisions of this Part, together with any certificate,
notice of registration or any technical data required to be kept on file by the operator, supplier or party
responsible for compliance of the device shall be made available for inspection by a Commission
representative upon reasonable request.
(b) The owner or operator of a radio frequency device subject to this Part shall promptly furnish
to the Commission or its representative such information as may be requested concerning the operation of
the radio frequency device.
(c) The party responsible for the compliance of any device subject to this Part shall promptly
furnish to the Commission or its representatives such information as may be requested concerning the
operation of the device, including a copy of any measurements made for obtaining an equipment
authorization or demonstrating compliance with the regulations.
(d) The Commission, from time to time, may request the party responsible for compliance,
including an importer, to submit to the FCC Laboratory in Columbia, Maryland, various equipment to
determine that the equipment continues to comply with the applicable standards. Shipping costs to the
Commission's Laboratory and return shall be borne by the responsible party. Testing by the Commission
will be performed using the measurement procedure(s) that was in effect at the time the equipment was
authorized or verified.

 

[Moleculo]

I do get it. You are making partial quotes of the text and also taking them out of context. The full text that you partially quoted says:

FCC Statement
This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules.
Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1)
This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this
device must accept any interference received, including
interference that may cause undesired operation.

It says, "This device", not "This User". And it says that operation is subject to the following "TWO conditions" It doesn't say operation is subject to anything you quoted.

The bottom line is that the consumer is not aware that they are implicitly giving up their search and seizure rights in their own homes by using common devices. The text I quoted does not say that, it doesn't imply it, and the only way you can claim that it does is by adding your own context to it or taking partial quotes out of context. Your argument that it does will never hold up in a court...I've been around waaay too many lawyers lately to know better.

Fortunately we still have a lot of citizens that don't roll over for this type of crap. All this will take is one time for the FCC to try their typical bullying nonsense without a warrant on the wrong consumer and they will get smacked around by the courts. If you want to give up your rights as a citizen, feel free...but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

 

[kr4ey]

I guess you did not read it all.

Section 15.29 Inspection by the Commission.

(b) The owner or operator of a radio frequency device subject to this Part shall promptly furnish
to the Commission or its representative such information as may be requested concerning the operation of
the radio frequency device.

Fortunately we still have a lot of citizens that don't roll over for this type of crap. All this will take is one time for the FCC to try their typical bullying nonsense without a warrant on the wrong consumer and they will get smacked around by the courts. If you want to give up your rights as a citizen, feel free...but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

Typical CB mentality.

 

[Moleculo]

No, I guess you're the one that is having a hard time reading and comprehending what is being said here.

Section 15.29 is not quoted or referenced anywhere in the quoted disclosure that is provided with the equipment, as I very clearly pointed out. YOU are including that part for us to read and then stating that it is being disclosed to consumers in the equipment they buy, when it is nowhere to be found in the supporting documentation that comes with the device.

The whole discussion and point of this thread is that Section 15.29 is highly controversial when applied to every day devices, and that the average consumer does not understand that they are agreeing to this type of unwarranted search of their homes. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Even Wired magazine found it odd and not very comforting so they wrote an article about it. So I guess they have the "CB Mentatility" too?

The "Typical CB Mentality" comment neither proves or disproves any point in this discussion. It only proves to demonstrate that you incapable of debating a point without resorting to name calling and low blows. Sorry, I won't fall for it.

Besides, if you took some time to read some threads around here, you would know that I hold an Extra Class Amateur license and also talk on the CB.

 

[Moleculo]

I guess the guys that wrote this also had a "CB Mentality". If that's the case, I'm proud to say I have the same mentality.

• Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[kr4ey]

Well as a amateur op you should have known when you signed your license you agreed with the FCC part 97 rules including station inspection and waved your 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

 

[Moleculo]

Well as a amateur op you should have known when you signed your license you agreed with the FCC part 97 rules including station inspection and waved your 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

I ALREADY SAID THAT AMATEUR OPS KNOW THIS AND AGREE TO THIS And I said that CBers SHOULD know this!!

THIS DISCUSSION ISN'T ABOUT AMATEURS AND CBERS!!!! SHEESH!!

The ariticle and the entire thread is about the FCC's assertion that they have the right to unwarranted inspection of homes just because you use a simple wireless device like a garage door opener, router, computer, baby monitor or telephone and how unsuspecting consumers are not aware of this. Even lawyers are questioning their assertion.

From the Wired article: “It is a major stretch beyond case law to assert that authority with respect to a private home, which is at the heart of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure,” says Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyer Lee Tien. “When it is a private home and when you are talking about an over-powered Wi-Fi antenna — the idea they could just go in is honestly quite bizarre.”
George Washington University professor Orin Kerr, a constitutional law expert, also questions the legalilty of the policy.
“The Supreme Court has said that the government can’t make warrantless entries into homes for administrative inspections,” Kerr said via e-mail, refering to a 1967 Supreme Court ruling that housing inspectors needed warrants to force their way into private residences. The FCC’s online FAQ doesn’t explain how the agency gets around that ruling, Kerr adds."



Please take the time to read what this thread is about...

FCC’s Warrantless Household Searches Alarm Experts | Threat Level | Wired.com

 

[kr4ey]

Yes I have read that article. What I still can't figure out, is why did they choose a Supreme Court ruling for a city government building inspector, for a federal government (FCC) related article. There is a very big difference. They could have found something more related to federal government. There is none that I know of for illegal searches by the FCC. And I see no problem here with the FCC rulings, they have had equipment inspections long before this article was ever thought about being published. Maybe Wired had nothing better to do.

It all comes down to, If you don't want to abide by the FCC rules for a device, don't operate it, and there won't be a problem.

 

[Moleculo]

is why did they choose a Supreme Court ruling for a city government building inspector, for a federal government (FCC) related article.

Often (usually) court rulings that involve one specific example are used as case law and applied on more general terms for similar issues. If an administrative search by a building inspector requires a search warrant, then the same standard of law would apply to other government agencies that with to perform administrative searches, notwithstanding some other predicating factors that could allow it. In this example the FCC must believe that the existing case law does not apply to them. This is stuff for lawyers and judges to hash out, and I'm sure they will at some point.

 

[ButtFuzz]

I'm with the FCC...

Yeah, you know me!

 

[Lazybones1222]

Typical CB mentality.

What a douche bag you are RICHARD. I hate people that prejudge a whole group based on the actions of a few.

BTW, I live 38 miles from this guy.

 

[Shioda]

Well as a amateur op you should have known when you signed your license you agreed with the FCC part 97 rules including station inspection and waved your 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

This is not true in the least. No one waives their 4th or 5th amendment rights by accepting a license. Are you going to claim that if an amateur operator leaves in the house, no one else has any rights either since consent to search by one occupant operates as a consent by all occupants?

 

[ButtFuzz]

Oh, geez...

I guess you did not read it all.
Typical CB mentality.

My computer is a AMD Quad Core homebrew with 8 GB memory and 1TB hard drive running Fedora 11 x86_64...

Typical Freetard mentality

 

[KingCobra_CDX882]

Originally Posted by kr4ey
Well as a amateur op you should have known when you signed your license you agreed with the FCC part 97 rules including station inspection and waved your 4th and 5th Amendment rights.
( kr4ey is Wrong)


Shioda..is Right in saying..

This is not true in the least. No one waives their 4th or 5th amendment rights by accepting a license. Are you going to claim that if an amateur operator leaves in the house, no one else has any rights either since consent to search by one occupant operates as a consent by all occupants?

The Absolute Most the F.C.C. can do...when they ask (even if they Insist) to see and inspect your station...and if you tell them to take a Long Walk off a Short pier.....then the F.C.C. Can NOT enter your home under any circumstances..

At that point...their options are...
Cancell your Ametuer Licence
and or have you levied with a fine
and or Obtain a federal warrant to have your station inspected whether you agree or not ( at that point)

Without a Federal Court ordered warrant (Must be federal warrant since FCC is federal) they can not enter your home if you tell them....NO !!

You can lose your license
You may be fined
and or jailed (after your day in court..or if you fail to show up in court..then judge can and might side with FCC )

Just like..
if a cop pulls you ovver in your car or truck..
If cop fears or suspects your drunk or over legal drinking limit.
the cop can present a breatherlizer for you to use for him to determine whether or not you are over the limit...
BUT..
you can say....NOPE..

of course at that point...the cop can take your licence..
can bring you back to police head courters
then can have you tested via a blood test..
but the cop can not "force" you to take the breatherlizer test
(unsure if cop has to obtain a court order to have a blood test given though)

 

[5959]

Freetards

I think this term enunciates his position.
He is better than you and let it die.

We cannot challenge his knowledge. He spent inumerable hours on QRZ to get his tech license .

We ignorant cb guys do not grasp p over i e .

Bow to the god of us freetards.