Talk:Radio scanner

Disclosing Information Received to Other Persons - Illegal?

The article states that "the general guidelines to follow when using a radio scanner are that it is illegal to" ... "disclose information received to other persons".

I don't believe this is correct. The cited Electronic Communication Privacy Act enumerates in 2511(1)(e) conditions under which disclosure is prohibited, and it does not include 2511(2)(g)(i)-(ii), which allows interception by radio scanners.

But I'm not a lawyer. --Vanyo (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It goes all the way back to the Communications Act of 1932, which says that intercepts cannot be divulged except for broadcast radio, amateur radio, or distress calls. There's no doubt been a lot of case law since then, but most scanner books include a disclaimer to this effect up top. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This case might shed some light on the subject. Fast457 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

First decision

936 F.Supp. 810 (order)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))Plaintiff, )) vs. ) No. 95-CR-55-C) LARRY NATHAN GASS , ))Defendant. )ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is the motion filed by defendant, Larry Nathan Gass, seeking judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. On April 7, 1995, a twenty-seven Count Indictment was filed against Gass and an associate charging them with conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, and sale or modification of devices intended for unauthorized interception and publication of radio communications, in violation of 47 U.S.C.605(a) and 605(e)(4). Gass filed a motion for judgment of acquittal on July 24, 1995, which was taken under advisement by the Court.

A jury trial was held on July 24 through July 28. On July 28, the jury returned a verdict of guilt on each Count charged against Gass. On August 3,Gass again moved for judgment of acquittal. Sentencing has been set for February 14, 1996. Gass moves this Court to enter judgment of acquittal on several grounds, but, in disposing of the motion, the Court need only focus upon one issue.

Gass contends that his conviction is improper given the language contained in Chapter 119 of Title 18, 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. The Court finds merit in this argument. Gass was indicted for modifying radio equipment and selling the devices to news organizations in Tulsa, for the purpose of eavesdropping on Tulsa's trunked radio system, including all of Tulsa's police frequencies and fire department communications.

When the trunked system was implemented, the City of Tulsa gave specific media businesses access to certain "patrol" frequencies, but did not authorize access to "tactical" radio communications of the Tulsa police department. There is no dispute that the communications charged in the Indictment involve solely governmental communications.

Gass was charged under 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(4), making it a crime to manufacture, assemble, modify, import, export, sell, or distribute any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the device is intended for any activity prohibited by 47 U.S.C. 605(a). The government charged that Gass violated the second sentence of 605(a), which provides that "[n]o person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radiocommunication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person." The applicability of Chapter 119 of Title 18 was not contained in the Indictment, nor was an instruction given to the jury concerning its application.

Chapter 119 of Title 18 (known as the "Wiretap Act") governs wire and electronic communications and the interception of such communications. Gass relies upon 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(ii)(II), which provides that it shall not be unlawful to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted "by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public." Gass maintains that Chapter 119 necessarily qualifies the reach of 605(a).

Section 605(a) begins with the introductory clause, "Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, . . .." The government argues that this introductory clause only modifies the first sentence of 605(a) and not the second sentence, under which Gass was charged. Gass contends that the introductory clause modifies each and every sentence contained in 605(a). The government suggests that if Chapter 119 applied to every sentence, an additional element would be added to 605(a) in its entirety, requiring proof that the sender had both a subjective and objective expectation of privacy. The government argues that such would run afoul of precedent, as well as the purpose of 605(a). The government argues that 605(a) was intended to broaden the protection of radio communications, and that applying Chapter 119 to 605(a) in its entirety would only serve to negate these protections. The government further maintains that Congress intended wire communications to be governed solely by Chapter 119, while leaving radio communications under the control of 605(a).

The government does not cite any authority directly supporting its position, except for one scholarly article written in 1985 by Bruce E. Fein. Fein wrote that Congress likely intended 605(a) as opposed to Chapter 119 to govern the legality of the interception or divulgence of radio communications by persons not involved in the regular transmission of such communications. Hence, Fein asserted that 605(a)'s introductory clause only applied to the first sentence of 605(a), and not to the remaining sentences. The government does cite some cases which tend to hold that 605 was intended to provide considerable protection to users of radio communication devices. The same can be said, however, about the Wiretap Act, although to a more limited extent.

Gass takes the position that Chapter 119 qualifies the entire paragraph of 605(a), thereby permitting the interception of radio communications transmitted by governmental communications systems that are readily accessible to the general public. Gass notes that Chapter 119 was amended in 1986 to specifically authorize the interception of readily accessible governmental radio communications. Gass contends that this amendment necessarily nullifies the government's argument that Congress did not intend that the interception and divulgence of radio communications would be subject to the wiretap laws contained in Chapter 119. Gass cites three Circuit cases for support, all of which hold that Chapter 119 qualifies the entire paragraph of 605(a).

In U.S. v. Rose, 669 F.2d 23, 26-27 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 (1982), the First Circuit held that Chapter 119 applied to radio communications otherwise protected by 605(a), by virtue of 605(a)'s introductory clause. The court recognized that "the protective shield of 605 is significantly diminished in scope by incorporating the requirements of [Chapter 119]." The court noted, however, that it was significant that Congress simultaneously added 605(a)'s introductory clause when it passed Chapter 119 in 1968. The court cited legislative history which clearly states that "The regulation of the interception of wire or oral communications in the future is to be governed by the proposed new [Title III]." Id.

In Edwards v. State Farm Ins. Co., 833 F.2d 535 (5th Cir.1987), the Fifth Circuit held that while the phrase could be interpreted to preface only the first sentence of section 605,. . . we think the better interpretation limits each of section 605's prohibitions to activities not authorized by the Wiretap Act." Id. at 540. The court went on to note that Under the former interpretation, activity permissible under the Wiretap Act could be prohibited under section 605 of the Communications Act. Since Congress added the introductory phrase to section 605 at the same time that it enacted the Wiretap Act, we believe Congress likely intended to make the same statutes consistent. The latter interpretation has this effect by ensuring that the interception and divulgence of a voice communication transmitted by radio waves is not prohibited by section 605 unless the communication also falls within the protections of the Wiretap Act. . . . [W]e acknowledge that neither the language of section 605 nor the relevant legislative history makes it entirely clear whether Congress intended this result . . .. Id. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that the 1986 amendments to the Wiretap Act add much support to that court's conclusion, as these amendments expressly govern voice communication transmitted by radio waves. The court rejected the argument contained in Bruce Fein's law review article that Chapter 119 only applies to the first sentence of 605(a). The court noted that "[e]ven this commentator . . . suggested as an alternative interpretation the one adopted by the First Circuit in Rose." Id. at 540 n.7.

Additionally, the Eighth Circuit followed the lead of the First andFifth Circuits in Tyler v. Berodt, 877 F.2d 705 (8th Cir. 1989),cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1022 (1990), which held that the requirements of Chapter 119 apply to 605.

This Court adopts the sound position taken by these circuit courts. The Court cannot accept the arguments espoused by the government that Chapter 119 only qualifies the first sentence 605(a). To do so would produce anomalous results, which Congress could not have intended. Thus, especially in light of the 1986 amendments to Chapter 119, the Wiretap Act does, in fact, limit the applicability of 605(a) with respect to radio communications, contrary to the government's position. The government's reading of 605(a) contradicts the express language of Chapter 119.

If this Court were to give effect to the government's argument, then the governmental radio interception exception contained in Chapter 119 makes no sense; a person would be permitted under Chapter 119 to intercept police radio transmissions only to be subject to criminal prosecution under 605. Why would Congress impose a ban on the interception and divulgence of radio communications in one statute, while allowing for a specific exception in another, if it did not intend for the statutes to be read together?

The only way to avoid absurdity in such a case is to interpret the conflicting statutes in a manner which permits the statutes to complement one another, thereby giving effect to the specific exception. It would seem that the maxim "specific over general" is especially applicable here. As the Supreme Court noted, a "more specific statute will be given precedence over a more general one. "Busic v. U.S., 446 U.S. 398, 406 (1980).

Since Chapter 119 specifically addresses radio communications transmitted by the government, it must control 605(a)'s general prohibition with respect to such radio transmissions. As such, 605(a) is qualified by the exception contained in Chapter 119 for the interception of governmental radio transmissions. The government's fear that such an interpretation will seriously undermine the protections contained in 605(a) is largely unfounded. Chapter 119 does serve the purpose of providing protection to radio communications, but it also contains several exceptions and additional qualifications. Concededly, 605(a)'s protections are minimized by Chapter 119's applicability, but this result is mandated in order to harmonize two otherwise conflicting statutes.

Hence, given that this Court has determined that Chapter 119 qualifies the second sentence of 605(a), the issue at trial should have been directed to the exception contained in 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g). That is, under that section, the activities charged in the indictment against Gass cannot be criminal unless the government proves that the radio communications which Gass sought to intercept were not readily accessible to the general public. Accordingly, since the exception contained in Chapter 119 was not presented to the jury at trial, the Court concludes that Gass'motion for judgment of acquittal must be and hereby is Granted. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 1996.

s/H. Dale Cook H. DALE COOK U.S. District Judge

Second decision

Here is the second Gass decision. Fast457 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

936 F.Supp. 810, 813 (order denying reconsideration)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))Plaintiff, )) vs. ) No. 95-CR-55-C) LARRY NATHAN GASS, ))Defendant. )ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is the motion filed by the government seeking reconsideration of the Court's order granting Gass' motion for judgment of acquittal. On April 7, 1995, a twenty-seven Count Indictment was filed against Gass and an associate charging them with conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, and sale or modification of devices intended for unauthorized interception and publication of radio communications, in violation of 47 U.S.C. 605(a) and 605(e)(4). Gass filed a motion for judgment of acquittal on July 24, 1995, which was taken under advisement by the Court. A jury trial was held on July 24 through July 28, 1995. On July 28, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on each of the seventeen Counts charged against Gass. On August 3, Gass again moved for judgment of acquittal. On February 12, 1996, the Court granted Gass' motion for judgment of acquittal, finding that certain issues should have been presented to the jury during Gass' trial. The government requests that the Court reconsider its order granting Gass' motion for judgment of acquittal. In support of its motion, the government now raises many issues for the first time.

Specifically, the government seeks to address the effect of the 1986 amendments to Chapter 119, 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. The Court is cognizant of the fact that the government has not previously responded to Gass' motions and briefs concerning the 1986 amendments to Chapter 119. Gass mentioned the 1986 amendments several times prior to the Court's order granting judgment of acquittal, and Gass even commented on a few occasions that it was curious that the government never made mention of these amendments, nor responded to Gass' reliance upon them. Now, six months after the jury returned its verdict, the government apologetically asks the Court to excuse its failure to respond to Gass' reliance upon the 1986 amendments. In its present motion, the government informs the Court that the government "incorrectly and unfortunately anticipated that the Court would afford the parties a hearing on the motion for judgment of acquittal prior to the issuance of a final order, and regretfully the government did not, therefore, apprise the Court" of information concerning the 1986 amendments which "may have been of assistance in resolving the issue at bar." The Court has much difficulty understanding why the government did not bring these matters to the Court's attention at some point during the last six months, especially when Gass explicitly raised these issues in support of his motion for judgment of acquittal. To remain virtually idle in an unjustified anticipation of a hearing for a period of months, while neglecting to brief the effect of the 1986 amendments at some point during that time period in the hope that such matters may be addressed at an "assumed" hearing, is unreasonable. Surely, the government must have known that after several months of considering Gass' motions for judgment of acquittal, a final order was imminent.

The government asserts that 18 U.S.C. 2512, like 47 U.S.C. 605(e), criminalizes the manufacture and/or sale of electronic devices, knowing such devices render it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of electronic communication. The government therefore seems to suggest that since the jury, in finding Gass guilty under 605(e), determined that Gass committed certain activities, and since these same activities may similarly constitute a violation of 2512 under Chapter 119, Gass' conviction should stand under 605(e) even if Chapter 119 applies. This argument is meritless. Gass was not charged under 2512, the jury did not convict Gass under 2512, and this Court cannot now find Gass guilty of violating 2512. This Court must focus on the statute under which Gass was convicted and determine if Gass' conviction is permissible under that statute. In the instant case, Gass was convicted under 47 U.S.C. 605. For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that Gass' conviction under 605 must be set aside. Hence, the fact that Gass' activities may have amounted to a violation under 18 U.S.C. 2512 is irrelevant.

If the government desired to proceed against Gass under 2512, it should have done so. The Court, in its order granting judgment of acquittal, concluded that 605(a) and Chapter 119 are inconsistent, and that, especially in light of 605(a)'s introductory clause, Chapter 119 qualifies 605(a).

The government, however, argues that 605(a) and Chapter 119 can be readily reconciled. The government states that " 2511(2)(g)(ii)(II) permits interception, and only when the radio communications are readily accessible to the general public. Section 605(a) . . . criminalizes interception only when there is an actual divulgence or publication. The wiretap provisions are not in conflict with section 605(a) because section 605(a) requires proof of the additional element of divulgence or publication."

The government therefore contends that since the jury found Gass guilty of engaging in conduct with the purpose of intercepting and divulging radio communications, Gass'activities went beyond the scope of the interception exception contained in 2511(2)(g)(ii)(II). Thus, since the act of divulging the communications at issue is not an excepted activity under Chapter 119, 605(a)'s prohibitions remain unqualified in the instant case.

The Court does not agree. Chapter 119 generally prohibits the interception of any oral or electronic communication, which, by definition, includes radio signals. 18 U.S.C. 2510 and 2511(1)(a).

Chapter 119 alsogenerally prohibits the intentional disclosure or use of oral or electronic communications where the person knows or has reason to know that the communication was intercepted in violation of subsection 2511(1). 18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(c) and (d). Conversely, 2511 does not generally prohibit the divulgence of communications which are legally intercepted. Any "electronic communication" that is "readily accessible to the general public" may be intercepted. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(i). Moreover, any governmental "radio communication" that is "readily accessible" to the general public may be intercepted, regardless of any expectation of privacy. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(ii)(II).

Since it is not a violation under 2511 to intercept readily accessible governmental radio communications, 2511(1)(c) and (d) do not prohibit divulgence or use of such communications. If a governmental radio communication is "readily accessible to the general public," then where is the harm in intercepting it and divulging the contents of the communication? Chapter 119 recognizes this by not prohibiting the interception and divulgence of such "readily accessible" governmental "radio communications." Furthermore, whenever a "readily accessible" message is sent out over the airways, it is essentially "divulged" to the public. Presumably, anyone using a lawful device, in a lawful manner, can receive "readily accessible" radio communications.

Section2511(1)(e) is also noteworthy in that it prohibits the disclosure of certain communications which areotherwise legally intercepted. Significantly, 2511(1)(e) does not prohibit the disclosure of communications legally intercepted under the exceptions contained in 2511(2)(g). If Congress desired to prohibit the divulgence of radio communications legally intercepted pursuant to 2511(2)(g), it could have easily done so in 2511(1)(e).

Since this Court has accepted the position taken by the First, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits that Chapter 119 qualifies 605(a), and that these two statutes must be read together, the question of whether the governmental communications at issue were "readily accessible to the general public" should have been presented to the jury. This conclusion comports with the language in Edwards v. State Farm Ins. Co., 833 F.2d 535, 540 (5th Cir. 1987), that "the interception and divulgence of a voice communication transmitted by radio waves is not prohibited by section 605 unless the communication also falls within the protections of the Wiretap Act" (emphasis added).

Since the Court recognizes that "readily accessible" governmental "radio communications" do not fall within the protections of Chapter 119, as they are expressly excepted from that Chapter's general prohibitions, the interception and divulgence of such communications is not prohibited by virtue of 605. Hence, the jury should have been presented with the question of whether the communications at issue were "readily accessible to the general public," as that phrase is defined in Chapter 119.

The Court cannot, and need not, make the determination as to whether such communications were, in fact, readily accessible. It is sufficient to sustain the Court's order granting judgment of acquittal that the jury was not presented with this issue. Accordingly, the government's request that the Court reinstate Gass' convictions is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 27 day of February, 1996. s/ H. Dale Cook H. DALE COOK U.S. District Judge

Fast457 (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Searching at fcc.gov for "interception" and "divulgence" - this URL was returned - http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/interception.html

The "Supreme Court" decision that is mentioned might be the 2 Gass decisions posted previously.

Searching at fcc.gov for "police scanner" results in 0 hits.

Fast457 (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Here is a recent discussion with case law regarding live scanner feeds on the Internet. http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81717

Fast457 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Here is a thread about Privacy - http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80339

So, this is going to make the article look small but, time to fix it? I say balete all that crap about cell phones, the massive amount of links and do something about all the wiki links. Seperate the history and uses section and expand it. Consolidate all the legal stuff to one section, format it nice so say if someone wants to add in the laws for scanners in Kentucky or some small hick town in Alberta, it is easy to do so. And so on. Dpiercey (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with playing around with court decisions is that they would count as primary sources. They may be open to interpretation or just plain invalid. A tertiary source such as American Jurisprudence may be extremely helpful in researching something like this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

and this is the owner of wikileaks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.24.178 (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

if someone gets around to it posting the laws on having scanners in the UK or other Country's in Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.28.178 (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: A Citizen's Guide to Police Scanners. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 108.48.193.178 (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Scanner (radio) → Radio scanner – In this case, WP:NATURAL disambiguation serves the purpose better than the disambiguated form. Target already redirects to this article. -- Netoholic @ 22:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Lends itself to a natural disambig like Neutron scanner, Image scanner, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:NATURALDIS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom and others. --Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Do Not Support Within the scanner community the most common reference is to a "Scanner" or "Scanner Radio" (less common). "Radio Scanner" is not a term used often if at all inside the scanner community. While this in itself may not be grounds for the final decision making process, it should be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N9jig (talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Very true. However the same is true within the graphics community ("...avoid things that could scratch the scanner bed" etc.) or in any professional subculture, i.e. formal terms are usually abbreviated. But for a general encyclopedia, IMO, the formal term is more appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking into this concern, I put both "radio scanner" and "scanner radio" through Google Ngrams, and radio scanner is much more prevalent. The other form may be more popular in certain regions or circumstances. Calling it a "scanner" alone tends to require some context as to what type of scanner. -- Netoholic @ 03:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps my opinion is nuanced from being active in the community, within the scanner community (a rather niche hobby to be sure) it is never called a "radio scanner". I am not sure if in-community usage makes a difference or not but if it does then the proposal should be reevaluated. N9jig (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, but in that community, "radio" is assumed in context, so if someone mentions a "scanner", its clear what you're talking about. But if someone were to mention a "scanner" and really mean the type for images, you'd need extra context to avoid misunderstanding them. If I were in a room full of graphics artists and wanted to talk about this kind of scanner, I'd have to be clear and call it a "radio scanner" or "police scanner", else they would think I was talking about the other kind. And on Wikipedia, since we're not within any particular specialized community, we need context (ie disambiguation) for any use of the word. -- Netoholic @ 01:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Radio scanning serves an important role in the fields of journalism and crime investigation, as well as a hobby for many people around the world. "

The persons who wrote this please stop.

BogdanUE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.37.48 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Canadian section is full of errors

The canadian section made claim without source and also contains facual errors.

For example it quote the radiocommunication Act article about broadcasting. But according to the act Broadcasting is TV, FM and AM radio, Satelitte radio. So scanning police frequencies has nothing to do with broadcasting.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-2/page-1.html

It also does not include the proper links to the legal norms, the radio stantards RSS:

https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/spectrum-management-telecommunications/en/devices-and-equipment/radio-equipment-standards/radio-standards-specifications-rss/rss-135-digital-scanner-receivers

https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/spectrum-management-telecommunications/en/devices-and-equipment/radio-equipment-standards/radio-standards-specifications-rss/rss-215-analogue-scanner-receivers

The first link demonstrate the text is not accurate when indicating that you can legaly use a digital scanner. Indeed to do so you require a licence from the canadian governement.

Canadafranco (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)