Who has the authority to inspect your station?

[WB2CAU]

About 10 years ago a former co-worker, who was also a ham, had a TVI or RFI issue with a neighbor.  I'm going to assume that what he told me was true.

The neighbor, instead of contacting the FCC, complained about the RFI problem to his local town officials.

The town sent out an inspector to the hams residence and wanted to inspect the station.  The inspector looked at the shack and wrote up a list of things that were incorrect, in his estimation, mainly dealing with equipment grounding.  He did the same outdoors in regards to antenna grounding and claimed that certain codes (the ham was not specific with me or I don't remember anymore) were violated also and added this to his list of so-called violations.  I never heard a follow-up to the story so I don't know how it was resolved, but my ham friend was quite rattled by the whole experience.  Personally I don't believe addressing any of the so-called violations would change the RFI problem. 

I'm fully aware that RFI issues are usually a result of faults in the equipment receiving the RFI, rather than the transmitting equipment in most cases, but how is a ham to defend himself from this kind of witch-hunt where an unqualified code inspector demand access to the station and put himself in a position of judgment as to the reason for RF interference?

Furthermore, I know I must submit my station to inspection by the FCC as a condition of holding a ham license, but must I also give access to town officials?  And if I were in the same position as my co-worker someday, would I have the right to refuse the town inspector access to my shack and my property without a search warrant? 

I don't believe a code inspector to be qualified for such inspections, and would much rather see it handled by the FCC. 

Has anyone else had to deal with local town officials in a similar manner?

Eric

[k4kyv]

And if I were in the same position as my co-worker someday, would I have the right to refuse the town inspector access to my shack and my property without a search warrant?  

I would say so. The code inspector's jurisdiction covers the a.c. wiring in the house, not what is plugged into it. They do their inspections after a house is wired or undergone major electrical work, and once OKed, power is turned on at the meter and their job is finished. You may request an additional inspection, often for insurance purposes, but I never heard of anyone randomly conducting an involuntary inspection.

I read a similar story about an incident in Florida.  Sunny Irons, of Maxcomm Automatic Antenna Matcher fame, had run into some kind of hassle with local town officials over some alleged unrelated corruption issue. Granted the guy is reputed to be a sleaze bag and ripoff artist, but local officials decided to harass him by inspecting or searching his house.  I don't recall if they had a search warrant or not, but they were unable to nail him with anything they were out to get him for, so they issued him a criminal citation for electrical codes violation, because he was allegedly "misusing" an extension cord.  I'm sure he beat it in court if it even went that far.  

What would a local codes inspector think of an open-rack homebrew transmitter with plug-in coils in the PA plate tank circuit?  Bare, open-wire feeders coming in through the wall via a pair of dolly parton ceramic feed-throughs? Knife switches mounted on a wall out in the open? High voltage cable running round in the shack? A typical ham antenna installation? I doubt if practically anything in a home-brewed station would meet their standards.  But their authority stops at the a.c. mains outlet.

[Steve - K4HX]

It was a special audio power cord and he was using on his microwave oven. He was charged with reverse audiophoolery.

I don't recall if they had a search warrant or not, but they were unable to nail him with anything they were out to get him for, so they issued him a criminal citation for electrical codes violation, because he was allegedly "misusing" an extension cord. 

[WD8KDG]

As to letting others inspect the "station"; I'd let the feeceecee & only them. The rest can go pound salt! Tell the rest, "I'll see you in Court", and slam the door shut in their face.

For the rest of the electrical stuff, some states, local governments, etc; might be a different slant. Here in Orygun, if the owner does the electrical repairs/ upgrades no inspections are needed. If the owner has a contractor do the work, an inspector gets involved. Sometimes that sign-off & sticker on the breaker panel is a good deal, saves hassels when the property is sold or an insurance claim is filed.

Craig,

[K5UJ]

This is one of those areas where the ham can get screwed if he doesn't have the money for a lawyer.  A community that wants to deal with a perceived ham problem may try to bully the ham by hassling him with these inspections.  There have been other cases of cops showing up and asking the ham to cease transmitting.  I believe the recommended m.o. in these cases, as advised by the ARRL's network of ham representation lawyers is to not add to your legal drek that you'll have to swat away later and shine them on by letting them have their way or at least go through the motions of same, but once the local dime store tyrants have departed in the belief they've won, get one of the ARRL network lawyers, give him all the documents, and details and he'll inform the municipal government via the town's counsel, that you only have to answer to Federal authority and take a hike. 

Outside, if they have something in the code about antennas that doesn't blatantly run counter to PRB-1 they can jerk you around about that though.

Unfortunately, the bottom line is that if a town decides to go after you they can keep finding ways to bug you and at some point you may have to decide to either spend your money on lawyers, or spend it on moving.

[W1RKW]

Unfortunately, the bottom line is that if a town decides to go after you they can keep finding ways to bug you and at some point you may have to decide to either spend your money on lawyers, or spend it on moving.

Yep, for the criminal type, perfect time to burn the place down to the ground after moving.  Afterall,  the municipality insists things are not correct.

[Jim, W5JO]

This is a good argument for comprehensive testing for ham license.  It is also a good reason to belong to the ARRL, they can and will help in these situations.  If the owner said no, what would the idiot inspector have done? 

A little power does corrupt.  I wish he had come to my house.

[k4kyv]

When they came knocking at the door, I would step outside and close the door behind me, and simply say, in a polite non-threatening tone, "I know you are only trying to do your job, but I am sorry, I cannot allow you to enter my property without a search warrant."

[Opcom]

If they do enter or remain on the property immediately after being ordered to leave, call the police and have them arrested for criminal trespass. Maybe have a video of the (repeated) order(s) to leave and their refusal in order to help the cops enforce the law. They have no rights there (in Texas anyway). A cellphone will take care of that. They might even leave upon the appearance of the cellphone camera, as such videos have a nasty habit of finding their way onto the excitement-starved evening news. "city employees trespass and assault citizen on his own property." Not a way to make friends though.

[WBear2GCR]

Best to call the Sheriff, NOT the Police.
The police are often very "sympathetic" to the local town officials that they work with/for. The Sheriff is more likely to enforce the law in these sorts of situations, afaik, or so I have heard.


                     _-_-bear

[KX5JT]

Or call Smith and his buddy Wesson!


disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer and in no way should this be considered actual legal advice.

[KB5MD]

I remember an instance with the local city council here in El Dorado wanting to outlaw CB's.

There was an ole gal running who knows how much power and warping all the neighbors with RFI.  Someone complained to the mayor's office and the all knowing city council at that time decided they should pass an ordinance outlawing CB radio within the city limits.  News of the pending action got around town and at the next council meeting there was about 200 people present ready to lynch the council members.  

They decided that night that they could not pass such an ordinance, the matter was resolved and no rope-burns were incurred by the council members.

[N4LTA]

Politely tell the inspector that it is a federal jurisdiction and that he has no authority.

If the police show up, call the FBI. They don't like local officials butting in on federal matters.

[Jim, W5JO]

A few years back the FCC allowed local jurisdiction of CB stuff saying they didn't have time to chase all the complaints.  Some cities have ordinances against RFI caused by CB operators.  If the city where the original poster lived had such an ordinance then I can understand the inspector showing up.

This is kind of tricky, but if the poster doesn't own CB equipment or does not have it attached to an antenna then the local cop does not have jurisdiction.  If, however, this is a dual installation of CB and Ham radio, that is a horse of a different color.

Provided the city has an applicable ordinance then the owner might be obliged to allow inspection of the CB stuff.  He, by federal law and rules does not have jurisdiction over Ham installations.  Remember a home owner with interference will not know the difference and the inspector probably won't either. 

So don't run afoul of the law, but if he tries to cross the divide between ham and CB, let him know that it is out of bounds for him.

[W2PFY]

So don't run afoul of the law, but if he tries to cross the divide between ham and CB, let him know that it is out of bounds for him.

If a local yokel does come into your house with a complaint, you can bet that it will cost you a lawyer to have him explain to a judge how it works. I tried once to defend myself over a traffic ticket. Every time I opened my mouth, the judge raised the price of the ticket. I think I stopped talking at about the time the ticket was up to 60 bucks from 25. That took about 30 seconds to get to $60.00 dollars!  

[KX5JT]

So don't run afoul of the law, but if he tries to cross the divide between ham and CB, let him know that it is out of bounds for him.

If a local yokel does come into your house with a complaint, you can bet that it will cost you a lawyer to have him explain to a judge how it works. I tried once to defend myself over a traffic ticket. Every time I opened my mouth, the judge raised the price of the ticket. I think I stopped talking at about the time the ticket was up to 60 bucks from 25. That took about 30 seconds to get to $60.00 dollars!  

I had a similar experience.  One June morning 15 yrs or so ago, I had come to a complete stop at an intersection.  I stopped my vehicle right at the stop sign which was set back probably 6 or 7 feet from the intersecting road.  Being June in Louisiana, when I looked to the right to check oncoming traffic my sight was obscured by overgrowth.  I inched my vehicle up and saw I was clear.  There was a Sheriff patrol vehicle some distance but I clearly had plenty of time and distance to make my turn and enter the highway.  He stopped me and gave me a ticket for "running the stop sign".  Obviously he had not seen my complete stop because he couldn't even see the stop sign.  He only saw me inching up to check.

I chose to make my court appointment and fight it.  The sheriff deputy was there as well.  When my turn came to state my case, I feel I did a great job even with visual aid at the marker board.  I can tell the judge believed me, however, I was fighting the law and it was my word against the deputies.  Instead of the normal fine and court costs, which was like 50 plus 30 dollars, he dropped the fine to 10 dollars plus court cost.  It was an OBVIOUS lesson that even though he believed me, they will get their money.

Justice denied.

[KA2DZT]

I had one like that too.  About 30 years ago.  Speeding ticket 55 in a 40.  I fought it because the road wasn't marked with speed limit signs saying 40MPH.  I challenged the radar also.  Anyway, I rag chewed the judge to death.  He decided to take a recess right in the middle of my case. ( I was wearing him out).  When he came back into the court he knew I had more to say but he said I was done.  He charge me $5 for the fine and $5 for court cost.  Everybody else that day was paying $45 and $15 for speeding tickets.

Helps to know how to rag chew.

Fred

[k4kyv]

It was an OBVIOUS lesson that even though he believed me, they will get their money.

Justice denied.

What kind of justice is it, if you are in the right, but have to hire a lawyer (and probably pay more for legal expenses than the was original ticket) to make your case?

The last time I had to use the services of a lawyer, he charged $400/hour for the time he spent working on the case.

Like everything else, "justice" is a commodity that is bought and sold for a price.

And they wonder why the past couple of generations have so little respect for the law.

[Steve - K4HX]

You are confusing legal representation with justice.

The last few generations are confusing the legal profession with the law.

Both are egregiously wrong.

[KX5JT]

You are confusing legal representation with justice.

The last few generations are confusing the legal profession with the law.

Both are egregiously wrong.

Steve, I understand what Don is saying and he has a point.  THE LEGAL Profession and hence much of the "justice system" now because they all derive from the legal profession, is confusing THE LEGAL PROFESSION with justice.  Their view of justice is not an ideal as it should be, but a commodity one buys from lawyers.

[W1RKW]

My last motor vehicle violation was over 25 years ago.  I was clock doing 70 in a 55.  I went to court. Didn't contest it but the judge gave me the opportunity to speak as they normally do here. Prior to my case being heard I noticed that the judge seemed to be inconvenienced and put out with the daily grind and BS of motor vehicle violations and what I considered retarded excuses. I pleaded guilty and said my piece when given the chance.  I said to the judge something to the effect " your honor I know I was speeding and what I have observed here you don't have the inclination or time to hear my excuse so I simply plead guilty.  The  cop fined me $200. The judge lowered it to $45.00, smiled and told me to have a good day. 

[k4kyv]

Their view of justice is not an ideal as it should be, but a commodity one buys from lawyers.

Precisely.

Often people and businesses who know they are in the right when faced with frivolous civil or bogus criminal charges simply forego their right to take the issue to court because they they know it will mean heavy legal expenses even if the court finds for them.  So they just pay the fine or "apparent liability" because it will be the cheapest way out. A lose-lose situation.

Is there any "justice" in having to forfeit thousands of dollars just because some jackass decided to press invalid legal charges against you?

[Jim, W5JO]

Often people and businesses who know they are in the right when faced with frivolous civil or bogus criminal charges simply forego their right to take the issue to court because they they know it will mean heavy legal expenses even if the court finds for them.  So they just pay the fine or "apparent liability" because it will be the cheapest way out. A lose-lose situation.

Is there any "justice" in having to forfeit thousands of dollars just because some jackass decided to press invalid legal charges against you?

A lawyer once told me that I did not have to follow an illegal or unconstitutional order from any law enforcement officer.  They give them all the time, but refuse an officer and you may go all the way to the supreme court fighting the system.  Justice is definately for sale.

[Steve - K4HX]

Speaking of inspections:

FCC Issues Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order to Florida Man for Using Unauthorized Equipment

11/02/2011

Michael Perry, of Cross City, Florida, was issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 for operating a radio transmitter without the requisite FCC authorization. The FCC found that Perry “willfully violated section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and Sections 95.409 and 95.411 of the Commission’s rules.”

In response to a complaint of interference, agents from the Enforcement Bureau’s Tampa Office used direction-finding techniques on March 31, 2011 to locate the source of the interference to a signal on Citizens Band channel 28 (27.2850 MHz) that was coming from Perry’s residence. The same day, agents from the Tampa Office inspected Perry’s CB station, which he admitted to using earlier that day. The agents observed a non-certificated CB transmitter and three linear amplifiers as part of Perry’s CB station. Perry admitted to the agents that two of the three linear amplifiers were capable of generating a power output of 200 W and 1500 W respectively, and that he had never tested the third. The agents observed that the transmitter and two of the amplifiers were warm to the touch, indicating that the devices had been recently operated.

Section 301 of the Communications Act states that no person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio within the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. Section 95.404 of the Rules states that CB operators are not required to have individual licenses because they are authorized by this rule to operate a CB station, provided, however, that they operate the station in accordance with Subpart D of Part 95 of the Rules. Operation of CB stations in a manner that is inconsistent with the CB Rules requires a license pursuant to Section 301 of the Act. Section 95.409(a) of the Rules states that CB operators must use FCC certificated CB transmitters at their CB stations and the use of a transmitter that is not FCC certificated voids the authority to operate the station.

During the inspection of Perry’s CB station, he admitted to the agents that he used the noncertificated CB transmitter. Because Perry operated a non-certificated CB transmitter, he no longer had authority to operate the CB station. “As a result, due to Mr Perry’s conscious operation of a noncertificated CB transmitter, we find the apparent violation willful,” the Notice read. “Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr Perry apparently willfully violated section 301 of the Communications Act and Section 95.409 of the Rules by operating an unlicensed and non-certificated CB transmitter.”

Section 95.411(a) of the Rules states that CB operators may not attach external radio frequency power amplifiers (sometimes called “linears” or “linear amplifiers”) to certificated CB transmitters in any way. Section 95.411(b) of the Rules states that there are no exceptions to this rule and that use of a power amplifier voids the authority to operate the station. “During the inspection of Mr Perry’s CB station on March 31, 2011, Mr Perry admitted using two of the three linear amplifiers observed next to his non-certificated CB transmitter. The agents observed that the two amplifiers were warm to the touch during the inspection, indicating that they were recently operated. Because Mr Perry operated his CB station with two linear amplifiers attached, he no longer had the authority to operate the CB station. Because he consciously operated with unauthorized amplifiers, we find that the apparent violation was willful. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr Perry apparently willfully violated Section 301 of the Communications Act and Section 95.411 of the Rules by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter with two amplifiers.”

The FCC directed Perry to submit a statement, signed under penalty of perjury, that to the extent he is engaged in CB operations, he is using a certified CB transmitter and has not attached any linear amplifiers to his CB station. Perry has until November 31, 2011 to submit his statement, as well as his payment of the forfeiture (or a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture). Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the Perry to additional enforcement action.


http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-issues-em-notice-of-apparent-liability-for-forfeiture-and-order-em-to-florida-man-for-using-unau