A thorny repeater question...

[amaff]

So now we're talking about taking someone's car without permission and using law enforcement frequencies?

[LeoG]

16 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

it happened in my town during the summer of 2022.  The police recruited a local HAM group whom located the interference to the door of an apartment complex.  The police got a search warrant and made an arrest charging him obstruction of a 911 call, interfering with emergency communications and a slew of other charges.  The FCC was never involved.  The guy was charged and fined in court..   It actually made local news on CBS 

Of course it did because there are two sets of rules.

[WRUE951]

8 minutes ago, amaff said:

So now we're talking about taking someone's car without permission and using law enforcement frequencies?

in a court of law, expect these types of arguments..  Good attorneys move the goal post all the time.  .  Afterall, they manged to charge Trump with rape and with zero evidence..   

[WRUE951]

2 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Of course it did because there are two sets of rules.

More than likely due to police attorneys are paid with our tax dollars  

[LeoG]

5 minutes ago, amaff said:

So now we're talking about taking someone's car without permission and using law enforcement frequencies?

I brought the police frequencies into the conversation to show that when they want to they will make an arrest for trespass, interference etc.  Just not for the little guy.  Police work and other peoples work can be the same and interference can cause consequences.  But the govt puts itself above the people it serves most of the time.  And granted most of the times someone intruding on your personal repeater isn't going to affect your life that much.

[WRUE951]

1 minute ago, LeoG said:

I brought the police frequencies into the conversation to show that when they want to they will make an arrest for trespass, interference etc.  Just not for the little guy.  Police work and other peoples work can be the same and interference can cause consequences.  But the govt puts itself above the people it serves most of the time.  And granted most of the times someone intruding on your personal repeater isn't going to affect your life that much.

the police has a lot more leverage than the average joe.   They basically have free attorneys..    

[SteveShannon]

Here’s an example of the maximum FCC enforcement of interference on an amateur repeater:

https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276993A1.html?fbclid=IwRlRTSAOlLQRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZA8xNzM4NDc2NDI2NzAzNzAAAR47iKMUH03FcufIlfMJrrPiM7l9u19QcbE5KdLIn8Wh0CaA-r3DUqG8djo21A_aem_reQjCQQkw7pmFTFUhgs86w

[KBSherwood]

23 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

in a court of law, expect these types of arguments..   Happens all the time..  Afterall, they manged to charge Trump with rape and with zero evidence..   

FFS, some people are just incapable of not bringing their own personal political BS into every space and every argument. really added to the conversation there...

My wife works in a legal adjacent field and has for many many years, I decided to ask some of her lawyer colleagues for their take, please note: these are lawyers but not specialists in this area, this is not legal advice, I am not your lawyer. etc. etc.

1. Federal communications law (FCC) > preempts state law when it comes to spectrum use and radio operation. States cannot create backdoor control of radio spectrum via trespass or property theory. Courts have consistently recognized this principle in communications related cases.

2. Trespass theory is legally flawed: Trespass requires unauthorized physical entry onto: real property, or a defined physical structure. Using radio waves does not constitute entering real property. No court has ever recognized RF signal reception as physical entry. If it did, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, broadcast TV, FM radio, GPS, and cellular would all create constant trespass claims.There is no legal mechanism to “trespass” someone via RF propagation.

3. Trespass is about land or physical structures. There is no recognized doctrine of “electromagnetic trespass.” Courts have repeatedly rejected: light trespass (except zoning disputes), sound trespass, radio trespass. These are handled, when at all, under nuisance law, not trespass.

4. Repeater is private property =/= universal protections Yes: The repeater hardware is private property. No: Property ownership does not extend to spectrum, property rights do not override FCC licenses or shared-frequency rules. 

Ownership gives you: the right to turn the repeater off, the right to reconfigure it, the right to physically restrict access to the site. It does not give you: control over who transmits RF signals in public spectrum, a cause of action against someone whose RF your receiver picks up.

5. Theft of service(s): not applicable theft of services generally requires: 1. a paid service, 2. deceptive intent, 3. circumvention of access control. GMRS repeaters: are not paid services by default, do not require authentication, are not FCC-recognized “communications services.” You cannot steal something that is not offered as a service, is not paid, is not access-controlled.

6. RF propagation / receiver responsibility: RF is intentionally non-exclusive, Receivers are responsible for rejecting unwanted signals. If your system retransmits unintended signals, that is a configuration issue, not a legal injury. This aligns with long-standing FCC doctrine: “The licensee must accept interference and manage their station accordingly.”

[WRUE951]

6 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

Here’s an example of the maximum FCC enforcement of interference on an amateur repeater:

https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-276993A1.html?fbclid=IwRlRTSAOlLQRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZA8xNzM4NDc2NDI2NzAzNzAAAR47iKMUH03FcufIlfMJrrPiM7l9u19QcbE5KdLIn8Wh0CaA-r3DUqG8djo21A_aem_reQjCQQkw7pmFTFUhgs86w

Now the real question at hand..   Did the guy actually pay the fines..  He was charged with braking a rule but no charges for actually breaking a law.   The 11 meter guy that keeps getting busted by the FCC has not paid a single penny and he keeps doing what he does.  His attorneys tell him he is not breaking any laws.  

[WRUE951]

2 minutes ago, KBSherwood said:

FFS, some people are just incapable of not bringing their own personal political BS into every space and every argument. really added to the conversation there...

My wife works in a legal adjacent field and has for many many years, I decided to ask some of her lawyer colleagues for their take, please note: these are lawyers but not specialists in this area, this is not legal advice, I am not your lawyer. etc. etc.

1. Federal communications law (FCC) > preempts state law when it comes to spectrum use and radio operation. States cannot create backdoor control of radio spectrum via trespass or property theory. Courts have consistently recognized this principle in communications-related cases.

2. Trespass theory is legally flawed: Trespass requires unauthorized physical entry onto: Real property, or A defined physical structure. Using radio waves does not enter property. No court has ever recognized RF signal reception as physical entry. If it did, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, broadcast TV, FM radio, GPS, and cellular would all create constant trespass claims.There is no legal mechanism to “trespass” someone via RF propagation.

3. Trespass is about land or physical structures. There is no recognized doctrine of “electromagnetic trespass.” Courts have repeatedly rejected: Light trespass (except zoning disputes), Sound trespass, Radio trespass. These are handled, when at all, under nuisance law, not trespass.

4. Repeater is private property =/= universal protections Yes: The repeater hardware is private property. No: Property ownership does not extend to spectrum, Property rights do not override FCC licenses or shared-frequency rules Ownership gives you: The right to turn the repeater off, The right to reconfigure it, The right to physically restrict access to the site. It does not give you: Control over who transmits RF signals in public spectrum A cause of action against someone whose RF your receiver picks up.

5. Theft of service(s): not applicable Theft of services generally requires: A paid service, Deceptive intent, Circumvention of access control. GMRS repeaters: Are not paid services by default, Do not require authentication, Are not FCC-recognized “communications services.” You cannot steal something that: Is not offered as a service, Is not paid, Is not access-controlled.

6. RF propagation / receiver responsibility argument. This is the most legally accurate comment so far: RF is intentionally non-exclusive, Receivers are responsible for rejecting unwanted signals. If your system retransmits unintended signals, that is a configuration issue, not a legal injury. This aligns with long-standing FCC doctrine: “The licensee must accept interference and manage their station accordingly.”

example my friend....  don't get your feathers ruffled.  It did happen and more than likely with people non political.   just saying.  

[WRUE951]

12 minutes ago, KBSherwood said:

Fishing stores will get some every time, not me, i never believe them  
My wife works in a legal adjacent field and has for many many years, I decided to ask some of her lawyer colleagues for their take, please note: these are lawyers but not specialists in this area, this is not legal advice, I am not your lawyer. etc. etc.

Definition of 'Trespass':  Your spin does not pass the sniff test   Remind us who your wife works for so we can avoid accidental hiring of a quack attorney.  

trespass

/trĕs′pəs, -păs″/

noun

1. The act of trespassing.
2. A suit brought for trespassing.
3. An intrusion or infringement on another.
4. The transgression of a moral or social law, code, or duty. synonym: breach.

intransitive verb

1. (Law) To commit an unlawful injury to the person, property, or rights of another, with actual or implied force or violence, especially to enter onto another's land wrongfully.
2. To infringe on the privacy, time, or attention of another.
3. To commit an offense or a sin; transgress or err.

2. Trespass theory is legally flawed: Trespass requires unauthorized physical entry onto: Real property, or A defined physical structure. Using radio waves does not enter property. No court has ever recognized RF signal reception as physical entry. If it did, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, broadcast TV, FM radio, GPS, and cellular would all create constant trespass claims.There is no legal mechanism to “trespass” someone via RF propagation.

3. Trespass is about land or physical structures. There is no recognized doctrine of “electromagnetic trespass.” Courts have repeatedly rejected: Light trespass (except zoning disputes), Sound trespass, Radio trespass. These are handled, when at all, under nuisance law, not trespass.
 

 

[nokones]

26 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

in a court of law, expect these types of arguments..  Good attorneys move the goal post all the time.  .  Afterall, they manged to charge Trump with rape and with zero evidence..   

Charging someone with a crime is the easy part, prosecute and convict would be the hard part especially circumstantial without the physical evidence.  It really comes down who can articulate/bullshit their case better than the defending/respondent party.

[KBSherwood]

11 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

 

someone found a dictionary, but maybe didnt read it:

In U.S. law, trespass is not defined by Merriam-Webster. It is defined by statutes and common law, and it has required elements. Dictionary definitions don’t establish legal torts. Trespass requires physical entry onto land or structures. RF propagation through federally regulated shared spectrum does not constitute trespass, theft of services, or unlawful intrusion. If a repeater retransmits signals it wasn’t configured to block, that’s a technical issue, not a legal one.

Let’s apply your own quoted definition:

“To commit an unlawful injury to the person, property, or rights of another, with actual or implied force or violence, especially to enter onto another's land wrongfully.”

Keywords: enter onto, land, property, force or violence

Radio waves: Do not enter land. Do not occupy space. Do not apply force. Do not cause physical invasion. Are explicitly regulated as shared, non-exclusive spectrum by federal law

If merely receiving RF were “intrusion,” then: Broadcast TV would be trespass, Wi-Fi would be trespass, FM radio would be trespass, GPS would be trespass, Emergency alerts would be trespass.

[WRUE951]

4 minutes ago, KBSherwood said:

someone found a dictionary, but maybe didnt read it:

In U.S. law, trespass is not defined by Merriam-Webster. It is defined by statutes and common law, and it has required elements. Dictionary definitions don’t establish legal torts. Trespass requires physical entry onto land or structures. RF propagation through federally regulated shared spectrum does not constitute trespass, theft of services, or unlawful intrusion. If a repeater retransmits signals it wasn’t configured to block, that’s a technical issue, not a legal one.

I'll take my dictionary to any court of law and be 100% comfortable.  Now you need to stop playing judge..   and study 'Courts'       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court

[WRUE951]

9 minutes ago, nokones said:

Charging someone with a crime is the easy part, prosecute and convict would be the hard part especially circumstantial without the physical evidence.  It really comes down who can articulate/bullshit their case better than the defending/respondent party.

Yup,,,,  100%  

[KBSherwood]

Oh man, a Wikipedia link explaining what a court is. Truly devastating. I’ll need some time to recover from that level of legal analysis.

[WRUE951]

20 minutes ago, KBSherwood said:

Oh man, a Wikipedia link explaining what a court is. Truly devastating. I’ll need some time to recover from that level of legal analysis.

and it didn't come out of my fishing hat.  No spins or personal takes..   

[GreggInFL]

I found this interesting, a two-part question re trespass in general and then wrt GMRS in particular. Sounds like one could get an injunction in a civil proceeding (Trespass to Chattels) assuming the perp could be identified.

https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_91beba1c-7122-4f65-81a4-c930615616fc

I'm not an attorney, but I collect them.

[LeoG]

Bottom line: While civil trespass to chattels could theoretically apply to intentional interference with a GMRS repeater, the strongest and most practical remedy is usually reporting the interference to the FCC, not pursuing a trespass claim. Many repeater owners also use technical measures (CTCSS/DCS tones, user IDs, remote shutdown) to limit abuse.

Ya, so nothing can be done.  The eff sea seas won't give you the time of day.  

[GreggInFL]

11 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Bottom line: While civil trespass to chattels could theoretically apply to intentional interference with a GMRS repeater, the strongest and most practical remedy is usually reporting the interference to the FCC, not pursuing a trespass claim. Many repeater owners also use technical measures (CTCSS/DCS tones, user IDs, remote shutdown) to limit abuse.

Ya, so nothing can be done.  The eff sea seas won't give you the time of day.  

Agreed. But if you can find the perp and have enough evidence you can waltz into court (w/o a lawyer) and get an injunction. That's a court order and contempt of court is a crime. It all comes down to finding the bad guy.

[KBSherwood]

11 minutes ago, GreggInFL said:

Agreed. But if you can find the perp and have enough evidence you can waltz into court (w/o a lawyer) and get an injunction. That's a court order and contempt of court is a crime. It all comes down to finding the bad guy.

The FCC enforces rules through civil/administrative actions. That doesn’t mean you can convert a repeater dispute into a criminal matter by seeking an injunction. Courts cannot substitute for the FCC on regulatory violations. Courts do not provide a private remedy for regulatory infractions. Injunctions or civil claims are not a valid path for enforcing spectrum rules.

[GreggInFL]

It's not a FCC issue, it's a trespass issue. It doesn't matter what the property is.

[amaff]

27 minutes ago, GreggInFL said:

It's not a FCC issue, it's a trespass issue. It doesn't matter what the property is.

It does though.

And round and round we go.

[WRXL702]

2 hours ago, KBSherwood said:

. Federal communications law (FCC) > preempts state law when it comes to spectrum use and radio operation. States cannot create backdoor control of radio spectrum via trespass or property theory. Courts have consistently recognized this principle in communications related cases.

FCC has rules not laws...........

[WSKK363]

Regardless of the "legality" the guy op posted about is being an a hole. 

If you put up a repeater anyone can use it. With using it responsibly theres no criminal consequences even if some people want there to be. The police won't come knocking on your door. 

If you dont want people using your repeater dont post about it. Add in multiple tones. Only have it operating at certain times for your team. If you leave it on 24/7 thats on you. You opened the door for everyone to use it.