A thorny repeater question...

[SteveShannon]

16 minutes ago, nokones said:

In California and Arizona, the trespass law states the entering real property or structure not open to the general public, and/or entering fenced property that is posted "No Trespassing" and refuse to leave by order of a peace officer is in violation of Trespass.

No where in the trespassing statutes of both States does it address any unauthorized use of a radio repeater station.

I think you’re focusing on the wrong part of the law. You probably would need to talk to a legal professor to drill down to the right statutes, but as you said, trespass laws don’t seem to address unauthorized use of a radio repeater station.

From a law firm’s website.  It’s easier for me to understand that a person misusing a repeater falls into this type of act:

 

Quote

 

What Counts as a Property Crime Under Arizona Law

Arizona law classifies an offense as a property crime when it involves interfering with someone else’s right to control, use, or possess their physical property.

 

 

[SteveShannon]

15 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Theft of services.

It is more in line with this, but it might be problematic to prosecute this when repeater use is typically not paid use. 

[LeoG]

3 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

It is more in line with this, but it might be problematic to prosecute this when repeater use is typically not paid use. 

I see it the same as someone stealing welfare or other govt service.  You don't normally pay for it, someone else does but the service you are taking with no compensation or permission is still costing someone else to have the service operate.

Nothing is free.

 

Still likely cost you more in legal fees to get them to stop than it's worth.

[WRUE951]

I think in order for the Trespass law  to work on a Repeater situation, one would have to send certified cease and desist letters and have lots of documentation  over the course of several months. The intruder would also show lots of non-compliance and prestenstense on trespassing the repeater..  When you exam the trespass laws it refers to property, not real-estate.  I don't know how theft of service laws work but that's something to look at as well.. But like I said, your going to need a lot of documation  

[LeoG]

I would hope not months.  I don't think you'd have to do that for a physical trespass.  One and done.  But I'm also sure it'd be more difficult to prove that it's happening unless you have a police person right there while it's occurring.

[amaff]

Quick question:

Has there ever been an example of someone charged with (much less convicted of...) trespassing, for using someone else's repeater without permission?

[LeoG]

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=Has+there+ever+been+an+example+of+someone+charged+with+(much+less+convicted+of...)+trespassing%2C+for+using+someone+else's+repeater+without+permission%3F

[amaff]

4 minutes ago, LeoG said:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=Has+there+ever+been+an+example+of+someone+charged+with+(much+less+convicted+of...)+trespassing%2C+for+using+someone+else's+repeater+without+permission%3F

so...no.

[LeoG]

The Ai doesn't know everything, and it has a tendency to hallucinate or lie.  But according to it.... no.

Since it's not a criminal charge you may be asking the wrong question.

[amaff]

14 minutes ago, LeoG said:

The Ai doesn't know everything, and it has a tendency to hallucinate or lie.  But according to it.... no.

Since it's not a criminal charge you may be asking the wrong question.

Oh. I have that disabled lol
No I was looking at whatever else google decided to  out.

That said, criminal trespass is definitely a thing. But at least anywhere I've lived, it doesn't seem to include any language about radio repeaters. 
Fine: has anyone been tried civilly for trespass on a repeater? What damages would you claim? 

Because if neither is a thing near as I can find. Which begs the question: what are we even talking about here? 

[WRUE951]

21 minutes ago, amaff said:

so...no.

you can build a civil case on any grounds..  It would take a court of law to decide if a trespass via infringing on a repeater without permission is punishable.  The FCC is not going to protect anyone in regards to someone infringing on their repeater..  The arguments are there for trespass when someone is infringing on your property, i.e. your repeater..  Saying you can't trespass someone from your repeater is total ridicules.  You can. If you have the time and money..  Now it would be interesting to see how a court would decide with such claims..  I think a good attorney could make it a WIN.  

[marcspaz]

Again, im not a lawyer and i think we should honor the owners request, but I don't believe any of that applies. 

RF is used on a global scale (and off-planet) by every nation in the world. While segmentation exists under international agreement, we all have equal rights to the spectrum. If your radio receiver is receiving my signal, and then the transmitter re-transmits my signal... your radio is working as designed and I am well within my rights. If the owner is somehow offended or irritated that his transceiver is behaving the way it is, that is not my problem. The owner needs to take appropriate steps with the configuration of the radio to prevent unwanted behavior with that radio.

 

[WRUE951]

54 minutes ago, amaff said:

Quick question:

Has there ever been an example of someone charged with (much less convicted of...) trespassing, for using someone else's repeater without permission?

in fact there are many instances where someone borrowed someone's car without permission, went  out and destroyed or totaled the car and judgments went agains plaintiffs forcing them to pay cost of repairs or replacements..    Lots of these types of cases.   Even Jude Judy showed lots of those cases..  Remember??    

[WRUE951]

2 minutes ago, marcspaz said:

Again, im not a lawyer and i think we should honor the owners request, but I don't believe any of that applies. 

RF is used on a global scale (and off-planet) by every nation in the world. While segmentation exists under international agreement, we all have equal rights to the spectrum. If your radio receiver is receiving my signal, and then the transmitter re-transmits my signal... your radio is working as designed and I am well within my rights. If the owner is somehow offended or irritated that his transceiver is behaving the way it is, that is not my problem. The owner needs to take appropriate steps with the configuration of the radio to prevent unwanted behavior with that radio.

 

lets throw a twist into this..  Suppose someone is Jamming your repeater, lets say they are pumping lots of power and they are within yards of your antenna and the intruder destroys your receiver.    Now you have property damage..   Hmmmmmmm..   

[marcspaz]

3 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

in fact there are many instances where someone borrowed someone's car without permission, went  out and destroyed or totaled the car and judgments went agains plaintiffs forcing them to pay cost of repairs or replacements..    Lots of these types of cases.   Even Jude Judy showed lots of those cases..  Remember??    

 

That's not even close to the same thing. Taking possession of a car and damaging it is taking possession of real property and damaging it. A better analogy would be someone trying to charge you criminally or civilly for breathing the same air as they are. It would be ludicrous but someone could make a claim that you exhaling near them is causing the quality of air that they are inhaling to go down, and therefore you are infringing on their rights to breathe freely.

 

That's the same asinine argument as a repeater owner complaining that their radio received your signal.

[marcspaz]

2 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

lets throw a twist into this..  Suppose someone is Jamming your repeater, lets say they are pumping lots of power and they are within yards of your antenna and the intruder destroys your receiver.    Now you have property damage..   Hmmmmmmm..   

 

That is malicious interference and destruction of property. Those are not the same as someone using a repeater without permission.

[Northcutt114]

13 minutes ago, amaff said:

Because if neither is a thing near as I can find. Which begs the question: what are we even talking about here? 

Feelings, of the hurt variety.

 

[WRUE951]

Just now, marcspaz said:

 

That is malicious interference and destruction of property. Those are not the same as someone using a repeater without permission.

Well, one could claim, after numerous request to stay off your repeater that their intent was malicious and which for all intents and purposes is interference..  The arguments are there..   Just saying. 

[LeoG]

15 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

you can build a civil case on any grounds..  It would take a court of law to decide if a trespass via infringing on a repeater without permission is punishable.  The FCC is not going to protect anyone in regards to someone infringing on their repeater..  The arguments are there for trespass when someone is infringing on your property, i.e. your repeater..  Saying you can't trespass someone from your repeater is total ridicules.  You can. If you have the time and money..  Now it would be interesting to see how a court would decide with such claims..  I think a good attorney could make it a WIN.  

Transmit on a police repeater and see how fast they react to your trespass.  So it does exist, just  not for the little guy.

[nokones]

46 minutes ago, amaff said:

Quick question:

Has there ever been an example of someone charged with (much less convicted of...) trespassing, for using someone else's repeater without permission?

Not under California Penal Code 602 and Arizona Revised Statutes 13-5302, 13-5303, or 13-5304.

It would have to be a violation of a federal statute and prosecuted by a Federal Prosecutor. For a Part 90 licensed repeater you could cite the abuser for transmitting on a frequency that he/she is not authorized for. For Part 95, in order to cite someone, it would have to be the interference rule if the abuser holds a GMRS license and probably you may be able to cite the abuser for failure to identify your call sign because I'm sure most abusers do not identify themselves.

If you want to pinch somebody, you just need to be able articulate every aspect of the citing statute(s) and in front of the ruling body/judge better than the defending party. I only lost cases on bullshit technicalities, never because I was wrong.

[nokones]

11 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

lets throw a twist into this..  Suppose someone is Jamming your repeater, lets say they are pumping lots of power and they are within yards of your antenna and the intruder destroys your receiver.    Now you have property damage..   Hmmmmmmm..   

Can you show the evidence of who damaged the receiver?

[WRUE951]

6 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Transmit on a police repeater and see how fast they react to your trespass.  So it does exist, just  not for the little guy.

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 

[WRUE951]

8 minutes ago, nokones said:

Can you show the evidence of who damaged the receiver?

yup, you would need evidence to prove your claim..  Now a savvy HAM operator, I know a lot of them, whom monitor their receive ends. with spectrum analyzers would have a pretty good start of compiling evidence.  

[nokones]

4 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Transmit on a police repeater and see how fast they react to your trespass.  So it does exist, just  not for the little guy.

The act won't be cited under any trespass statute.

In California there are State statutes for that act. In the 90s, I have first-hand knowledge of a person that was arrested, search warrant served on his property, federally prosecuted, and spent three years in a federal institution for interfering on a couple of local and State Police frequencies and he was fined $10,000 and had to write an apology letter.

He even violated a statute that I wrote legislation on a couple years prior to his act. Although, he was cited for both Federal and State statutes, the State charges were dropped since a federal prosecutor took the case.

[nokones]

6 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

yup, you would need evidence to prove your claim..  Now a savvy HAM operator, I know a lot of them, whom monitor their receive ends. with spectrum analyzers would have a pretty good start of compiling evidence.  

In the incident I stated in my previous post, I had the evidence, and we were able to visually observe his act in progress. It did take approx. 3 months to make the arrest.