CAP reporting illegally activated ELTs to law enforcement

[RiverAux]

On the other hand, if there is an incident where someone knowingly sets it off (and we know about it) and there is an applicable state law, shouldn't someone from CAP be responsibile for reporting it to the proper law enforcement authorities?  As we've talked about in other threads, citizens have a duty to report crimes. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

"Knowingly" is a much lower threshold of criminal intent than "Intentionally."

In the hierarchy of crminal intents, bottom to top, you have:

1.  Negligence.

2.  Recklessness.

3.  Knowledge.

4.  Intent or Purpose.

The first law discussed required INTENTIONAL activation to be criminal.  The Calif. statute makes it a crime to KNOWINGLY broadcast a false signal.

So you call the guy out at 3am, and he tells you to bag it, he will take care of it tomorrow.  Independent of any federal sanctions, the guy would be committing a crime in California, but not in the other state (Oregon, was it?)

 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Sorry to sound a little preachy in that last post, but in one of my former lives I taught Laws of Evidence among other subjects at the Police Academy.

[Sgt. Savage]

Actually, it would seem that it would apply to oregon as well in so much that

"(f) Initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false, concerning an
alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or other emergency;"

may be interpreted to mean that having attained knowledge of the signal and knowing that you alone are responsible for silencing it, and you choose to take no action you are "circulating" said report. It may be a stretch since the report is known to be a non-emergency, though the beacpn is still "reporting" as though it were.

Just a thought

[ZigZag911]

I thought it was common practice to alert LE when operating in  their jurisdiction and to notify them when the search is complete and what we found. This keeps them from detaining us in the middle of the night on a search, and lets them know that we're done and that call they get about a prowler REALLY is a prowler.

That is certainly the practice I follow...however, there is a difference between letting local LE know you're operating in their jurisdiction, and reporting someone for deliberate activation of an ELT.

[ZigZag911]

The key word is "Intentionally."  I also have never seen a maliciously activated ELT.  Now if they ever pass a law prohibiting the "Clueless" activation of an ELT, I have a list of usual suspects to round up.

Say I get to the airport at 3am getting a tail number over the DF. ID it & call this guy up at his house 15mins away. Say, your ELT is on you need to come down here so we can take care of that.... he says we can go home, he'll take care of it later... I say fine/jail time... he says he'll be over there to turn it off on his lunch break the next day (9hrs from now)... I say danger to public safety, sats can't get a clean hit while this is going... he says whatever I'm going back to sleep & hangs up.

As soon as you've been informed that yours is going off & you choose to let it continue when you could do otherwise, then that's intentional. Enjoy your wakeup call from LE & see if the face to face description of jail as an alternative is sufficent motivator to get your but out here so I can turn this stupid thing off & go home.

The pattern, etc stuff is not for prosecution, that's for regulatory action by FAA, which is really the same process that'd deal with complaints leading to prosecution. The whole criminal statute is more a stick to wave around to get people moving than something that actually ever gets used. A negligent mechanic shop or flight school is much more concerned with the FAA pulling or restricting their livelihood than a simple fine or jail time that'll never happen.

I've hear of instances like this in which FAA or AFRCC (not sure which) gets an order from a federal magistrate, served by US marshal service personnel, accompanied by state or local LE.....it tends to get most  AC owners' close attention!

[DNall]

I hadn't seen the actual federal law in a while, but I don't believe it says intentionally or knowingly, or anything else. I believe it just says setting off a false alarm or abuse of emergency freq equals...

And by the way  the AF will send a bill it turns out to be someone faking it, and that includes for CAP searches, and it can get very pricey.

[mikeylikey]

When I first read the thread tag line, I thought it was going to be about catching illegal aliens.  Anyway......I once overhead a CAP officer (a Colonel who will remain nameless), tell a group of about 45 cadets that when they are on an ELT "search and destroy deactivation" that they should just turn it off and take it with them.  Then have one of the CAP officers phone the owner and get them to come to the local unit who found the ELT and pick it up.

Needless to say, more time was needed to correct misinformation and bad practice advice from a Wing Commander.   

[RiverAux]

I heard of something similar happening at a really trashed airport after Hurricane Andrew in Florida.  Don't know if it was true. 

[sardak]

I hadn't seen the actual federal law in a while, but I don't believe it says intentionally or knowingly, or anything else. I believe it just says setting off a false alarm or abuse of emergency freq equals...

Here is what the federal regs state:
Use of 121.500 MHz and 243.00 MHz shall be limited to transmission of signals and communications for survival purposes.

The frequency band 406.0-406.1 MHz is an emergency and distress frequency band... Use of these frequencies must be limited to transmission of distress and safety communications.

And in the maritime services only is this:
No person shall knowingly transmit, or cause to be transmitted, any false or fraudulent signal of distress or related communication.

So what if it's not an emergency?  There's a procedure that has to be followed and at the end is this:

Any person who willfully and knowingly violates any rule, regulation, restriction, or condition made or imposed by the Commission...
********
As mentioned, trying to get someone charged at the federal or local level for setting off a beacon is not what we're out to do.  Knowing the laws and penalties is only a talking point to try to get the less than cooperative people to be more considerate in helping us.

Take the man in New York who set off the first legal PLB in the lower 48 states.  When he did it again, in the same spot a month later, it was decided that neither instance was distress, and he was charged by the state.  The feds haven't charged him yet, pending the state case.  That was in 2003, and the case has yet to get to court, if it ever does.

Mike

[JC004]

When I first read the thread tag line, I thought it was going to be about catching illegal aliens.  Anyway......I once overhead a CAP officer (a Colonel who will remain nameless), tell a group of about 45 cadets that when they are on an ELT "search and destroy deactivation" that they should just turn it off and take it with them.  Then have one of the CAP officers phone the owner and get them to come to the local unit who found the ELT and pick it up.

Needless to say, more time was needed to correct misinformation and bad practice advice from a Wing Commander.   

For that ELT search that I did, which ended with the ultralight, the guy was all worried and kept asking about a fine.  I should have told him we needed to take the aircraft.

[mikeylikey]

  ^^  or twenty bucks!