Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2017, 04:36:33 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: Uncooperative Hangar Owner
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print
Author Topic: Uncooperative Hangar Owner  (Read 2544 times)
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 437

« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2017, 11:59:46 PM »


Yeah don't see a judge biting on that.  They have more important things to deal with.

   "Inadvertent and non-emergency-related activations violate FCC Rules and
   may subject the operator to monetary penalties up to $112,500."

See:   https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-13-239A1.html  I speculate Judge Guy is not a Federal Magistrate, so is unfamiliar with some aspects of Federalism.    ;)

and if the transmission is deliberate, i.e. A "hoax"

"Under federal law, 14USC88, knowingly and willfully transmitting a hoax distress call is a felony. It is punishable by up to six years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and restitution to the rescue agency for all costs incurred responding to the distress."

See:  http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/new.html
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 12:24:51 AM by Live2Learn » Logged
spaatzmom
Seasoned Member

Posts: 285

« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2017, 12:40:15 AM »


Yeah don't see a judge biting on that.  They have more important things to deal with.

   "Inadvertent and non-emergency-related activations violate FCC Rules and
   may subject the operator to monetary penalties up to $112,500."

See:   https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-13-239A1.html  I speculate Judge Guy is not a Federal Magistrate, so is unfamiliar with some aspects of Federalism.    ;)

and if the transmission is deliberate, i.e. A "hoax"

"Under federal law, 14USC88, knowingly and willfully transmitting a hoax distress call is a felony. It is punishable by up to six years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and restitution to the rescue agency for all costs incurred responding to the distress."

See:  http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/new.html


Ummmm ya.  "Judge guy" actually IS a judge, so speculate away
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,019
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2017, 01:37:48 AM »

Ummmm ya.  "Judge guy" actually IS a judge, so speculate away

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,295
Unit: Classified

« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2017, 01:47:48 AM »

Yeah umm still not gonna fly.  Volunteer group with a hit not enough for pc for any warrant for entry... 

The org cannot violate or tresspass to deactivate anything especially if the owner has denied it.
Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,110

« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2017, 12:26:16 PM »

My question was designed to discover if it is a violation of a state or Federal criminal statute to have an ELT going off in your hangar.  Which is something I should think a senior performing DF missions should be able to articulate to local authorities.

And the consensus here appears to be that it could conceivably violate a criminal law if it was deliberate and malicious. But an unnoticed accidental activation does not appear to be a crime, but rather a violation of Federal air safety regulations.

Normally judges do not issue search warrants for non-crimes.  Rarely, we can issue Inspection Warrants for this kind of situation.  (Normally to allow fire inspections for uncooperative landlords or business owners or allow the authorities to inspect a distillery for regulatory compliance.  That kind of thing.)  But "administrative warrants," normally do not require "probable cause," but are issued on a lesser standard such as "good cause," or some other standard set by the regulatory apparatus.

So, to beat this scenario to death, absent articulable evidence that the owner is deliberate and maliciously emitting the ELT signal, the appropriate authorities will need to seek either the owners cooperation for entry, or seek some sort of administrative warrant.  And when someone comes to me for an admin warrant, the first question I normally ask is "what happened when you asked the owner for consent?"  Ultimately it is difficult for me to imagine a set of circumstances where a hangar owner would not consent to authorities to enter the hangar to shut off an ELT.  This is someone in the aviation business after all, who depends on the good will of the aviation community and regulatory authorities.

Which was my point.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
Logged
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 437

« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2017, 03:22:34 PM »

Ummmm ya.  "Judge guy" actually IS a judge, so speculate away

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ah yes, but is he a Magistrate?   8)
Logged
PA Guy
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 708

« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2017, 03:30:49 PM »

The horse is dead. Please close this thread that degenerated into a arcing contest.
Logged
spaatzmom
Seasoned Member

Posts: 285

« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2017, 03:42:14 PM »

Ummmm ya.  "Judge guy" actually IS a judge, so speculate away

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ah yes, but is he a Magistrate?   8)

mag·is·trate
ˈmajəˌstrāt/Submit
noun
a civil officer or lay judge who administers the law, especially one who conducts a court that deals with minor offenses and holds preliminary hearings for more serious ones.

How does a sitting judge for over 25 years on California Supreme Court sound?  Look him up and learn.
Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,110

« Reply #28 on: August 03, 2017, 04:58:49 PM »

I appreciate the kind words, but allow me a little "record-straightening."

I am indeed a California judicial officer, and have been for a little over 25 years, but not on the California Supreme Court.

All judges of the Superior Court, Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court in California are legally "magistrates" which is a term of art under California law that identifies judicial officers who can issue warrants and conduct preliminary examinations.  We have no judicial officers with the actual job title of "Magistrate."  We are all either "judges" (trial courts) or "justices" (appellate courts).  Kinda like all police officers and Sheriff's deputies are Peace Officers under California law, but nobody really has the job title of "Peace Officer."  Your state may do it a little differently.

But I am not now, nor have I ever been a Federal Magistrate Judge which is an inferior (in the non-judgmental sense) Federal judicial officer who is hired by a District Court and serves at their pleasure.

But the legal principles I have described are true for both federal and state law.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,019
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2017, 05:20:13 PM »

And I think we're done here.

If you think you have something new, and relevant, PM me with what you have, and we'll consider turning it back on.

Click.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: Uncooperative Hangar Owner
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.451 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me