CAP reporting illegally activated ELTs to law enforcement

[RiverAux]

The April 2007 Oregon Wing Newsletter http://www.orwg.cap.gov/Newsletters/OregonNewsletterApr07.pdf has this (The bolding is mine):

Oregon Law and False Alarms with ELTs and EPIRBs

It turns out that there is an Oregon law that can be used to cite someone for
deliberate activation of an emergency beacon. It is in Chapter 631 Oregon Laws
2005 section 166.025

"166.025. (1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second
degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
(a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior;
(b) Makes unreasonable noise;
(c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority;
(d) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way;
(e) Congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply
with a lawful order of the police to disperse;
(f) Initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false, concerning an
alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or other emergency; or
(g) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which
the person is not licensed or privileged to do.
(2) Disorderly conduct in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor."

Subparagraph f is the subsection that would apply. So if you have a situation
where there has been a deliberate activation of an emergency beacon, contact
the IC and together it should be possible to arrange to have the culprit(s) cited
under this section.

Too close to law enforcement?

[Major Carrales]

The April 2007 Oregon Wing Newsletter http://www.orwg.cap.gov/Newsletters/OregonNewsletterApr07.pdf has this (The bolding is mine):

Oregon Law and False Alarms with ELTs and EPIRBs

It turns out that there is an Oregon law that can be used to cite someone for
deliberate activation of an emergency beacon. It is in Chapter 631 Oregon Laws
2005 section 166.025

"166.025. (1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second
degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
(a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior;
(b) Makes unreasonable noise;
(c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority;
(d) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way;
(e) Congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply
with a lawful order of the police to disperse;
(f) Initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false, concerning an
alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or other emergency; or
(g) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which
the person is not licensed or privileged to do.
(2) Disorderly conduct in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor."

Subparagraph f is the subsection that would apply. So if you have a situation
where there has been a deliberate activation of an emergency beacon, contact
the IC and together it should be possible to arrange to have the culprit(s) cited
under this section.

Too close to law enforcement?

I think a IC should really exercise good judgement in this case.  I have never been to an ELT mission where there was a deliberate "seeting off."  Most of the time it is an accident and people have to be roused at un-godly hours to address the issue.

Too close to law enforcement?  Nah...I don't think so.  I would think that as good citizens CAP Officers have a duty (as citizens) to report crimes they witness to the authorities.  Then those authorities can address the issue with their resources.  Note I used the word "authorities," thus showing CAP has no authority to arrest anyone, aside from a Citizen Arrest which I do not think would be appropriate this occasion.

[ZigZag911]

Speaking as an IC, I would report the situation to the AFRCC duty officer, and let them make the determination how to proceed.

[Major Carrales]

Speaking as an IC, I would report the situation to the AFRCC duty officer, and let them make the determination how to proceed.

Wise choice...

[DNall]

We've always told people that if a real beacon is going off in the same area, the Satellite won't be able to pinpoint either one as long as this false alarm is going off, so you (Mr ELT-setter-offer-er) are endangering lives & public safety if you knowingly or neglegently abuse emergency frequencies.

It's not LE & we ALWAYS report. If you're going back to the same place over & over, if they refuse to come down & take care of it, & certainly if they set it off intentionally... then you always put that in your report & make sure the IC knows that needs to be in the AFRCC's report. The watch officer then decides what complaints to forward to FAA.

I've heard of mechanic shops getting in some real hot water over it. Credentials can be yanked, fines can be levied... the closest I ever saw to jail time was a guy refused to come out to the airport & the Houston cops went & took him into custody for failure to comply with their orders, then drove him to the airport & made him cooperate or spend the night in jail. I think they ended up releasing him after with a citation or warning, I don't know for sure. We don't play any games with it though, and no one in the aviation community is under the impression we do.

[RiverAux]

I can't recall a case of an ELT being set off intentionally but situations where owners haven't wanted to take care of the situation such as mentioned by DNALL do come to mind. 

However, we can all think of cases of people doing so in a negligent manner.  For example, anytime an ELT is set off as a result of maintenance being done by a qualified mechanic, they SHOULD get in some sort of trouble.  They of all people should know better.  Legal trouble?  I don't know about that. 

[Sgt. Savage]

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.

[RiverAux]

It is common courtesy and may be required depending on how your state does SAR, but that is a far cry from calling the sherrif and asking them to prosecute someone. 

[DNall]

Mechanics make mistakes. Hopefully not many with life saving devices. It just needs to be noted when it happens so patterns can be scrutinaized. Same with pilots.

I don't know about other states, but DPS has primary jurisdiction here so they are informed by AFRCC at the same time we are. The only time we need to inform LE is when it looks like we're going to be moving around in neighborhoods. Always easier to call ahead & get the word trickled down to the guy you meet in the dark, rather than "hey buddy, check out my official looking ID & all this blue crap on my uniform, don't mind this geared up crew rolling up on you, they're with me." Doesn't tend to happen so much anymore though. The ICs end up being a couple hours away, never met the leader on the ground that plans & executes the mission, niether have the people approving the quals at the Wing level. Just CAP silliness that's exactly the opposite of what ICS is about.

Anyway, local cops will never arrest for violation of a federal regulatory law. They will take limited action on federal laws when it is needed for public safety, otherwise mostly not. What happens in this case is you make a strong report to the IC who makes a strong report to AFRCC, and they decide how to word their report & if it shoud be forwarded to the FAA/FCC who would take action as they see fit. Local LE would never be involved in that.

[Major Lord]

Isn't there Admiralty law that allows the Captain of a ship, authorities, or other interested parties to remove hazards to navigation? We could silence ELT's on that common law authority without making arrests.....Maybe that one went out with trial by combat.... ( a perfectly sensible legal practice!)

Capt. Lord

[JC004]

Isn't there Admiralty law that allows the Captain of a ship, authorities, or other interested parties to remove hazards to navigation? We could silence ELT's on that common law authority without making arrests.....Maybe that one went out with trial by combat.... ( a perfectly sensible legal practice!)

Capt. Lord

We do have a number of admirals on this board...

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

[JC004]

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.

How about the guy we had...Halloween 2005 (first of all, give some thought to what it was like for us to be wandering around in BDUs on Halloween).  He had bought an ultralight a few days before and had it in a trailer on the back of his truck.  Had no idea how to fly the thing, knew nothing about it, and "wasn't real sure about that little red light."   It wasn't really an ELT...it was an EPIRB attached with wire ties.  It was a pretty interesting day.  I've got almost 2 dozen finds...I've had loooads of fun people like this.

[DNall]

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.

[JC004]

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.

This is the theory, but I've not seen it used, even when there have been issues like this.  You've been around longer than I...have you seen this done?

[DNall]

Yes! exactly that. And AFRCC is MUCH harder on them if they get in direct contact, even if they are cooperative. I'm pretty nice & of course most people are very cooperatiove & thankful. That same moron that thinks his appointment is more important than following orders when he gets pulled over is just not going to have a good day. I'll use what's legally/ethically in my power to force what I want done. That's part of leadership. It's not like I'm going to cuff anyone, the cops will do that if I impress on them that it can & should be done.

I'm not enforcing anything. I'm accomplishing my mission, the cops are doing their job, and the idiot on the other end of the line will be compelled to do their duty as well. I don't know of anyone being put physically in jail, much less proceeding to formal charges, but cops go to their house & bring them back to the airport, yeah I've seen that. Only once did it involve being cuffed, and I think that was about liking the guys attitude as much as we did at that point.

[JC004]

...AFRCC is MUCH harder on them if they get in direct contact,...

I can say that is absolutely true.  The IC that did most of my UDF missions over the years got into the habit of sicking AFRCC on the people at the airport.  Awesome results, with one exception (NO budge at Northeast Philadelphia on one occasion).  Thanks, AFRCC.   

[DNall]

You can get AFRCC to have FAA call them to. They need to be scared when they're not playing nice with people that control all the federal money flowing into their facility. Airports usually are very cooperative. If you're having an ongoing problem, you may send a delegation down to meet with them or have regional FAA have a talk with them.

[sardak]

Laws  similar to the one cited for Oregon are common.  For instance, in California it's Penal Code section 148.3 (1 Adam 12, 148.3 in progress...).  In all cases though, "knowingly" is the key word, so someone has to prove that the owner or whomever, knew that the beacon was transmitting (more on that later).  The other requirement in many of these laws is that a law enforcement or other local agency must be notified.  The fact that CAP, USAF and AFRCC know probably doesn't matter.  But if CAP notified LE that they were searching for a signal (or if LE activated CAP) the notification requirement has been met.

The cost and effort to prove one of these cases makes them unlikely to ever be pursued.  There would most likely have to be extenuating circumstances.  In California, it's a misdemeanor, unless a responder is injured or killed, in which case it becomes a felony offense.   I'm curious why Oregon even brought the issue up.

When I did DF work on the west coast, I worked with the Coast Guard quite often.  At this particular station, it was station policy to file a report with the FCC on every non-distress signal incident.  The Coast Guard suggested (strongly) that CAP also file reports with the FCC.  We also worked with the FCC on some incidents.  When I asked the director of the local FCC field office about filing reports, he said that yes, he would like them.  He explained that the reports were used to track the number of non-distress transmissions.  Additionally, if they saw repeat offenders, the FCC would send the offenders a letter explaining the problems with non-distress signals on an emergency frequency.  At the time, the biggest repeat offender was the United States Navy.  There were individual boat and airplane owners that got letters, too.

The FCC would also send a letter to those owners who were uncooperative in shutting the signal off.  In the opinion of this FCC district office director, once an owner was notified the beacon was active, the owner became a "knowing" participant.  Federal law states that a "forfeiture penalty" applies to each violation or "each day of a continuing violation."  As far as this FCC staffer was concerned, if the signal continued past midnight, it was a new day of a continuing violation, even if the alert came in at 2359.  This guy was a trip to work with.  There were a few DF "competitions" between the FCC and CAP.

Anyway, we filed reports with the FCC.  We also got a cease and desist order from CAP.  We were told it was not our business to file reports with anyone but AFRCC.  I disagree but I don't live there anymore.

The Coast Guard takes this non-distress issue much more seriously than CAP or AFRCC.  In addition to the FCC rules against non-distress signals, there is a federal law specific to making non-distress reports to the USCG. 14 USC88 states that in addition to a fine, the offender is "liable for all costs the Coast Guard incurs as a result of  the individual's action."

In answer to the other question, in 27 years of DFing, I can count on one hand the number of  known deliberate non-distress activations.  There were probably a few more.  At one time there was a person setting off beacons who was also monitoring the CAP frequencies.  We caught him, but only with circumstantial evidence.  The problem however, went away after that.

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.

It should be common practice, but it's not.

Mike

[DNall]

I don't really care about state laws on the subject. If local cops want to enforce those or stated require it of us, then we can comply, but that's not our business or our job. The federal law is quite sufficient. All you need is the threat of fine & prison as well as FAA disciplinary action. That's plenty to motivate LE & sleepy pilots.

You should not ever report items directly to the FCC or FAA. The CG works differently. They have their own RCCs & delegate a significant amount of authority to local commanders. They also spend a significantly higher resource figure on non-distress beacons than we do. If they choose to let local stations report to FCC, then that's their business. The way they are supposed to do it is write their report & send it to their RCC who then forwards a copy on to FCC. That's what we do is send our info up to AFRCC & then they pass on the official report to FCC above the local level. I wouldn't have a problem with doing it as a locally coordinated courtesy, but that's AF's business.

I've only heard a couple cases of anyone intentionally setting off an ELT, and those obviously get prosecuted by federal authorities. If you can throw some state crap at them too, then by all means. Beyond that is what the laws are really about, which is motivating non-cooperative people to do what we want them to. The rest is meaningless.

[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!