Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Fooling Radar Detectors
Message-ID: <1990Aug25.210746.4753@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <FISH.90Aug14183156@his.gemed.com> <1990Aug15.112532.17516@ariel.unm.edu> <6154@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> <1990Aug23.002733.1080@mentor.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 21:07:46 GMT

In article <1990Aug23.002733.1080@mentor.com> waltw@mntgfx.UUCP (Walt Wilson) writes:
>... mounting my home-made anti-
>collision device on the dash fits the stated purpose of HAM radio.
>Since I would have no way of knowing when the police might choose
>to "share" this frequency, and I have a very good driving record
>eliminating the excuse of "probable cause"...

The police have no, repeat *no*, sense of humor about such things.
Defending yourself successfully against criminal charges is often
lengthy and expensive.

Which class of users has official priority in those bands?  Betcha it's
not the hams.

Lack of obvious criminal intent isn't necessarily a viable defense
against criminal charges like "interfering with a police officer in
the conduct of his duties".  A criminal record can be a serious nuisance
even if the judge considers your driving record and gives you a suspended
sentence.
-- 
Committees do harm merely by existing. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                       -Freeman Dyson  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry
