Police using scanners?

[RCSO-7S05]

We recently had three police officers suspended for thirty days for using a scanner to effect an arrest. They used scanners to listen in to cell phones and cordless phones and took some dope and a gun off the streets. They were fined $5000.00 each given 60 days jail(suspended) 1 year probation, 1000 hours community service. A fourth officer was fired for lying for his fellow police officers trying to keep them out of trouble. Ever have anything like this happen in your department?

[Snoopy1]

I am looking at this from a "civilian" point of view.

I am assuming a scanner is similar to a wiretap on a regular phone and they needed a court order or something to do that. If they didn't have the authorization I can see a brief suspension since it was a violation of a rule. However, in my uneducated opinion, the rest of the punishment is way out of line.

[FLLawdog]

Snoopy...

These are the run of the mill, garden variety police scanners that the public can purchase to listen to weather, police, fire, rail and airway radio traffic. The old ones had cell phone and cordless phone frequencies added. This made it possible to unlawfully intercept communications, which is a crime. The new ones don't have them added.

[oscar]

if the comunications where in the 38.00 to 52.00 range it's pulic. open for recording etc.

It's not illegal to listen just to disclose or use for proffit or blackmail.

the officers should have found other methodes. the scanner should have been used to look for the needle in the haystack. then get lagitamate evidence.

they did get off easy.

[PartTimer]

Hmm, we have a freakin scanner at our station. Isn't it in the owners manual of some cordless phones that your conversation may not be a secret?

[RCSO-7S05]

Part timer, I agree, however it is still illegal to eavesdropfor the purpose of securing an arrest.

[Niteshift]

Yes. Remember the saying that the ends don't justify the means?

Although oscar seems to think that they should have been tortured or something, they probably simply thought they'd found a short-cut. Unfortunately, most short-cuts leave out something important.

Remember that the standard for what is private vs. public is reasonable expectation of privacy. Most people reasonably presume that their phone calls are private and rightfully so.

Simply because something CAN be intercepted doesn't make it ok to do it, nor should that negate the reasonableness of the expectation. The locks on your house can be easily defeated, yet it is reasonable to presume that if you lock your door, you expect privacy.

[RCSO-7S05]

I'm proud of you Niteshift, you have a way with words!!