🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Aug25.210746.4753@zoo.toronto.edu > henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
 >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


Okay, enough with the legal speculation!  Does anyone know of any
"real" cases where someone was caught interfering with police radar?


--
Dennis Lou                Disclaimer: I don't use lame disks.
dlou@dino.ucsd.edu         "But Yossarian, what if everyone thought that way?"
[backbone]!ucsd!dino!dlou  "Then I'd be crazy to think any other way!"