• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

FCC Right to Inspect

Been in radio since 1978...right to inspect was exactly as it is today.

Refusing can result, sometimes, with Federal Marshals showing up.
 
It's the first plain-language information sheet I've seen. There has been a lot of misinformation about the matter since news of the PIRATE Act came out this week.
 
kenglish said:
There has been a lot of misinformation about the matter since news of the PIRATE Act came out this week.
Click to expand...

Did you see the PIRATE act mentioned in those guidelines or anything that has relates to pirate stations?

If you do then perhaps the PIRATE act wasn't necessary.
 
I think there's a pirate in Miami that has been issued hundreds of thousands of dollars of NALs, and has filled their dumpsters with plenty of polite letters from the FCC. They are still operating, for over 25 years, and no one can stop them. The feds haven't gotten a dime yet, either.
 
The FCC has authority over anyone or anything that generates interference, whether they are a licensee or not. Not cooperating just makes things worse in the long run.

Congress thinks making people subject to huge fines will get their attention. I suspect the FCC is happy to get the word out about the issue, even if it takes splashy media coverage ("Wow"-factor).
 
kenglish said:
The FCC has authority over anyone or anything that generates interference, whether they are a licensee or not. Not cooperating just makes things worse in the long run.
Click to expand...

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Over the past 20 years, the Commission has done zero to stop the spread of consumer electronic devices that spray RFI. Now here we are, with the terrestrial noise floor at all time highs. The horses all left the collective barn years ago, while the Commission looked the other way.
 
I worked at a station 15 years ago, and I don't know if the rules have changed much.. but technically at the time, the fcc could only inspect during normal business hours.. but the guy showed up at 745.. I promptly dealt with him when the gospel hosts were clueless as to what was going on.. I could've refused him, but didn't.
 
AFAIK the rule has always been that they can inspect if they detect a signal coming from your property. If they find no problem, then they leave with a smile and a handshake.
Better to find and fix the problem immediately, than to play games and start all that nasty paperwork process.
 
frankberry said:
The 4th amendment does not apply when the FCC catches you as you are committing a crime.
Click to expand...

That's not what I was responding to. If you read the context, we're talking about legal radio stations.

And if they believe a crime is being committed, there are steps they have to go through.
 
The fact sheet specifically says they are not "searching" or "seizing". They are there to find the problem and get you to fix it. They don't look in drawers...they ask you to produce a license to be transmitting on that frequency or turn it off.
If you are interfering with the FAA radar at an airport, the airport isn't going to close while somebody starts legal proceedings.
 
kenglish said:
The fact sheet specifically says they are not "searching" or "seizing".
Click to expand...

I now see you're referring to the FAQ in the OP, about residential inspections of legal stations. That is a different matter. That is not for pirate radio, but rather people operating radio stations in their private home. Here are the rules from the FAQ:

Q: The FCC Agent standing at my door does not have a search warrant, so I don't have to let him in, right?

A: Wrong. Search warrants are needed for entry involving criminal matters. One of the requirements as a licensee, or non-licensee subject to the Commission's Rules, is to allow inspection of your radio equipment by FCC personnel. Whether you operate an amateur station or any other radio device, your authorization from the Commission comes with the obligation to allow inspection. Even radio stations licensed under a "blanket" rule or approval, such as Citizen's Band (CB) Radio, are subject to the Commission's inspection requirement.

Q: Well then, if I am a low-power broadcaster and don't have an FCC license, they need a search warrant, right?

A: Wrong again. The FCC agents have the authority to inspect all radio equipment; even if you do not have a license, the FCC can still inspect your equipment. Section 303(n) of the Act gives the FCC the right to inspect all "stations required to be licensed." This language covers your low-power radio station. The FCC agents are inspecting the equipment, not searching your house.
 
The FAQ discusses both residential and commercial installations, both licensed and unlicensed. Back in 2001, I had severe RFI from a neon sign (restaurant franchise) about 200 feet from my home. I tried to reach the manager, but always was told she wasn't there. I finally called the FCCINFO number and asked if they had any authority over someone who was not a licensee. The agent replied, "Hell, Yes!"
Within a day or two I was notified that they were issued a citation under Part 15.5, and contact info for their Operations VP. We spent a couple of days on site with their sign contractor, and found some loose connections. That helped a lot.
 
frankberry said:
The 4th amendment does not apply when the FCC catches you as you are committing a crime.
Click to expand...

That is definitely not now the 4th amendment works. An action done on one's private property being clearly observed from outside said property does not short-circuit the 4th amendment's protections. The gobbledygook BigA quoted from the FCC web site contravenes the 4th.

A licensee is different, as they did agree to be subject the FCC's inspection rules as part of the terms of their license. By definition, a pirate broadcaster did not.

It can be seen through Notices of Apparent Liability for unlicensed operation that only in exceptional circumstances will the FCC enforce 303(n) by requesting local authorities issue a search warrant for the premesis of an unlicensed broadcaster.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom