On reddit the other day was this item, “N8CAM loses his license and $3K for using cloned radio on Michigan state radio system.” According to the FCC, N8CAM, a 19 year old admitted that “over a two-year period, he illegally operated on, and caused interference to, the MPSCS” (Michigan Public Service Communication System.
The FCC report goes on to say:
Mr. Thurston is a 19-year old amateur radio licensee who operates under the call sign N8CAM. According to reports that the Michigan State Police provided to the Commission, on or about April 21, 2017, Mr. Thurston was subject to a routine traffic stop, during which, an officer of the Michigan State Police observed that Mr. Thurston was in possession of a radio capable of operating on the MPSCS. After confirming that Mr. Thurston was not an authorized user of the MPSCS, the officer seized the radio under authority provided by state law. Another Michigan State Police officer specializing in the organization’s radio equipment subsequently inspected the seized radio and determined that it was able to connect with, and operate on, the MPSCS because the device was a “clone” of an infrequently used radio belonging to Oscoda County, Michigan, that was authorized to operate on the MPSCS. As a “clone,” the device in Mr. Thurston’s possession operated using the same radio identifier code as the Oscoda County radio. Because the MPSCS recognized the code transmitted by Mr. Thurston’s radio as belonging to the authorized Oscoda County radio, the system permitted Mr. Thurston’s radio to make and receive transmissions on the state-wide network. According to records provided by the Michigan State Police, between July 15, 2015, and April 21, 2017, the cloned radio in Mr. Thurston’s possession transmitted on the MPSCS 989 times, with the average transmission lasting 4.8 seconds.19 Based on information provided by the MPSCS, during each such push-to-talk transmission, other authorized users of the “talk group” on which the cloned radio was then transmitting would not have been able to make their own transmissions during the brief periods when Mr. Thurston was transmitting on the MPSCS. The Michigan State Police have not alleged that Mr. Thurston made any false or threatening transmissions on the MPSCS.
N8CAM pleaded guilty to the felony charges, but because he’s so young, and probably because he didn’t make any “false or threatening transmissions” was treated with some leniency. He was not sentenced to any prison time, but fined $3,000 and has to surrender his amateur radio license for two years. But, he will have to pay an penalty of $17,000 if he operates on MPSCS frequencies or causes interference to the MPSCS in the next 2o years.
I’m hoping that he’s learned his lesson here. I don’t want to be writing about him again in two years.
William D. Radtke - W8WDR says
Was it really necessary to post this? Many, many, many of us know Cam and no one can say that he has not always been ready to help another amateur. Additionally his respect for fallen LEOs, FFs and EMS is well known. While most kids post half naked selfies on Facebook, Cam posts memorials to his fallen heroes. If you knew more of his background you would be amazed that he has the character that he does. The kid has faced issues and handled them in an adult like fashion his entire life. Yes he made a mistake in this case I akin it to following a loose thread to see where it leads. BTW your story (FCC quote) is not 100% accurate but that is what happens when someone is more interested in demeaning rather than getting the story straight.
Dan KB6NU says
I don’t know, Cam, but I am glad to hear that he’s not the kind of person that will repeat this mistake. I’ve posted it here with the hope that others won’t make the same mistake.
Jeni says
I’m glad that You wrote it. Where I live, there are too many NOT getting into trouble for the Interference. If it didn’t exist, they would not have created a Community Rule that Interference is now Illegal! (2014, now 2018)
It makes the body ache, makes you nauseas, & is not okay.
Dan KB6NU says
The FCC quote was cut and pasted directly from the FCC website, so I did indeed accurately quote the report. If the FCC account was inaccurate, then your beef is with them, not me.
Curt, K8AI says
William, because one posts memorials of LEO’s, FF’s and EMT’s – that somehow establishes his character?
Dave New, N8SBE says
I’m very concerned about the officer seizing the radio “under state law.” I know that Michigan state law forbids receivers/scanners in vehicles that can listen to police frequencies, but it specifically excuses any Amateur of Technician class or higher.
I used to carry a copy of the law around in my wallet with a paper copy of my license, but the last time I changed wallets, I decided that I didn’t need them any more. Sounds like its time to dust them off, before some officious officer decides to seize all my radio equipment because he thinks it might be capable of operating on ‘his’ frequency bands.
Those Amateurs that are carrying Motorola DMR HTs that are the same/similar to the ones the Michigan state police use, are particularly at risk.
There was a number of incidents like this in New Jersey a few years ago — seizing amateur equipment during routine traffic stops. I haven’t heard of it in a while, so apparently it somehow got resolved.
Dave New, N8SBE says
Here’s the link to the law:
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-508
It seems my memory was a bit fuzzy. That’s what I get for going from memory. Any class license is good for a pass. And it seems that only folks that have been convicted of a felony in the preceding 5 years are told not to have a scanner/receiver.
Then there is a section that says that if you were carrying while committing a crime, then all bets are off, unless it was a misdemeanor associated with a jail term of less than 93 days.
So, it appears that the officer was incorrect in assuming he had the authority to seize the radio based on a traffic stop (assuming the traffic stop was for a light misdemeanor, like running a stop sign, etc).
Even if he thought the radio was capable of receiving police frequencies, he had no authority to seize, unless, of course, the driver admitted that he had been using the radio to interfere with police frequencies.
Of course, it’s wrong for someone to interfere with police frequencies, but it seems that the arresting officer didn’t follow the rules and the evidence was ‘tainted’. A better defense lawyer would likely have arrived at a different outcome.
Dan KB6NU says
Interesting. I hadn’t thought about that.