Interesting state court ruling. Smart judge. Defendant sounds a bit whacked out... Menefee is interesting for harassment complaints we've seen lately in Florida. Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL *“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf* On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:00 PM Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
From Riley. See his comments below. Noteworthy case from Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning criminal contempt and harassment over amateur radio.
73, Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: RILEY HOLLINGSWORTH <rilepatholling@comcast.net> To: Rick Roderick <K5UR@arrl.org> Sent: Mon, Jun 15, 2020 3:34 pm Subject: Per e mail--the Tennessee Ct of Appeals case
Here's an excerpt, and the decision is attached. This stems from the 7200/3860 case and while not binding of course in other states, it is a guide and gives actions in other states more ammunition--especially when it comes to repeater deliberate interference.
*Again, the enforcement and prosecution of a valid ex parte order does not conflict* *with the federal statutes regulating radio activity. As the Florida appellate court aptly* *noted under similar circumstances, “In prosecuting [Respondent] the [trial court] was not* *seeking to regulate the air waves, rather it was seeking to punish him for his criminal* *conduct.” Menefee, 980 So.2d at 571. Respondent argues that the FCC’s prohibition* *against “communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; . . . [or] obscene or* *indecent words or language” restricts any state court from having jurisdiction to* *prosecute such actions. See 47 C.F.R. § 97.113(a)(4). We disagree with this conclusory* *assumption. Respondent was not found in criminal contempt for using “obscene or* *indecent words” on amateur radio. Rather, he was found in contempt for simply* *communicating with Petitioner, irrespective of the language he used. On this issue, we* *rely on analysis in Menefee, 980 So.2d at 573–74. In Menefee, the Florida District Court* *of Appeals stated, “there is nothing contained within the [Federal Communications] Act* *or its implementing regulations that suggests that states may not take action to charge* *a[n] [amateur] radio operator criminally for conduct that would constitute a crime.” Id. at* *573.* *For these reasons, we find that the trial court’s ex parte order is not preempted by* *- 9 -* *federal law. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction to find Respondent in criminal* *contempt of court when Respondent violated the ex parte order by contacting Petitioner* *on amateur radio.* _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv