Don't be stupid.

[smartyclinton]

I was at a stand-off yesterday where a man was inside his house with a shotgun. He shot a cop in the arm and the police had the entire neighborhood closed off. My reporter and I were with all the other media at the entrance of the area. The PIO wasn't talking so, none of us had really much info at all. Suddenly one of the local stations...4...started setting up to go live. They broke into programming with all this information...the man was on the porch...swat was throwing tear gas...shots were fired. Where the hell did they get this information? They were reporting what they heared from the scanners. Saying things like..."police say" and "according to authorities". I thought this was pretty stupid.
Now I use the scanners too. I even tend to record it from time to time. But I have never used it in such a manner as they did. I believe you can use scanner nats to push a story along or to gain the info you need to cover a story. But, you have to get this stuff confirmed before you go with it.
What do you think?

[<speak no evil>]

Divulging information divulged quoted strictly from radio scanner traffic is a violation of the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Also, recording and then retransmitting (playback on air) of radio scanner traffic conversation without persission of the licensee and participants is also prohibited by federal law.

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 119--WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS___________________________

Sec. 2510.

"(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that
the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this
subsection;"

[<Bearcat>]

Originally posted by &lt;speak no evil&gt;:
Divulging information divulged quoted strictly from radio scanner traffic is a violation of the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Hmmmmm, not so sure about that. I could be wrong, but I think the code you quote has to do with wiretapping and eavsdropping of normally private communications, like phone calls, especially cell phones. Monitoring scanner traffic by public safety personnel done on open frequencies don't really fit here.

That said, reporting scanner traffic as fact is not only stupid, but very dangerous. Unfortunately, there are far too many eager-beaver producers (and several reporters) out there that in the rush to be first forget this fundemental rule and live to regret it.

...recording and then retransmitting (playback on air) of radio scanner traffic conversation without persission of the licensee and participants is also prohibited by federal law. Again, incidental recording of scanner traffic probably won't get you into trouble. However, if you are 'rebroadcasting' sensitive information or communications of significant lengths, you might find yourself in some hot water.

[<not selective>]

Section 705 of the Communications Act generally does not prohibit the mere interception of radio communications, although mere interception of radio communications may violate other Federal or State statutes. In other words, if you happen to over hear your neighbor''s cordless telephone, you do not violate the Communications Act. Similarly, if you listen to radio transmissions on your scanner, such as emergency service reports, you are not in violation of Section 705. However, a violation of Section 705 would occur if you divulge or publish what you hear or use it for your own or someone else''s benefit. Example if your station retransmitts public safety radio without permission to benefit its newscast it is in violation. Items exempt are retransmissions of signals normally aired to the public at large ie TV, Radio, Aircraft, Marine, CB & FRS transmissions.

[<it's the law>]

Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986

PUBLIC LAW 99-508--OCT 21, 1986

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY

ACT OF 1986

100 STAT. 1861

PUBLIC LAW 99-508--OCT. 21, 1986

"(1)a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication

[<bad...>]

Clint,
I understand what your getting at. Not only are they reporting unconfirmed information, but they could also could be giving away police location and stategies to the hostage taker. Sounds like Nashville's ch. 4 is taking a page out of the crappy "If it bleeds it leads" book. Too bad for them.

[Dedline]

no no no. bad bad bad. Scanner traffic is like eyewitness accounts. Everyone hears and deduces different things. So NEVER go on air without confirming what you heard first.
Once we were on our way to a wall collapse with the first responders on the scene claiming 2 or 3 stories of an old brick movie theater collapsed. Surprise surprise, it turned out it was under demolition and a small wall of bricks fell on an adjacent buildling which collapsed a piece of its roof. We fell for it, but when we confirmed with somebody on scene, we found out the real deal.

[smartyclinton]

Thanks for the input.

[<WHIZkid>]

Originally posted by Dedline:
no no no. bad bad bad. Scanner traffic is like eyewitness accounts. Everyone hears and deduces different things. So NEVER go on air without confirming what you heard first.
Not only that, but scanner traffic in a situation like this would be hecktic, and mixed (unles you're in manual scan) with other trafic. There's just to much going on to call a scaner a relyable scorce. Sure it's an outstanding scorce to get you there, but confirm what you hear

[Sportsguy]

Lots of times I'll record scanner track at fire scenes to use as nat breaks in editing. It works great, and keeps up with the fast pace of the story...

I don't think that's breaking the law. No harm, no foul.

[stargazer]

The rule our station has always followed is: 1. No reporting of scanner traffic without confirmation, but it gives you the right questions to ask. 2. If you record natural sound from a police radio by standing next to an officer, it is fair to use; if you record it off the scanner, that is a no-no. Having said that, I routinely record scanner traffic on one of my channels and do not use it on the air, but it gives my reporter a better idea of what was going on at the time the tape was shot. It also gives me an idea of what is going on while I am shooting. I also use it for Nascar races.

[<Mike Hanson>]

Plus, a lot of the time police hold information from us for their own protection.

They know that the shotgun holding crazy person is flipping through the tv channels just as fast as we are to learn just what the police are doing.

If the crazy person hears on "channel 4" (or who ever) that the S.W.A.T. team is going in and ready to pouce... He/She is going to do something very stupid in short order. For example, he/she could shoot himself/herself, or more likely start shooting out all the windows.

I know personally, I couldn't handle the death of a cop because I wanted to be LIVE, LATE BREAKING, LOCAL.

Police PIOs can be a pain, but sometimes there's a reason.

[Terry E. Toller]

I frequently lock my scanner on the channel that deals with the story I am covering. I then put a wireless on the dash and feed the audio to my camera for nat sound. Works great with stand offs and bomb threats where the bomb guys yell on the radio "fire in the hole!"

[SandRat]

Are there any instances where a television report used scanner traffic that helped the perp?

I've always heard about those situations and times when criminals used live reports (sans scanner traffic) to aid in their evasion of the authorities, but I don't personally know of any documented situations where this has happened.

Reporting scanner traffic as fact is WRONG, for sure. Although in after the fact/wrap-up pkgs, it's great for short pops, as long as it's substantiated.

[photogguy]

Originally posted by Sportsguy:
Lots of times I'll record scanner track at fire scenes to use as nat breaks in editing. It works great, and keeps up with the fast pace of the story...

I don't think that's breaking the law. No harm, no foul.Actually, because it breaks the law, there is a foul. Despite what your belief is, it is against the law.