As many of you know, I am an Amateur Radio Operator, and as such, I get a lot of information about goings on amongst the various radio services. Today, in a newsletter from the Amateur Radio Relay Legue, there was an article about an individual in California who is causing major interference with a local fire station's radio equipment with their CB radio. It is the job of the FCC to force compliance among all the radio licenses, settle disputes, etc, and so it is clearly in their realm to do an investigation. In this case, agents from the FCC made several visits to this CB operator's house, requesting to inspect the equipment for compliance, and the operator denied them access without a search warrant. In response, the FCC has submitted an order that revokes the person's license to operate, instituted a fine, and deemed the operator as being out of compliance with rules for not allowing the inspection of his equipment without a warrant.
OK, here's where my feelings fall on the subject. The FCC was doing their job by responding to the Fire Department's request, their investigation was thorough and well done, and they hadn't stepped on anyone's rights by requesting to inspect the equipment. Additionally, I feel the operator in question was correct in refusing them without a warrant, on the following grounds: Yes, the license for any radio license gives the FCC the privilege of inspecting your equipment for compliance, and an operator should honor their request. However, that does not make the FCC more important than the constitution... If this operator didn't want the FCC on his property, their only course of action is to revoke his license and possibly assess a fine for the interference alone... The equipment inspection should be used only to PROTECT the operator, not as a means of intimidation.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think this operator is in violation of his licence, should have it revoked, and should be fined. I think $7000 is excessive and unconstitutional, and I think the FCC should not be making any wars over the Search Warrant issue. I don't think they have overstepped their authority in this case, but I think the agents chose poor wording and have opened themselves to a lawsuit. In fact, if such a lawsuit gets filed, I will side with the operator on the subject, as the agents stating they don't need a warrant indicates a blatant disrespect of the constitution from the FCC, and from the Executive Branch as a whole. They need to be put in check. As a means of clarification, here's the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Certainly, the person can have their license to operate revoked. But their property can not be inspected or seized without a warrant from the judge.
