This article provides information for the scanning community regarding a New York State court decision about police scanners in vehicles. It is intended for general knowledge and avoids personal opinions on scanner laws.
On October 14th, the highest court in New York issued a ruling clarifying the interpretation of section 397 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. This law, originally established in 1933, addresses the legality of “equipping” a motor vehicle with a radio capable of receiving police frequencies without proper permits. The case involved a tow truck operator found to have a police scanner in his pocket, which the court deemed a violation.
The central point of contention was the definition of “equip.” Despite the police scanner not being physically installed in the tow truck, the court determined that because it was readily accessible and operational, it met the criteria of being “equipped” within the vehicle. The circumstances of the case suggested the tow truck driver might have been improperly using the scanner to respond to incidents. However, the court’s decision rested on the principle that a scanner’s immediate usability within the vehicle is sufficient to constitute a violation of section 397, regardless of permanent installation.
It’s important to note that the court’s ruling was limited to the specific arguments presented. Several related issues were not addressed, such as the concept of federal preemption, the legality of transporting a lawfully owned scanner (perhaps in a trunk), or whether smartphone apps like Broadcastify, which can also receive police radio, fall under the definition of a “radio” according to this law. These questions remain open for future clarification or legal challenges.
The case is officially titled People v. Andujar, and the full decision is available online for public review at www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2017/Oct17/91opn17-Decision.pdf. This ruling serves as an important update for anyone using or considering using police scanners in their cars within New York State, highlighting a potentially broader interpretation of the law than previously understood.
