Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gcc-bill.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!gcc-bill!john
From: john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Legislation
Message-ID: <282@gcc-bill.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 21-Aug-85 11:08:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: gcc-bill.282
Posted: Wed Aug 21 11:08:07 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 17:08:28 EDT
References: <> <214@proper.UUCP> <781@dataio.UUCP>
Reply-To: john@gcc-bill.UUCP (John Allred)
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma (Home of the HyperDrive)
Lines: 13
Keywords: radar jammer
Xref: watmath net.auto:7793 net.legal:2144
Summary: Isn't it just a federal rap??

[munch, munch]

I seem to remember reading something to the effect that use of a jammer could 
only be prosecuted by the feds, since it is an offense against FCC regs.  Even
then, if the jammer was using less than 100 milliwatts, it would be legal, at
least in the FCC's eyes.

I also wonder if the average police officer would be able to detect if he had
been jammed, given a jammer that does more that simply confuse the radar gun.
Of course, even a Buford T. Justice could tell if you go wizzing by at 90, and 
your jammer had the radar gun display 55.

Plans for such a jammer are in the back of several car magazines.