Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/21/84; site styx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!styx!mcb From: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal Subject: Re: Radar Surveillance (burglars tools) Message-ID: <10690@styx.UUCP> Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 15:59:39 EDT Article-I.D.: styx.10690 Posted: Fri Aug 23 15:59:39 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 13:38:24 EDT References: <1081@homxa.UUCP> <4891@allegra.UUCP> <269@ihlpl.UUCP> <1090@homxa.UUCP> <719@homxb.UUCP> <508@linus.UUCP> Organization: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, CA Lines: 28 Xref: watmath net.auto:7839 net.legal:2162 > [Discussion of radar detectors as burglar's tools] > The analogy of radar detectors (or even jammers) as burglar's tools seems weak for two reasons: 1. Burglar's tools are implements that actually assist in the perpetration of an offense. By contrast, you have already committed the offense while speeding; the detector or jammer merely assists you in escaping apprehension. 2. Penal statutes are to be STRICTLY CONSTRUED. You can't make an effective legal argument in criminal court based on an analogy to another penal law -- prohibitions must be specific and enumerated sufficiently for someone to know whether they are committing an offense. For example, I recall a California case from law school where a convicted felon on parole was up for parole revocation for possessing a firearm. What exactly he had was not reported, but all the trial transcript reported was that he had a "gun". The police officer who testified at the trial was deceased and not available at the hearing. Since the official definition of "firearm" in the appropriate section of the penal code did not include the word "gun" (it talked about pistols and rifles and shotguns, etc.) the firearm charge was dismissed and the felon walked. Michael C. Berch mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb