New Jersey Section 2C:33-23.2 – Violations, fourth degree crime.

Understanding New Jersey’s Law on Illegal Radio Transmissions

Controversies Around the Law

While Section 2C:33-23.2 aims to protect police from disruptions, the broad scope of the law has generated controversy within the radio hobbyist community. Many argue the language unfairly criminalizes even unintentional or harmless transmissions.

Some of the key criticisms include:

• Overly broad restrictions – The law lacks nuance and can penalize innocent mistakes, not just intentional interference. There is no requirement to prove intent or actual disruption of police activities.
• Chills hobbyists – Hobbyists interested in listening to police and emergency frequencies for entertainment fear running afoul of the law accidentally. This creates a chilling effect on the hobby.
• Imprecise technology – Radio equipment can accidentally transmit on incorrect frequencies due to technical limitations. This makes well-intentioned hobbyists vulnerable to criminal charges.
• High penalties – A felony charge and jail time is seen as excessive punishment for unintentional violations or minor disruptions. Critics argue the penalties should match the offense.
• Civil lawsuits – Allowing civil lawsuits against violators based on a strict liability standard is seen as overreach by the law. There is no requirement to prove actual damages.

Proponents of the law say it provides necessary protections for critical police communications. But the debate continues around finding the right balance between security and fairness for radio hobbyists.

Notable Cases and Legal Challenges

There have been a few notable cases that highlight the real-world implications of New Jersey’s law against illegal radio transmissions:

• In New Jersey v. Cairns (2009), a trucker was charged after transmitting an false emergency call about a non-existent overturned truck that tied up police resources. He pleaded guilty to a disorderly persons offense under the law.
• In New Jersey v. DeAngelo (2012), a father was arrested and faced felony charges for installing a radio in his son’s car that could accidentally transmit on police frequencies. The case was ultimately dismissed.
• In Manville Amateur Radio Club v. Manville (2013), a group of hobbyists sued the city over local ordinances that essentially mirrored the state law’s restrictions. A settlement was reached easing the restrictions on hobbyists.

While the vast majority of cases involve clear intentional interference, critics point to cases like DeAngelo as evidence of the law’s overreach. There have been several legal challenges questioning the constitutionality of the broad restrictions, but the core law has remained intact.

Finding a Balance

At its heart, Section 2C:33-23.2 was enacted to protect critical police communications from disruptions that could endanger officers and the public. But the controversy shows that finding the right balance in the law is tricky.

Perhaps there are ways to amend the law to better differentiate between malicious interference and unintentional hobbyist transmissions. The debate involves balancing security needs with fairness and free speech concerns. But for now, anyone operating a radio device in New Jersey should be aware of the significant penalties for transmitting on police frequencies without proper authorization.