Click here for Adobe Acrobat version Click here for Microsoft Word version ******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This…
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Jason R. Humphreys
Seffner, Florida
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No.: EB-FIELDSCR-13-00008645
NAL/Acct. No.: 201432700003 FRN: 0023473317
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
ILLEGAL OPERATION OF SIGNAL JAMMING DEVICE
Adopted: April 23, 2014 Released: April 29, 2014
By the Commission:
INTRODUCTION
We find Jason R. Humphreys apparently liable for a forfeiture of $48,000 for using a cell phone jammer in his car during his daily commute between Seffner and Tampa, Florida. Mr. Humphreys' illegal operation of the jammer apparently continued for up to two years, caused actual interference to cellular service along a swath of Interstate 4, and disrupted police and other emergency communications. Due to the nature and extended duration of Mr. Humphreys' violations, we take an aggressive approach and propose the per violation statutory maximum of $16,000 for each of the offenses -- unauthorized operation, use of an illegal device, and causing intentional interference.
Cell and other signal jammers operate by transmitting radio signals that overpower, block, or interfere with authorized communications. While these devices have been marketed with increasing frequency over the Internet, their use in the United States is generally unlawful. Jammers are designed to impede authorized communications, thereby interfering with the rights of the general public and legitimate spectrum users. They may also disrupt critical emergency communications between first responders, such as public safety, law enforcement, emergency medical, and emergency response personnel. Similarly, jammers can endanger life and property by preventing individuals from making 9-1-1 or other emergency calls or disrupting communications essential to aviation and marine safety. In order to protect the public and preserve unfettered access to and use of emergency and other communications services, the Act generally prohibits the importation, use, marketing, manufacture, and sale of jammers. The Commission has issued several enforcement advisories and consumer alerts emphasizing the importance of strict compliance in this area and encouraging public participation through the Commission's jammer tip line. We expect individuals and businesses to take immediate steps to ensure compliance and to avoid any recurrence of this type of misconduct, including ceasing operation of any signal jamming devices that may be in their possession, custody, or control. We also strongly encourage all users of these devices to voluntarily relinquish them to Commission agents either in connection with a Commission investigation or by calling the jammer tip line at 1-855-55-NOJAM (or 1-855-556-6526).
BACKGROUND
On April 29, 2013, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) received a complaint from Metro PCS that its cell phone tower sites had been experiencing interference during the morning and evening commutes in Tampa, Florida. Based on the location of the towers and the times that the alleged interference occurred, the Bureau determined that the likely source of the interference was mobile along Interstate 4 between downtown Tampa and Seffner, Florida.
On May 7, 2013, agents from the Bureau's Tampa Office (Tampa Office) initiated an investigation into this matter and monitored the suspected route. On May 7, 8, and 9, 2013, the agents determined, using direction finding techniques, that strong wideband emissions within the cellular and PCS bands (i.e., the 800 MHz to 1900 MHz band) were emanating from a blue Toyota Highlander sport utility vehicle (SUV) with a Florida license plate. On May 9, 2013, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office (Hillsborough Sheriff), working closely with the agents from the Tampa Office, stopped the Toyota Highlander SUV. The Hillsborough Sheriff deputies reported that communications with police dispatch over their 800 MHz two-way portable radios were interrupted as they approached the SUV.
The agents from the Tampa Office and the Hillsborough Sheriff deputies interviewed the driver, who identified himself as Jason Humphreys. Mr. Humphreys admitted that he owned and had operated a cell phone jammer from his car for the past 16 to 24 months. An inspection of the vehicle revealed the cell phone jammer behind the seat cover of the passenger seat. Mr. Humphreys stated that he had been operating the jammer to keep people from talking on their cell phones while driving. At the conclusion of the interview, the Hillsborough Sheriff deputies seized Mr. Humphreys' cell phone jammer pursuant to Florida state law. On the following day, May 10, 2013, Metro PCS confirmed that the interference to its cell towers had ceased. On June 14, 2013, agents from the Tampa Office tested the seized cell phone jammer and confirmed that it was capable of jamming cellular and PCS communications in at least three frequency bands: 821-968 MHz, 1800-2006 MHz, and 2091-2180 MHz.
DISCUSSION
Applicable Law
Federal law prohibits the operation of jamming devices in the United States and its territories. Section 301 of the Act prohibits the use or operation of "any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio" within the United States and its territories unless such use is licensed or authorized. Section 333 of the Act expressly states that "[n]o person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government." In addition, Section 302(b) of the Act provides that "[n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section." The applicable implementing regulations for Section 302(b) of the Act are set forth in Sections 2.803, 2.805, 2.807, 15.1(c), 15.3(o), and 15.201 of the Rules. Section 2.805(a) of the Rules provides in relevant part that, except in a few narrow circumstances not pertinent here, "[a] radio frequency device may not be operated prior to equipment authorization." In addition, pursuant to Sections 15.1(c) and 15.201(b) of the Rules, intentional radiators cannot be operated in the United States or its territories unless they have first been authorized in accordance with the Commission's certification procedures.
Jamming devices cannot be certified or authorized because their primary purpose is to block or interfere with authorized communications and their use would compromise the integrity of the nation's communications infrastructure. Thus, jamming devices such as the one used by Mr. Humphreys cannot comply with the FCC's technical standards and, therefore, cannot be lawfully operated in the United States or its territories. In short, under Section 302(b) of the Act, radio frequency devices like signal jamming devices are per se illegal for use by consumers such as Mr. Humphreys. Illegal Operation of Cellular Jamming Device
As discussed above, on May 7, 8, and 9, 2013, agents from the Tampa Office observed an illegal cell phone jamming device in use in the Blue Toyota Highlander SUV operated by Mr. Humphreys. Mr. Humphreys admitted to the agents that he purchased, owned, and used the device to block cell phone communications of nearby drivers for 16 to 24 months. Such operation could and may have had disastrous consequences by precluding the use of cell phones to reach life-saving 9-1-1 services provided by police, ambulance, and fire departments. It also could have disrupted critical communications of first responders driving on the highway near Mr. Humphreys' vehicle. In fact, in this case, Mr. Humphreys' cell phone jammer interfered with police radio communications. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Humphreys apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 301, 302(b), and 333 of the Act, and Sections 2.805(a) and 15.1(c) of the Rules by operating a cell phone jammer.
Proposed Forfeiture
Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for (1) operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000; (2) use of unauthorized or illegal equipment is $5,000; and (3) interference to authorized communications is $7,000. The Commission retains the discretion, however, to issue a higher or lower forfeiture than provided in the Forfeiture Policy Statement or to apply alternative or additional sanctions as permitted by the statute, subject to the statutory cap. For violations of the signal jamming prohibition by individuals, the Act authorizes monetary forfeitures of up to $16,000 for each violation or, in the case of a continuing violation, the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures of up to $16,000 for each day of such continuing violation up to a maximum forfeiture of $112,500 for any single act or failure to act. In assessing the appropriate monetary penalty for the misconduct at issue, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require. As explained above, Mr. Humphreys operated a cellular jamming device, which is illegal and prohibited for consumer use in the United States. While jammer operation violations are egregious per se, we note that Mr. Humphreys' conduct was particularly troubling due to the extended duration of the violations (i.e., between 16 and 24 months) and the fact that his operation of the jammer also interfered with police two-way radios used to ensure officer safety and permit coordination between and among officers on-scene and police dispatch. We find these actions to be particularly egregious, warranting an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amounts consistent with the Commission's approach in Supply Room.
Under this approach, we find that Mr. Humphreys apparently committed three separate violations of the Act and our rules for the jammer at issue. For the unauthorized operation and illegal equipment violations, we will propose a forfeiture of $16,000 per violation, the maximum per violation forfeiture authorized by statute and consistent with Commission precedent. For the companion interference violation, we start with a $7,000 base forfeiture, but conclude that an upward adjustment up to the maximum per violation forfeiture authorized (i.e., $16,000) is warranted based on the facts and circumstances of this case: (a) operating a jammer in frequency bands used by law enforcement officials; (b) causing interference to a potentially very large number of cell phone subscribers (i.e., drivers during rush hour on Interstate 4 between Seffner and Tampa, Florida); and (c) operating a jammer for an extended period of time (i.e., between 16 and 24 months). Therefore, consistent with the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the statutory factors discussed above, we conclude that Mr. Humphreys is apparently liable for a total forfeiture in the amount of forty-eight thousand dollars ($48,000). ORDERING CLAUSES
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, Jason R. Humphreys is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount forty-eight thousand dollars ($48,000) for violations of Sections 301, 302(b), and 333 of the Act, and of Sections 2.805(a) and 15.1(c) of the Commission's rules.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, within thirty (30) calendar days after the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Jason R. Humphreys SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above. Jason R. Humphreys will also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to SCR-Response@fcc.gov. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Below are additional instructions you should follow based on the form of payment you select:
* Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. * Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on the same business day the wire transfer is initiated. * Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159 to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554. If you have questions regarding payment procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Rules. Mail the written statement to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, South Central Region, Tampa Office, 4010 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 425, Tampa, Florida 33607, and include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption. Jason R. Humphreys also shall e-mail the written response to SCR-Response@fcc.gov.
The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP); or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture shall be sent by both First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Jason R. Humphreys at his address of record.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
SecretaryRead the original article
Comments
By Someone1234 2026-02-0515:104 reply The police who stopped him had their radios jammed during the interaction; so I'm not particularly sympathetic to the title's artificial framing:
> Fined $48k for using a jammer to keep commuters from using phones while driving
The person jammed 911, both on and off the freeway every single work-day for months. They also jammed legal usage of mobile devices on the freeway and in the surrounding area. They were rightfully fined, and if it discourages others then so much the better.
By rustyhancock 2026-02-0515:201 reply 911, emergency alerts, cloud linked epilepsy and diabetes monitors.
He got off lightly for 48k imo.
By ortusdux 2026-02-0517:21 On-star and similar automatic incident reporting. Presumably he drove past first responders at the scene of an accident and jammed their communication. Construction zone flaggers typically use radios to coordinate traffic.
I agree, 48k is light.
By thatguy0900 2026-02-0515:40 Not to mention I'm not even sure how that's supposed to be safer? The distracted drivers are now more distracted trying to figure out why their isn't working and people who weren't distracted listining to Spotify are now looking at their phones actively as well. Dude was literally making a bubble of people messing with their phones around him while he drives
By rich_sasha 2026-02-0516:02 And there's nothing wrong with passengers using phones. In fact often most people in the car are not the driver...
By kmoser 2026-02-0517:05 I have no sympathy for the guilty party, but the title is correctly indicating his intentions, despite the larger and manifold effects he had.
Maybe $48k is a bit much, but this is so obviously a crazy thing to do.
Passengers are allowed to use their phones and your jammer won't discriminate. People can take hands-free calls and your jammer won't discriminate. Pedestrians can use their phones and your jammer won't discriminate. People who have broken down might want to call the AA. And so on.
What was this person thinking?
$48k is cheap. He's lucky he didn't get jail time especially for intentionally disrupting emergency communications like 911 service.
I don't know if it's fair to say he intentionally disrupted emergency communications.
He unintentionally disrupted emergency communications in the course of intentionally disrupting ordinary people's communications.
I doubt he ever thought "I've got a good idea, I'll disrupt emergency communications".
He did a thing, on purpose, that had a side-effect of disrupting emergency communications. I don't know whether you'd say that qualifies as "intentional".
If it qualifies as intentional, are we saying that all possible unintended consequences are de facto intentions? Or only in this case?
It’s the legal definition of intentional. If you intentionally perform an act that reasonably can foresee an outcome, then it is by definition intentional.
If you rob a liquor store while armed and accidentally discharge your weapon - it’s an intentional murder. Doesn’t matter if you went in there thinking the gun was unloaded or if you told your friend in writing before you went in that you had no intention of hurting anyone.
Unintentional would be he had a jammer for hobbyist use and it somehow turned on by itself while it was being transported in his backpack. If he pressed the power button in an intentional manner and reasonably knew the outcome of what a jammer does it is intentional behavior.
He may not have had the explicit goal of disrupting emergency communication, but he absolutely knew he was doing so and intentionally performed the act anyways.
By ranger_danger 2026-02-0515:244 reply > He may not have had the explicit goal of disrupting emergency communication, but he absolutely knew he was doing so
How could you prove that though? They could absolutely claim ignorance and be right, they might not have known... but it's still illegal and they'll still be punished. As the saying goes... "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
What I'd really like to know though, is the history of how/why it became that way.
Who got to decide that everyone must be presumed to know all the laws at all times, and why?
How is it fair that we expect everyone to know all applicable laws?
I realize that claiming ignorance would just lead to widespread abuse, but at the same time I don't think it's fair because laws are massively complex and ever-changing... no single person can reasonably be expected to know it all.
You could claim ignorance that you had no idea what the box in your bag was, and thought it was a radiotherapy device that had health benefits or something. If you could then prove that you bought it from a website advertising it as such and had a true belief you had no idea it jammed communications in any manner then you’d have a case of an unintentional act.
Here the guy bought a jammer that has exactly one use - jamming communications. He then presumably brought it with him on purpose and intentionally hit the power button to turn it on.
It’s not really a borderline case like some things could be.
It’s roughly the same as shooting at someone you hate who happens to be in a crowd and hitting a bystander on accident. It’s still an intentional act and you would be guilty of intentional murder of some type if they died.
By chaostheory 2026-02-0515:31 > How could you prove that though?
In the FCC link:
“Mr. Humphreys admitted to the agents that he purchased, owned, and used the device to block cell phone communications of nearby drivers for 16 to 24 months.”
Even if he claimed ignorance, it’s not a good defense when you’ve been doing this for close to two years
By justin66 2026-02-0515:46 > How could you prove that though?
This is uncomplicated. You ask him the question and he answers. The judge or jury decides whether he is telling the truth.
By IMTDb 2026-02-0515:13 He intentionally disrupted all communications including, but not limited to, emergency ones. In process he tried to unilaterally control a public resource based on his own authoritarian view of what is "good" vs "bad". He is lucky he is not in jail.
By registeredcorn 2026-02-0515:51 Maybe saying something like this would make things clearer:
> His directed intention was to disrupt communication. He did not explicitly target EMS calls, however, his actions impacted EMS communications because of his intentions to disrupt communications.
Example:
If I poison the water for a city, my directed intention may be, "to lower pollution in the region". I am not specifically targeting children, however, a consequence of my intentions of poisoning the water will cause the death of children.
This fellow intentionally took a disruptive action. The consequences of those directed disruptions may have caused (had caused?) catastrophic consequences - that is part of why what he did was illegal. In breaking that law, he became culpable for the outcome for all of the harm caused, targeted or otherwise. Ultimately, it was an intention which presupposed, "My personal opinion supersedes all others." It's an self-centered obscenity without regard to others.
By bdcravens 2026-02-0515:23 Hence the low fine and the lack of a jail sentence.
And yes, penalty for unintended consequences are a thing. Involuntary manslaughter, property damage caused by DWI, etc.
By roywiggins 2026-02-0515:15 at a certain point indifference is depraved enough to be indistinguishable from malice. there's entire bodies of law about it
you're responsible for understanding the ramifications of things you do if a reasonable person should recognize those ramifications.
any reasonable person would have known they were interrupting emergency services. not a lawyer, but surely something akin to gross negligence would apply?
By jstanley 2026-02-0515:18 Certainly it was negligent.
> What was this person thinking?
Driving to work yesterday I was almost side swiped on the parkway by a driver who was weaving and swerving because he was staring down at his phone as if he was the only person driving on the road at 45 MPH.
What was this person thinking?
So yeah, I don't agree with indiscriminately jamming everyone's phone but I get it. Driving in some areas is like navigating a lord of the flies playground.
A person driving along looking at their phone instead of the road is doing a stupid thing too but I don't think that in any way absolves doing a stupid thing in response.
By MisterTea 2026-02-0515:38 Both are stupid but one has a much higher chance of causing injury or death. I see this all the time including other forms of reckless driving which has exploded since CVOID. It has to stop but no one seems to want to do anything.
By beAbU 2026-02-0516:57 Two wrongs don't make a right, bruv.
By knome 2026-02-0515:11 and they were doing that indiscriminate jamming as they drove around for two years.
if op is trying to cast someone making up rules in their head and going vigilante to enforce it on everyone else out of some sense of self-righteous indignation as some sort of heroic action the government is unfairly attacking, I doubt they're going to find many friendly to their perspective.
> What was this person thinking?
Indignant, short-sighted self-righteousness; and from the looks of it several other people here are feeling the same.
By squeefers 2026-02-0515:12 [flagged]
By eleventyseven 2026-02-0515:071 reply $48k is too little. This would have disrupted 911 emergency calls and first responders on the highway. That's jail time.
By chuckadams 2026-02-0515:20 The *FCC* is a regulatory agency, and many regulations have criminal penalties for violating them. The SEC for example has sent many people to prison. Fines can also be criminal penalties, not just civil.
By eleventyseven 2026-02-0515:24 It is such a techie mindset to see a social problem with a technology and craft an even cruder technological solution to that problem, without thinking of the second order effects. As drivers on cell phones get jammed, they will be even more distracted trying to redial and figure out what is going on. This man made the roads less safe, not more.
By hackeraccount 2026-02-0518:25 The charitable explanation is probably that they weren't thinking much. That they had a skill set to allow them to do this quickly and easily.
If I had the idea to do this I'd have to think about and work on it so long that they obvious reasons why it's not such a great idea would probably occur to me.
Either that or when an idea occurs to me I'm never so hyperfocused on it that I won't take a step back and stop asking myself if I can but if I should at some point early in the process.
By trentnix 2026-02-0515:19 > What was this person thinking?
He was thinking he wasn't going to get caught.
I guess I don't see the big deal. Am I old (or am I an anarchist)?
I guess I drove for close to three decades before cell phones and I seemed to do fine without them. We listened to the radio. So, no, I suppose it doesn't seem crazy to me.
Clearly it would be ideal if it could discriminate—people distracted by their phones—but of course it cannot.
By latexr 2026-02-0515:21 And in those days you had affordances which no longer exist, such as AA Call Boxes on the side of the road. If you get into an accident today, you are expected to have a phone to call for help. That can literally be the difference between life or death, jamming communications can cause people to die.
If you had a device that indiscriminately shut down cars around you, because people used to do fine with their horse and buggy, would that be okay?
He's imposing upon a common in a way that is taking that from everyone else - and, as noted, in a way that's potentially dangerous.
By JKCalhoun 2026-02-0516:30 Given the popularity of r/fuckcars (as an example) it might be your straw-man argument is not such a reach, ha ha.
By Thrymr 2026-02-0515:18 This isn't about whether people should be using cell phones on the road, this is about whether one person can arbitrarily interfere with radio spectrum used for communications in licensed frequencies by thousands of people. Obviously, by federal law, they cannot.
By ranger_danger 2026-02-0515:18 There are many other important or essential services that get disrupted by the jammer, like emergency services/911, police, private business communications, general internet data for everyone, etc. There's a very good reason this is illegal and it has nothing to do with keeping people off their phones in their cars.
It is much, way too much. I wouldn’t mind this penalty if other obnoxious behaviour is equally investigated and punished, but I can think of plenty of way more obnoxious things to do that would never trigger even a reaction from law enforcement.
The real crime here, as usual, is that he inconvenienced a corporation. Had someone been obnoxiously interfering (in general - not radio-specific) with an individual or small business nothing will happen.
By eleventyseven 2026-02-0515:14 No, he inconvenienced every day potentially thousands of consumers of a company's service, which includes first responders.
And think about the direct effect. Yes driving using a cell phone is dangerous. But do you really think cell phone addicted drivers will be MORE attentive when their signal starts to go in and out depending on their proximity to this driver? They will just give up? No, they will be more frustrated, looking at their phones more to see what is wrong, trying to redial, becoming even more of a risk to themselves and others.
This man made the roads less safe. Full stop.
By justin66 2026-02-0515:21 Obnoxiousness isn’t the decisive factor in the creation and application of laws that you seem to think it is.
By jwsteigerwalt 2026-02-0515:201 reply This is 12 years old…
He was incredibly lucky. Assuming there was no other criminal penalties, he screwed up royally and gets off with a fine he will be able to pay and a life that was not destroyed by the federal government.
By DerekL 2026-02-0519:30 Good point. The title needs “(2014)”.
