A day after reading this, I keep thinking about this article.
I wonder if Humphreys had rigged up something that faded out the interference, and then used it when pulled over, if he could have "played dumb" enough to not get his vehicle searched? IE, if the interference "faded out" instead of abruptly turning off, would the FCC agents have suspected they got the wrong vehicle?
Likewise, if Humphreys had hidden the interference device well enough, such as inside the dashboard, could it have remained undiscovered during a search?
Or, did the FCC agents collect evidence in such a way that they would know to take the car apart?
---
One trend that I've seen in cases against cell phone jammers is that the criminals often appear unsavvy; IE, they don't realize what they're doing is a crime, so they don't take precautions in case they're caught. (But that doesn't excuse their behavior.)
I wonder if Humphreys had rigged up something that faded out the interference, and then used it when pulled over, if he could have "played dumb" enough to not get his vehicle searched? IE, if the interference "faded out" instead of abruptly turning off, would the FCC agents have suspected they got the wrong vehicle?
Likewise, if Humphreys had hidden the interference device well enough, such as inside the dashboard, could it have remained undiscovered during a search?
Or, did the FCC agents collect evidence in such a way that they would know to take the car apart?
---
One trend that I've seen in cases against cell phone jammers is that the criminals often appear unsavvy; IE, they don't realize what they're doing is a crime, so they don't take precautions in case they're caught. (But that doesn't excuse their behavior.)