Why did this even come up? Has the FCC ever barged into a home to inspect a baby monitor or other unlicensed (Part 15, in FCC parlance) device?

Boyd,

I'm leery of giving the government power as a general rule. The way I figure is eventually they'll use it, and in this case people will be worse off.

While the FCC may be bold enough to claim it can enter your home against your will to "inspect" a radio device, I don't think they're bold enough to actually do it.

Yet. As I've noted they've used liquor licensing as justification for sending in SWAT. Fortunately, the courts slapped them down for that one, but still it is little comfort for those who've had to under go such invasions by armed para-military units.

My understanding, as a licensed Amateur Radio station and operator, is that inspection is usually a last-ditch step when problems don't get fixed. Further, inspection has often been done at the door, or at the local(-ish) FCC office.

While the FCC may be bold enough to claim it can enter your home against your will to "inspect" a radio device, I don't think they're bold enough to actually do it.

Slippery slope. How many times do we hear it mentioned yet we allow government to proceed with it's desire to erode freedoms.

Damn straight. When you look at the militarization of police forces and things like cities all over the country using homeland security grants to put in cameras, its a pretty troubling situation. The cameras San Francisco has put in to fight crime have been an expensive failure that intrudes on the privacy of citizens.

As for Mr. Fiske, perhaps we should all contact our congressional representatives and see if they can't send him to the Alutian Islands to check out the RF situation there.

For years businesses have been subjected to such warrantless (regulatory) searches.

That doesn't bother me at all. Businesses are not people and have no reason to have fourth amendment rights.

So the next time you see a regulatory agency talk about it's need to have full access to businesses keep in mind they may soon need access to your own living room.

They are right in one case and wrong in the other. That's a pretty clear line to draw from where I stand.

For years businesses have been subjected to such warrantless (regulatory) searches. Now we see they have become so enamored with such power they try to extend it to private homes. Even when demanding warrants business people find judges who sign off without any probable cause being provided.

So the next time you see a regulatory agency talk about it's need to have full access to businesses keep in mind they may soon need access to your own living room.

While troubling, I believe you'll find that if SWAT comes along they'll have to stay outside or have a warrant.

While possibly technically true, I think Radley Balko has examples of where SWAT teams have been used when checking liqour licenses, so maybe not.

I understand some allowances may have to be made for roving wiretaps or even in extreme cases for an after the fact wiretap warrant. But before the boot meets the door jam you damn well better have a judge sign off on the idea.

I'm with ya Tlaloc...but I'd like the judges to be more than mere rubber stamps that many have become.

For one thing I'd like an independently maintained database of confidential informants information that lead to warrants that lead to wrong door raids, successful raids, etc. Taking the police officer's word for what constitutes a "reliable" informant is something that needs to go considering cases like Kathryn Johnson where they made up the informant.

I understand some allowances may have to be made for roving wiretaps or even in extreme cases for an after the fact wiretap warrant. But before the boot meets the door jam you damn well better have a judge sign off on the idea.

A ploy would be for police to accompany an inspector, remain outside, then the inspector provoke the homeowner to physically try to stop them from entering, upon which the police enter to stop the assault and for the safety of the inspector while performing their duties, then you're at the mercy of a "immediate accessible/officer safety" area search, which has a broad judicial interpretation.