FCC Seeks $25,000 Fine for Jamming Irving Police Radio

The FCC wants $25,000 from three people who, the agency says, jammed police radio in Irving, Texas during a jewelry-store burglary. The proposed fine, announced in a Notice of Apparent Liability adopted and released Sept. 22, 2026, is the clearest recent price list for anyone who thinks a cheap jammer can silence a police channel. For scanner listeners the message is simple: listening to police radio is lawful, and drowning that radio in noise is one of the fastest ways to meet the Enforcement Bureau.

The action is File No. EB-FIELDSCR-25-00039457, DA 26-1015, and it names two battery-powered 700 MHz jammers that interfered with Irving Police Department radio traffic until officers on scene disabled the devices (FCC NAL, DA 26-1015). It is a proposed forfeiture, not a final order. Here is what the document actually says, where the money comes from, and what it means for the scanner hobby in 2026.

What the FCC says happened in Irving

According to the Notice of Apparent Liability, three individuals operated two battery-powered jammers on the 700 MHz band while a burglary was under way at a jewelry store. The interference hit Irving police radio traffic, and the jammers were only taken out of service when officers on the scene physically disabled them.

The Bureau charged the conduct under three statutes and two rule sections:

• 47 U.S.C. § 301: transmitting without a license.
• 47 U.S.C. § 302(b): operating unauthorized devices.
• 47 U.S.C. § 333: willful or malicious interference with licensed radio communications.
• 47 CFR § 2.805(a) and § 15.1(c): the operating rules for devices that must not cause interference.

Section 333 is the one that matters most for public safety. It is not a paperwork offense. Interfering with a police channel during an active incident is the exact scenario the statute was written for.

How $17,000 became $25,000

The Enforcement Bureau applied its standard base fines: $10,000 for unauthorized operation and $7,000 for causing interference, a combined $17,000. It then raised the total by $8,000 because of aggravating conduct, writing that the deliberate attempt to interfere with police communications during an illegal act constituted egregious conduct (CommLawCenter coverage).

The fine is proposed joint and several against all three named individuals, so each can be held responsible for the whole amount. The base-and-uplift structure is worth remembering: the FCC starts at a published number and adds for intent, for targeting public safety, and for repeating the conduct.

Why 700 MHz matters to this case

700 MHz is prime public-safety spectrum in the United States. It is where a large share of P25 trunked systems and interoperability channels live, which is why a pair of cheap battery-powered jammers could pull radio traffic out from under officers in the middle of a call. A jammer does not need to be precise to be disruptive; it only needs enough power on the right slice of spectrum, close enough to the receivers that matter.

That cuts both ways for listeners. The same band that carries the traffic you want to hear is the band the FCC watches most closely. If your scanner goes silent in one small area, the cause is far more likely to be terrain, a dead battery, or a simulcast problem than interference. Our guide to fixing a scanner that is not picking anything up covers the ordinary causes first.

Is jamming ever legal? No

There is no consumer exception, no hobby exception, and no First Amendment carve-out for jamming police radio. Selling, advertising, or operating a jammer is prohibited in the United States, and the FCC has run enforcement sweeps against online sellers as well as users. The Irving case simply shows the arithmetic when officers are the target.

Listening, by contrast, is lawful almost everywhere in the country, with narrow exceptions for in-car use in a handful of states and for encrypted traffic you cannot decode anyway. If you want to know which radio you may legally carry in a vehicle, our breakdown of the Florida in-car scanner law and the ham license exemption is the closest analogue for the rest of the country.

What the case does not say

Be careful with the headlines here. As of this brief, the FCC had released the Notice of Apparent Liability and nothing more. The same document gives the respondents 30 days from release either to pay the proposed amount or to file a written response. No forfeiture order had been released, no admission has been recorded, and the individuals named have the right to contest both the facts and the amount.

That is normal enforcement procedure, not a technicality, and it is why we describe this as a proposed fine. Treat any post that calls it a final $25,000 penalty as ahead of the record.

What this means for scanner listeners

Three practical takeaways:

1. Receive only. A scanner or a ham handheld in receive mode is a receiver, not a transmitter. Do not key up on a public-safety channel, ever.
2. No jammers, no "privacy" gadgets. Devices sold as signal blockers for GPS, Wi-Fi, or cellular are in the same enforcement category and carry their own forfeitures.
3. Know the band you are listening to. A radio that receives 700 MHz P25 trunked systems will hear a great deal more than a basic analog handheld, and it will not run afoul of anything as long as it only listens.

If your county has moved to P25 trunking, the practical upgrade is a tri-band handheld that covers the public-safety bands and the amateur bands in one unit. The Baofeng K5 Plus tri-band scanner is the pick we recommend when one radio has to cover VHF, UHF, and 700/800 MHz traffic, and every unit ships programmed to your zip code.

FAQ

Is it illegal to listen to police radio in the United States?

No. Listening to unencrypted police radio is lawful in the United States. The restrictions that exist are narrow: a few states limit scanner use inside a vehicle, and some limit use during the commission of a crime. Receiving at home is not restricted.

What is the fine for jamming police radio?

The FCC's published base fines are $10,000 for unauthorized operation and $7,000 for causing interference. In the Irving case the Bureau proposed $25,000 joint and several against three people after adding an $8,000 upward adjustment for targeting police communications during a crime.

Did the Irving respondents already pay the $25,000?

No forfeiture order had been released as of this brief. A Notice of Apparent Liability is a proposal; the respondents have 30 days from release to pay or to file a written response.

Can a jammer be detected?

Yes. Field offices locate jammers with direction-finding equipment, and interference reports from public-safety agencies routinely trigger an investigation. In Irving, officers on scene found and disabled the devices themselves.

Does a scanner transmit anything?

No. A scanner is a receiver. It only listens, which is why receiving police traffic does not require a license and does not raise Section 301 or Section 333 issues.

Why does 700 MHz come up so often in enforcement cases?

Because it carries a large share of public-safety radio in the United States. Interference there reaches police, fire, and EMS at the moment they need the channel, so the Enforcement Bureau treats it as a priority.

Bottom line: The Irving case is not about scanners. It is about two illegal transmitters that silenced a police channel during a burglary, and the FCC's proposed answer is $25,000 split three ways. Listening stays lawful and cheap; jamming stays a fast way to lose a lot of money.