******************************************************** 
                      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.

*****************************************************************



   May 27, 2008

   VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

   AND FACSIMILE AT 775-249-9320

   Monty Henry, Owner

   DPL Surveillance Equipment

   18345 Kittridge Street #12

   Reseda, California 91335-6164

   Re: File No. EB-08-SE-203

   Dear Mr. Henry:

   This is an official CITATION, issued pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of the
   Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5),
   for marketing unauthorized radio frequency devices in the United States in
   violation of Section 302(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b), and Sections
   2.803 and 15.205(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), 47 C.F.R. S:S:
   2.803 and 15.205(a), and for failing to fully respond to Enforcement
   Bureau directives to provide certain information and documents. As
   explained below, future violations of the Commission's rules in this
   regard may subject your company to monetary forfeitures.

   By letter of inquiry ("LOI") dated May 16, 2008, the Spectrum Enforcement
   Division of the Commission's Enforcement Bureau initiated an investigation
   into whether DPL Surveillance Equipment is marketing in the United States
   unauthorized radio frequency devices, specifically, cell phone jammers,
   wireless device jammers and GPS jammers.

   At the time of that letter, May 16, 2008, we observed on your website,
   www.DPL-Surveillance-Equipment.com, your marketing of the following radio
   frequency devices:

    1. GSM Mobile Phone Jammer

    2. Portable Cell Phone Jammer (900Mw)

    3. Cell Phone Jammer (32w)

    4. Desk-Top Cell Phone Jammer/Blocker Ultra-High Power (160w)

    5. Portable Video/Wi-Fi Jammer (900Mw)

    6. Anti-Tracker/GPS Blocker

   We received your response dated May 19, 2008, in which you admit to
   marketing these devices beginning on or about January 15, 2008. In your
   response, you state that you sold one unit of the Portable Cell Phone
   Jammer (900Mw) to a Chicago, Illinois police officer. You also state that
   you have sold multiple units of the Anti-Tracker/GPS Blocker but provided
   information only for "some" of the purchasers. You state that you have not
   sold any units of the GSM Mobile Phone Jammer, Cell Phone Jammer (32w) and
   the Desk-Top Cell Phone Jammer/Blocker Ultra-High Power (160w). However,
   you failed to address whether you have sold units of the Portable
   Video/Wi-Fi Jammer (900Mw). You state that you do not stock the cell phone
   or video jammers and do not manufacture the devices.

   Moreover, your response did not address all the questions set forth in the
   May 16, 2008 LOI. Your response did not provide, inter alia: (1) the
   manufacturer for any device; (2) whether you import each device; (3)
   copies of marketing materials for each device; and, (4) for the GPS
   Blocker and Video/Wi-Fi Jammer, the total number of units distributed in
   the United States. In addition, your response was not supported by an
   affidavit or declaration signed under penalty of perjury, as directed by
   the LOI.

   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." Section 2.803(a)(1) of the
   Commission's implementing regulations provides that:

   no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including
   advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the
   purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio
   frequency device unless ... [i]n the case of a device subject to
   certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in
   accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified and
   labeled as required by S: 2.925 and other relevant sections in this
   chapter.

   Additionally, Section 2.803(g) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(g),
   provides in pertinent part that:

   [R]adio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated
   under the current rules ... shall not be operated, advertised, displayed,
   offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a
   license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary
   authorization issued by the Commission.

   Pursuant to section 15.201(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 15.201(b),
   intentional radiators must be authorized in accordance with the
   Commission's certification procedures prior to the initiation of marketing
   in the United States. It does not, however, appear that the jamming
   devices marketed on your website are capable of receiving a grant of
   certification. In this regard, the main purpose of cell phone, GPS and
   other wireless jammers is to block or interfere with radio communications.
   Such use is clearly prohibited by section 333 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:
   333, which 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." Thus, a device such as a jammer which
   intentionally interferes with radio communications is not eligible for
   certification.

   With respect to the GPS Blocker, Section 15.205(a) of the Rules allows
   intentional radiators to transmit only spurious emissions in the
   restricted frequency bands. Thus, the GPS Blocker, which operates in the
   1450 MHz to 1600 MHz bands, intentionally transmits radio frequency energy
   on restricted frequencies and is ineligible for certification on this
   basis as well.

   Furthermore, your website states that the cell phone jammers you advertise
   are "[f]or [e]xport [o]nly. USA customers must be authorized Law
   Enforcement and/or Gov. [sic] Agency approved." Section 302(c) of the Act
   and Section 2.807(d) of the Rules exempt radio frequency devices intended
   for use by the federal government from the general prohibition on
   marketing of unauthorized equipment. However, there is no similar
   exemption allowing the marketing or sale of unauthorized radio frequency
   devices to state and local law enforcement agencies.

   Accordingly, it appears that DPL Surveillance Equipment has violated
   Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803 and 15.205(a) of the Rules by
   marketing in the United States the unauthorized radio frequency devices
   listed on its website.

   Furthermore, Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Act, afford the
   Commission broad authority to investigate the entities it regulates.
   Section 4(i) authorizes the Commission to "issue such orders, not
   inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its
   functions." Section 4(j) states that "the Commission may conduct its
   proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch
   business and to the ends of justice." Section 403 grants the Commission
   "full authority and power at any time to institute an inquiry, on its own
   motion, in any case and as to any matter or thing concerning which
   complaint is authorized to be made, to or before the Commission by any
   provision of this Act, or concerning which any question may arise under
   any of the provisions of this Act." Pursuant to this authority, we sent
   you the May 16, 2008 LOI directing you to provide certain information and
   documents. Your response email indicates that you received the LOI.
   However, your response failed to address all the questions set forth in
   the LOI. Accordingly, it appears DPL Surveillance Equipment violated a
   Commission order by failing to respond to Enforcement Bureau directives to
   provide certain information and documents.

   A party may not ignore the directives in a Bureau inquiry letter. You are
   again ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Act, to
   provide the information sought by our May 16, 2008 LOI. You must provide
   this information in the manner indicated therein within 20 days of the
   date of this citation.

   If, after receipt of this citation, you violate the Communications Act or
   the Commission's rules in any manner described herein, the Commission may
   impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation
   or each day of a continuing violation.

   You may respond to this citation within 30 days from the date of this
   letter either through (1) a personal interview at the Commission's Field
   Office nearest to your place of business, or (2) a written statement. Your
   response should specify the actions that you are taking to ensure that you
   do not violate the Commission's rules governing the marketing of radio
   frequency equipment in the future.

   The nearest Commission field office appears to be the Los Angeles District
   Office, in Los Angeles, California. Please call Zachary Rothstein at
   202-418-0608 if you wish to schedule a personal interview. You should
   schedule any interview to take place within 30 days of the date of this
   letter. You should send any written statement within 30 days of the date
   of this letter to:

   Kathryn Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   Federal Communications Commission

   445-12th Street, S.W., Rm. 3-C366

   Washington, D.C. 20554

   Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552(a)(e)(3), we are informing
   you that the Commission's staff will use all relevant material information
   before it, including information that you disclose in your interview or
   written statement, to determine what, if any, enforcement action is
   required to ensure your compliance with the Communications Act and the
   Commission's rules.

   The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment
   of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or
   imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S: 1001.

   Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

   Sincerely,

   Kathryn Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   Federal Communications Commission

   Section 15.3(o) of the Rules defines an "intentional radiator" as a
   "device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by
   radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(o).

   Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines "marketing" as the "sale or
   lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for sale or
   lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the purpose of selling
   or leasing or offering for sale or lease." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4).

   47 C.F.R. S: 2.1 defines spurious emissions as "[e]missions on a frequency
   or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of
   which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of
   information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic
   emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but
   exclude out-of-band emissions."

   47 C.F.R. S: 2.807(d).

   47 U.S.C. S:S: 154 (i), 154 (j) and 403.

   See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
   7591 (2002). In SBC Communications, Inc., the Commission imposed a
   $100,000 forfeiture against a carrier for its willful refusal to supply a
   sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of inquiry.
   The Commission stated, "[T]he order here was squarely within the
   Commission's authority and, in any event, parties are required to comply
   with Commission orders even if they believe them to be outside the
   Commission's authority." Id. at 7591.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3).

   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1202

   1

   3

   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-1202

                       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20554