Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
FCC 10D·Ol
In the Matter of
DAVID TITUS
Amateur Radio Operator and Licensee of
Amateur Radio Station KB7ILD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
EB Docket No. 07·13
FRN No. 0002074797
File No. EB·06·IH·5048
Appearances
George L. Lyon, Jr., Esquire, on behalf of David L. Titus; Judy Lancaster,
Esquire and William Knowles-Kellett, Esquire on behalf of the Enforcement
Bureau
INITIAL DECISION
OF
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD L. SIPPEL
Issued: March 9, 2010 Released: March 9, 2010
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
iL. David Titus ("Titus") holds the license of Amateur Radio Station KB7ILD issued on
June 8,1989. Mr. Titus also operates a related radio repeater on frequency 444.375 MHz. (Tr.
450, 6611.) But for this proceeding, his amateur license term was to expire on June 8, 2009.
1
(EBE~h.1; Tr. 506-07.) There is no complaint about licensee's knowledge, ability, or
compet¢ncy of usage of the licensed facility. This proceeding concerns only his character
qualificfl,tions and whether convictions of sex crimes against minors pled to between 1986 and
1993, disqualify him from holding an FCC license to operate an Amateur Radio station.
Order to Show Cause
2. On January 30, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau"), by delegated authority,
instituted this proceeding to revoke Mr. Titus' Amateur Radio license based upon adverse
determination of the below issues:
2
(a) The effect of David L. Titus' felony conviction(s) on his
qualifications to be and to remain a Commission licensee; and
1 Order tb Show Cause, 22 FCC Rcd 1638, 1640, TJ[ 6-8 (EB, reI. Jan. 30, 2007) ("OSe').
2 The lic¢nse is extant unless and until revoked or terminated in accordance with statutory procedure. See 47 U.S.C.
§ 312 (providing revocation procedures); 47 C.F.R. § 1.955 (providing termination procedures).
Federal Communications Commission
(b) In light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing
issue, whether David L. Titus is qualified to be and to remain
a Commission licensee; and
(c) Whether the license of David L. Titus for Amateur Radio
Station KB7ILD should be revoked.
FCC IOD-OI
The burdens ofproceeding and proof were assigned to the Bureau.
3
A hearing was conducted on
July 16,2008, and post hearing findings and conclusions were filed on February 27 and April 3,
2009.
4
For the duration of the proceeding, the burden of proof remained with the Bureau and
never shifted to Mr. Titus, the licensee.
Background
3. Mr. Titus was born in 1974. He grew up with an abusive father. His mother
emigrated from Eastern Europe when he was born. (Titus Exh. 1 at 1.) Evidence sponsored by
the Bureau indicates that he was raped by a babysitter at age 6. (EB Exh. 4 at 17.) At age 13, he
became aware that he was sexually oriented as gay, and so informed his mother. (Titus Exh. 1 at
3-4.) In adolescence he was harassed by contemporaries ("faggot") and had few friends his own
age. For acceptance, he bonded with school teachers and mentors from a gay community. (Titus
Exh. 1 at 3.) He became interested in Citizens Band (CB) and Amateur Radio (HAM) at a pre 
adolescent age. (Titus Exh. 1 at 2.) He won a CB two-way as a prize which he mounted on his
pedal-bike. He also set up a CB in his room. (Titus Exh. 1 at 2-4.) He became a HAM radio
operator at age 14 with a novice license from the FCC. In 1989, he became licensee of Amateur
Radio Station KB7ILD, and learned .emergency radio procedures, an important public service
activity for HAM operators. (Titus Exh. 1 at 4.)5
4. In 1991, as an adolescent, Mr. Titus completed a period of internment lasting 18
months. He then received sex offender treatment and counseling. He gained employment and
obtained a GED degree from a community college. He joined a medical emergency volunteer
group and was trained in life support and first-aid procedures. He advanced to instructor in
administering CPR and emergency first:·aid, and volunteered regularly at a fire station. (Titus
Exh. 1 at 5.) He became a useful person to his community.
30SCatlJ[9.
4 Retirement in January 2009, of the presiding judge in three bifurcated cable carriage complaints, required full time
and attention of the undersigned. All three cases went to full trial; one required a written decision and two were
settled. The last complaint dismissal order was issued on December 24,2009. See In the Matter ofHerring
Broadcasting, Inc., MB Docket No. 08-214, Memorandum Opinion and Hearing Designation Order, DA 08-2269
(reI. Oct. 10,2008), ordered expedited by the Commission, FCC 09-4 (reI. Jan. 27, 2009).
5 It is noted that HAM operators were recently encouraged by Commission Bureaus to enhance preparedness in
responding to disasters. Amateur Service Communications DuringGovernment Drills, Public Notice, DA 09-2259
(WTB, PSHSB, EB, reI. Oct. 20, 2009) ("Disaster Drills Notice") (waivers for employees of public safety agencies
and hospitals to participate in drills and tests to speed up transmittal of messages and warnings).
2
Federal Communications Commission
Crimes and Punishments
FCC lOD-Ol
5. As a consequence of paternal sexual abuse, Mr. Titus was inclined as an adolescent to
inappropriate acting out with peers and lessers, most of whom were males. (Titus Exh. 1 at 3-4;
EB Exh. 4 at 17.) His conduct led to four punishable acts of coercive sex against minors, three
of which occurred when he was a minor. These were:
A. April 1986
B.1987/88
C.1990
D.1993
- At age 11, Mr. Titus was found guilty of taking indecent
liberties with an 8-year-old boy, resulting in confinement
in a treatment facility for 65 weeks. (EB Exh. 4 at 2, 14.)
- Between ages 13 and 14, Mr. Titus was assigned to
mandatory residence at a youth facility for one-year
treatment as a sex offender. The treatment was positive.
(EB Exh. 4 at 18.) He was under the care of a therapist
with whom he still remains in contact. (Titus Exh. 1 at 3.)
- At age 15, Mr. Titus plead guilty to taking indecent liberties
with a 12-year-old boy. He was confined in a treatment
facility for 65 weeks. He also was required to pay $100
to a victims fund. (EB Exh. 4 at 14.)6
- At age 18, as an adult, Mr. Titus plead guilty to one felony
count of communication with a minor (ll-year-old boy) for
immoral purposes. He was sentenced to 25 months
confinement in a correction center, and assessed $500 in
penalties. (EB Exh. 4 at 7-8.)
Mr. Titus has fulfilled all his sentences and has paid all fines and penalties. He has not been
accused or charged with any other sex offense.
Classification and Registration
6. In 1995, at age 20, the Seattle police classified Mr. Titus as a Level 2 sex offender,
meaning he was only a "moderate risk" to re-offend. (EB Exh. 2 at 5.) There is no hearing
provided for classification. Detective Shilling disclosed that classification is based on a
"significant subjective component." After classification as Level 2, Mr. Titus was required to
register as a sex offender, which he did, and since then he has never been in violation of any
registration requirements. (EB Exh. 5.)
7. From 1994 to 2004, Mr. Titus committed no crime, and was law abiding. (OSC at
Para. 2.) In 2004, Mr. Titus had two isolated serendipitous non-criminaVnon-sexual
occurrences. For no apparent reason, these occurrences were used by Detective Shilling to
6 The State of Washington's Department of Correction reports his incarceration at Echo Glen Children's Center.
Mr. Titus testified that he was sent to a youth camp where he was treated as a sex offender and released in 1991.
(Titus Exh. 1 at 5.) This conflict in testimony with a state's record reduces reliability ofthe state record.
3
Federal Communications Commission FCC lOD-Ol
inflate arbitrarily his classification from Level 2 "moderate risk" to Level 3 "high risk." (EB
Exh. 2 at 7.)7 No nexus was or could be shown in the evidence between these two
inconsequential events devoid of any suggestions of sexual activity, i.e. traffic accident and
unrelated use of a public restroom. No testimony from a psychologist or any qualified expert or
unbiased witness was used to show a rational explanation for assigning a higher classification
(Level 3) to Mr. Titus, whose last offense was committed 12 years before Detective Shilling
publicized the higher classification in an official Bulletin. Detective Shilling authored the
Bulletin.
Traffic Accident
8. In 2002, while still a Level 2 "moderate risk," Mr. Titus was party to a minor
automobile accident with a Ms. Victoria Halligan. Ms. Halligan was traveling abroad at the time
of the hearing and could not or did not testify in this proceeding. (EB Motion To Permit
Testimony By Rebuttal Witness at 4.) The Bureau failed to seek a subpoena, would not depose
her, and offered only hearsay testimony in the form of a police Incident Report. (EB Exh. 4 at
36-37.) Neither Ms. Halligan nor Mr. Titus filed an accident report, believing that the damage
was minimal. According to a report, Ms. Halligan told the police that Mr. Titus assaulted her at
the accident scene by twisting her hand. (EB Exh. 4 at 36.) It appears in the report that she
asked Mr. Titus whether he was a police officer, and Mr. Titus refused to answer her question.
(EB Exh. 4 at 37.) Mr. Titus admitted making some contact with Ms. Halligan but denied it
amounted to an assault. No assault charge was brought against Mr. Titus.
Mercer Park Incident
9. In 2004, while still classified a "moderate risk," Mr. Titus was stopped by a police
officer in a public park restroom at Mercer Island Park in the early morning. Reportedly, a
police officer had observed wet paint splattered against an outside wall of the restroom. (EB
Exh. 4 at 39.) Mr. Titus was found in the restroom but there was nothing untoward reported
about his actions or appearance. He consented to a search of his vehicle. The search revealed a
miniature police medallion, a sheriffs cap, a Mag flashlight, and a radio. But Mr. Titus had no
paint or means of paint application. (EB Exh. 4 at 40.) The only item in his possession was a
lotion that was never shown to have any connection with an illegal or indecent act. Yet
Detective Shilling reported the lotion as "contraband" in the Bulletin. (EB Exh. 5.) Mr. Titus
was neither arrested nor charged in that incident.
Use of Events To Elevate Risk
10. In July 2004, referring to the traffic and park incidents, neither of which involved
contact with a minor, Detective Shilling arbitrarily raised Mr. Titus' status to Level 3, and
advised the community that he had become a "high risk" to commit a sex offense with a minor.
7 Detective Schilling's sworn written testimony stated under oath: "Mr. Titus was briefly detained and questioned
by Mercer Island police officers who were investigating why Mr. Titus was in a public restroom at approximately
3 a.m. in a closed park. Although Mr. Titus was not arrested, my office received routine notification of this
incident because Mr. Titus is a registered sex offender in Seattle. As a consequence, I pulled his file for review....
[I] determined that Mr. Titus' risk assessment should be elevated to a Level 3 ranking, indicating a high potential
risk to re-offend." (EB Exh.2 at 7.)
4
Federal Communications Commission FCC IOD-OI
(Tr. 864.) Whereupon, Seattle Police Bulletin 04-202 was published on July 8, 2004, reporting
that Mr. Titus received a new designation as a Level 3 offender. (EB Exh. 5.) From the Bulletin
it could be inferred that Mr. Titus had been recently released from confinement, which was not
the case. Even worse, it was not made clear that his offenses did not include kidnapping, leaving
the inference that Mr. Titus had been a kidnapper as well as a child sex offender. And for no
justifiable reason, the unrelated traffic and restroom events not involving minors were described
in detail, causing Mr. Titus to appear in the worst possible light. Upon further analysis, it is
found to be unjustifiable to reclassify Mr. Titus as a "high risk" on a mere unproven "bromide"
that sex crimes are crimes of power and control, while using as illustrations two non-sexual
incidents in an effort to show Mr. Titus "acting out" as a person ofpower. (Tr. 856.)
11. At that time, Detective Shilling was the only police official authorized to assign sex
offender risk rankings in the Seattle area. (EB Exh. 2 at 1, 7.) Detective Shilling did not prepare
a written analysis to justify Mr. Titus' reclassification. (Tr. 882.) At the hearing, he referred to
the accident and park incident, both of which he regarded as shows of "power." (Tr.878.) And
Detective Shilling believed such "power" to be relevant to Mr. Titus' reclassification based on
his assumption that sex crimes are acts of "power and control." He saw the two incidents as
evidence that Mr. Titus was trying to assume "power" by passing himself off as an authority
figure, i.e. a "law enforcement officer." (Tr. 856.) But under oath, Detective Shilling admitted
that he never believed that Mr. Titus had impersonated a police officer. (Tr. 870.) Yet, he was
determined to put a debilitating marker on Mr. Titus as "high risk." Mr. Titus was afforded no
opportunity to object or comment. As a personal affront, in an e-mail directing a junior to
publicize the reclassification, Detective Shilling referred to Mr. Titus as a "clown." (Titus Exh.
18; Tr. 867.) That affront was insulting to Mr. Titus who had been in compliance with Seattle's
public registry. It is evident that such "clown" characterization by a law enforcement official in
the course of his duty shows, at a minimum, ill will, malice, and disrespect towards Mr. Titus.
Detective Shilling admittedly could not conclude that Mr. Titus was "clowning" as a police
officer. (Tr. 870.) Yet, Detective Shilling represented Mr. Titus as a "clown" to colleagues and
subordinates. (Titus Exh. 18; Tr. 867.) Such petty, needless name calling while engaged in
police business shows contempt for process, as well as the person.
8
Reliance on a Discredited WASOST
12. In February 2008, while preparing his testimony, Detective Shilling assessed Mr.
Titus under the Washington State Sex Offender Screening Tool ("WASOST"), an actuarial
model for assessing sex offenders. WASOST scores are based on four factors: whether a person
with sex convictions was vulnerable due to disability or ill health; whether convictions were of a
predatory nature or involved abuse of a trust; whether the offender acted out sexual deviancy
during incarceration; and results of a test called the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense
Recidivism or "RRASOR," a measure based on the number of prior sex offenses, age at release
from treatment, victim gender, and offender's relationship to victim. (Tr. 798-800, 890-91.)
Another test called the STATIC 99 is based on time and conduct in the community, in contrast to
the WASOST which only assesses conditions at time of release, omitting the more relevant time
8 In his explanation for using the term "clown," Detective Shilling testified that he "was irritated at the time." He
also admitted that the term was not an official police term and he concluded that its use was an indiscretion on his
part. (Tr. 867.)
5
Federal Communications Commission FCC IOD-OI
after an offender's adjustment period in the community. (Tr. 816-17.) Thus, Mr. Titus'
WASOST score had no relevance in predicting recidivism. (ld.; Titus Exh. 16.) Detective
Shilling did not endorse WASOST because he found it to be an inappropriate tool to assess risk
of offenders who had integrated into a community. (Tr. 801, 814, 843-44.) The Washington
State Institute for Public Policy ("WSIPP"), in an evaluation of the effectiveness of sentencing,
concluded that a WASOST score has little accuracy in predicting recidivism. (Titus Exh. 17 at
1.) In fact, the purpose for WASOST was only for assessment of sex offenders just released
from confinement. Thus, WASOST was wrongfully used to upgrade Mr. Titus to Level 3 "high
risk." (EB Exh. 14; Tr. 800-01, 814.) By using WASOST, Detective Shilling could feint an
appearance of objectivity in his subjective assessment of "high risk." (Tr.885-86.)
Psychologist's Expert Opinion
13. Douglas J. Allmon, Ph.D., is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Psychology
Department of the University of Washington. (Titus Exh. 2 at 15.) He is a licensed psychologist
and certified Sex Offender Treatment Specialist who was retained by Mr. Titus. He qualifies as
an expert on the subject matter of this case.
9
He conducted a psychosexual evaluation of Mr.
Titus and professionally applied the necessary tests and interview: Hanson/Gizzarelli/Scott
Sexual Attitudes Test; Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-II; Michigan Alcohol
Screening Test; Beck Depression Inventory; Gambril & Richie Assertion Questionnaire; 16 
PF/Clinical Analysis Questionnaire; Incomplete Sentence Blank-Modified; and a structured
clinical interview tested by a lie detector. (Titus Exh. 2 at 8.) Dr. Allmon concluded, after
considering the results of the battery of testing and the interview, that Mr. Titus demonstrated for
the past 15 years his "ability to manage any further predisposition toward pedophilia that might
arise." (Titus Exh. 2 at 12.) He determined that Mr. Titus had no predisposition for pedophilia
and that his former predisposition towards young boys is "unambiguously in remission." (Tr.
965,989.)
14. Dr. Allmon opined that Mr. Titus was not in need of treatment for sexual deviancy,
and concluded that he is not likely to re-offend. (Tr. 1041.) Mr. Titus, now 35, testified that he
has not had sexual contact with any minor since he was charged with felony child abuse in 1993
at the age of 18. (Tr. 674.) Mr. Titus testified, without objection, that he is no longer sexually
attracted to children. (Tr. 1057.) Mr. Titus realizes that his actions harmed the victims. He
knows about appropriate relationships and boundaries. (Tr. 1056.) He now regrets the affect his
actions had on victims and their families. (Tr. 676-77.) There is no reason to reject Dr.
Allmon's professional opinion that Mr. Titus is no longer a threat to the youth of Seattle.
Character Testimony in Support of Mr. Titus
15. Ten character witnesses complimented Mr. Titus' character, including: a clergyman,
a police officer, a corrections officer, a school counselor, a government contractor, a Red Cross
worker, a lab engineer, and Mr. Titus' mother. Each presented written testimony on behalf of
Mr. Titus. (Titus Exhs. 3-13.) Each of these witnesses testified that they have known Mr. Titus
9 Of particular relevance are Dr. Allmon's Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology, his recognition as author of the training
course, ''The Emotionally Charged Client," his presentations for graduate students, and his radio broadcast of
"Evaluation and Treatment ofSex Offenders." (Titus Exh. 2 at 15,17.)
6
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10D·01
for at least five years. Each attested to his current good character despite his criminal past. [d.
Several of these witnesses are active in Amateur Radio and approved of Mr. Titus' conduct in
operating Amateur Radio. [d. There was no rebuttal. Nor was any negative character testimony
or other evidence bearing on character offered.
One Ham Club's Concern
16. Amateur Radio communication or HAM radio is an activity that is engaged in far
more by adults than by children. (Tr. 457.) But some minors do communicate over Amateur
Radio. (EB Exhs. 9-10.) Young HAM operators are encouraged to participate through youth
organizations such as Boy Scouts and community and school HAM radio clubs. (EB Exhs. 10,
12, 13.) The Lake Washington Ham Club ("LWHC") instructs minors and provides activities in
Amateur Radio. (EB Exh. 6.) LWHC has helped more than 100 minors obtain HAM radio
licenses. [d. It is common for adults who are proficient in Amateur Radio to mentor minors, and
LWHC matches mentors with minors who seek such mentoring. (Tr.41O.)
17. Mr. Shurman is president of LWHC. He testified in person, and he was a credible
witness. He expressed concern that a convicted sex offender, who is licensed, could use his
Amateur Radio to contact children for immoral purposes. (Tr. 442.) His concern was
heightened by the fact that Mr. Titus also operates a "repeater" station, which is an automated
relay facility that receives weak radio signals and repeats those signals at a higher power thereby
affording wider coverage. Operators commonly meet on repeater frequencies and then move to
other frequencies in order to have private conversations. (Tr. 417, 442-44.)
18. But there is no evidence of Mr. Titus mentoring a minor on HAM procedures. Nor is
there evidence of Mr. Titus communicating with a minor through his Amateur Radio or on his
repeater frequency. And finally, there is no credible or reliable evidence in the record to support
a finding that the FCC license in issue probably would be used by Mr. Titus to solicit minors for
sex.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Legal Standards
19. A licensee's character is relevant in determining qualifications for continuing to hold
an FCC license.
lO
In determining character, prior felony convictions must be considered.
ll
Allegations of relevant non-FCC misconduct
12
receive no consideration unless it is determined to
be "misconduct so egregious as to shock the conscience and evoke almost universal
10 47 U.S.C. § 308(b). See Shoenbohm v. FCC, 204 F.3d 243 (D.C. Cir. 2(00).
11 Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Policy Statement and Order, 5 FCC Red
3252,3252, 'j[ 3 (1990) ("1990 Policy Statement").
12 [d. at 3252, 'j[ 7. See Contemporary Media, 214 F.3d 187, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2(00) «citing 1990 Policy Statement) (as
to non FCC-related conduct, the Commission generally "consider[s] only adjudicated cases"».
7
Federal Communications Commission FCC IOD-OI
disapprobation."13 Non-adjudicated misconduct that is determined to be relevant is considered
only if it falls within a ten-year statute of limitations.14
20. Mitigating factors must be considered in weighing misconduct that affects character.
Mitigating factors include "the willfulness of the misconduct, the currentness of the misconduct,
the seriousness of the misconduct, ... efforts made to remedy the wrong, overall record of
compliance with FCC rules and policies, and rehabilitation.,,15 A rehabilitation determination is
necessarily fact-specific and must include these relevant considerations: whether the applicant
has not been involved in any significant wrongdoing since the alleged misconduct occurred;
whether substantial time has lapsed since the misconduct; whether the applicant has a reputation
for good character in the community; and whether measures were taken by the applicant to
prevent future reoccurrence ofthe misconduct. 16
Passage of Time
21. Misconduct at issue consists of two felony child molestation adjudications as a
juvenile (ages 11 and 15), and one adult (age 18) felony conviction for communicating with a
minor for immoral purposes. Evidence of all felonies must be considered in evaluating
character. I? Under Washington state law, a juvenile "adjudication" has the same meaning as an
adult "conviction.,,18 However, the two juvenile charges that did not result in conviction should
not be considered in assessing character. Although those charges involved egregious
misconduct, they were the acts of a minor that occurred in 1985 and 1989, dates beyond the ten 
year limitation period at a time when Mr. Titus was 11 and 15 years 01d.
19
22. Mr. Titus' felony conviction as an l8-year-old adult, in which his victim was age 11,
was an extremely serious act of misconduct. The difference in ages demonstrates cowardly
misconduct against a much younger boy, who most likely was scared or seduced, or both. The
D.C. federal circuit, in affirming revocation of an FCC license based on a child abuse conviction,
found that crimes of child sexual molestation are "characterized by moral turpitude to such an
extent that they fall in the category of those that 'shock the conscience' and summon almost
13 Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1205, n.60 (1986) ("1986
Policy Statement"). See Contemporary Media, 214 F.3d at 192; 1990 Policy Statement, 5 FCC Rcd at 3253, n.5.
14 1986 Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1229. See also Robert D. Landis, 22 FCC Rcd 19979, 19982 (EB
2007) ("the 1986 Character Policy Statement provides a ten-year limitation on considerations ofallegations of
misconduct, it does not limit consideration of adjudicated misconduct that already has been litigated") (emphasis in
original). Landis involved revocation ofan Amateur Radio license in 2007 based upon a 1991 conviction for felony
child abuse.
15 1990 Policy Statement, 5 FCC Rcd at 3252, 15. See Contemporary Media v. FCC, 214 F.3d at 194.
16
1990 Policy Statement, 5 FCC Red at 3253, n.4. See Contemporary Media, Inc. v. FCC, 214 F.3d at 194-95.
17 1990 Policy Statement, 5 FCC Rcd at 3252,13.
18 RCW § 13.04.011(1).
19 1990 Policy Statement, 5 FCC Red at 3252, 17; n.5.
8
Federal Communications Commission FCC IOn-OI
universal disapproval.,,2o Willfully taking advantage of a child for sexual purposes, by anyone
18 years of age or older, is an act that the Presiding Judge considers to be "shockingly evil.,,21
However, under the laws of the United States, including the Administrative Procedure Act and
the Communications Act, the government must prove by a preponderance of evidence
22
that a
person convicted of conduct that occurred 18 years ago probably cannot be rehabilitated. The
Bureau has failed to prove that any conduct of Mr. Titus from the time of his release from prison
in 1995 to the present shows any prognostication that is based on substantial evidence of
probable recidivism. To the contrary, Mr. Titus presented expert psychologist testimony that he
now has no attraction to minors and there is no probability of his repeating his past misconduct
in the future. This constitutes convincing proof of rehabilitation. The Bureau, however, failed to
offer opposing proof of a qualified expert. So while Mr. Titus has satisfactorily proven his
rehabilitation, the Bureau has not met its burden to prove non-rehabilitation by a preponderance
of evidence.23
Record of Compliance
23. Where there are sufficient mitigating factors, a licensee previously convicted of an
egregious crime, even one involving homicide, can be found to have the requisite character for
licensing.
24
One recognized mitigating factor is a substantial lapse of time since the violation.
25
In this case, the crimes in question were committed 18 years ago when Mr. Titus was 11, 15 and
18 years of age.
26
Here, Mr. Titus was incarcerated primarily for treatment, was released on
probation, continued to receive treatment after release, and performed useful public interest
service. He also made a positive showing through testing by a licensed psychologist who
diagnosed his current rehabilitation and a non-likelihood of recidivism. The weight of the
evidence that includes non-contradicted testimony of Mr. Titus and a licensed psychologist
supports the conclusion that Mr. Titus is now attracted to adults and is no longer attracted to
20 Contemporary Media, Inc. v. FCC, 214 F.3d at 193. See Lonnie L Keeney, 24 FCC Rcd 2426, 2429, <j[ 8 (2009)
(child sexual abuse is a "very serious crime which ... shocks the conscience."); Robert D. Landis, 22 FCC Rcd at
19982, TJ[ 7-8 (felony child molestation is "heinous" and "egregious").
21 Webster's Third International Dictionary (Unabridged) at 1050.
22 Steadman v. S.E.c., 450 U.S. 91, 102 (l981), followed by, Silver Star Commc'ns Albany Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 6342,
6348 (Rev. Bd. 1988).
23 Id. at 102.
24 Richard Richards, 10 FCC Rcd 3950,3959 (Rev. Bd. 1995) (felonious drug possession with intent to distribute
conviction was close question but license renewal granted based on rehabilitation evidence, overruling Presiding
Judge); Swan Broad. Ltd., 6 FCC Rcd 17 (Rev. Bd. 1991) (licensee found qualified to hold a license despite
manslaughter conviction); Alessandro Broad. Co., 99 FCC 2d 12 (Admin. L.J. 1984) (licensee qualified to hold a
license despite second degree murder conviction due to passage of time and rehabilitation).
25 See Robert D. Landis, supra note 14.
26 Cf Swan Broad. Ltd., 6 FCC Rcd 17 (Rev. Bd. 1991) (confessed manslaughter applicant who was confined in a
mental institution for 10 years and required psychiatric care indefinitely, but participated in community projects
and had shown no recent bad behavior, was found qualified to hold an PM license by the Review Board,
overruling the Presiding Judge in comparative hearing, despite a criminal act ofmanslaughter occurring more than
10 years before).
9
Federal Communications Commission
minors.
FCC IOn-OI
24. Two of Mr. Titus' felonies were adjudications in juvenile court more than 20 years
ago. Because they are adjudications of a juvenile, the prescribed statute of limitations neutralizes
those adjudications in any character determination.
27
One other positive factor is a substantial
history of accordance with the Communications Act and FCC rules. 28 And of great importance
to the public's safety and this Decision, Mr. Titus registered himself as a sex offender when
ordered to do so, thereby facilitating his monitoring, while showing his conscientious disposition
to comply with the law.
Rehabilitation Proven by Preponderance of Evidence
25. There is substantial credible evidence that was not refuted showing Mr. Titus to be
rehabilitated. He now is a 35-year-old adult whose last conviction was adjudicated while he was
only 18 years old. The fact that he has lived in the community for 15 years without being
charged with a crime is substantial and reliable evidence of his rehabilitation.
29
No contrary
evidence was introduced to suggest that after release from prison in 1995, he engaged in any
criminal conduct, or in any improper conduct of any kind involving a minor. In fact, the weight
of credible testimonial evidence indicates his sexual interest is now only with consenting adults.
He has expressed remorse for his past crimes in non-refuted testimony. (Tr. 676-77.) A cross 
section of character witnesses were produced, including a clergyman, a police officer, a
corrections officer, a school counselor, a government contractor, a Red Cross worker, and a lab
engineer, each of whom attested to Mr. Titus' successful integration into the community as a
law-abiding citizen. (Titus Exhs. 3-13.)
26. Neither a traffic accident involving an alleged assault, nor a non-incriminating public
restroom incident that was initiated by an enforcement officer shows any "significant
wrongdoing.,,30 Evidence of those events is decisionally irrelevant and is non-probative of the
character issues set out in this proceeding. Those events also do not support a finding of non 
rehabilitation. When carefully considered, there is no relevance to his character qualifications of
hearsay evidence to the effect that Mr. Titus may have once twisted a woman's hand at an
accident scene seven years ago, which the police did not report as an assault. There is no
evidence that either the park incident or the traffic accident could support a finding that Mr. Titus
27 See 1986 Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1229 (1986) (past conduct showing flagrant disregard of
Commission policy barred from consideration after passage of 10 years).
28 An overall record ofcompliance with Commission rules and policies is relevant in assessing character. 1990
Policy Statement, 5 FCC Rcd at 3252, CJ[ 3. Cf Contemporary Media, 214 F.3d at 196 (affirming FCC's revocation
of a license for child sexual abuse notwithstanding the licensee's "good overall record of FCC rule compliance");
David Edward Cox, 21 FCC Rcd 14153, 14155 (EB 2006) (revocation of Amateur Radio license on the basis ofa
felony conviction despite compliance with the Act and the rules).
29 See, e.g., Kevin David Mitnick, 17 FCC Rcd 27028, 27037, CJ[ 32 (Admin. L.J. 2002) (Amateur Radio licensee who
was convicted ofcomputer hacking and who served time in a penitentiary was found rehabilitated based on absence
ofcriminal activity for more than seven years). Cf Richard Richards, supra note 24 (felony conviction of drug
possession for distribution did not disqualify as FCC licensee).
30 1990 Policy Statement, 5 FCC Rcd at 3253, n.4.
10
Federal Communications Commission FCC IOD-01
impersonated a police officer, and neither event resulted in any criminal charges or any police
enforcement such as an arrest of Mr. Titus. (EB Exh. 4 at 37.)
27. It is not remotely relevant that Mr. Titus made nocturnal use of a restroom in a public
park even though the restroom may have been officially closed. While there alone, Mr. Titus did
not engage in unlawful conduct or even suspicious conduct. His possession in his vehicle of a
small police medallion, a sheriffs ball cap, and a Mag flashlight infers nothing nefarious. It can
be noted here that law abiding citizens wear articles such as miniature police medallions or ball
caps having logos of law enforcement agencies. Street vendors located only blocks from
Commission headquarters are daily selling caps and shirts with an "FBI" or "CIA" logo. Mag
lights are simply flashlights having high powered light beams that are the better to see with.
They are not restricted for police use only and are available for purchase by the general public.
Vehicle owners have powerful flashlights for safety reasons. Persons in rural areas have
particular needs for powerful lights to check road conditions, detect animals or varmints, or to
locate lost animals. From the factual evidence in this case and particularly the defective testing
and prejudice of Detective Shilling against Mr. Titus, there is not sufficient credible evidence to
show that Mr. Titus impersonated a police officer. Detective Schilling's assertion that Mr. Titus
was impersonating a person of power is rejected as unreliable, speculative, and a waste oftime. 31
Unrebutted Proofof Rehabilitation
28. Mr. Titus has not been charged with a crime since his release from his last
confinement in 1995. Nothing in the record even hints that he has had an improper contact, or
that he attempted improper contact, with a minor at any time in the past 18 years, including while
in confinement. To the contrary, reliable evidence shows that Mr. Titus currently has sexual
contact only with consenting adults. And without contradiction, Mr. Titus denied under oath that
he now has any sexual contact with children. (Tr. 673-74.) Dr. Allmon, a qualified expert in
such matters, conducted a battery of psychological tests that in his professional opinion
confirmed that Mr. Titus now has no predisposition towards pedophilia. He further concluded
that Mr. Titus' past pedophilia was "unambiguously in remission." (Tr. 965, 989, 1041.) The
record contains no opinion of a licensed or qualified psychologist, psychiatrist, or other qualified
expert to prove the contrary, or evidence that refutes Dr. Allmon's conclusions, and none was
offered by the Bureau.J
2
Thus, under the preponderance of the evidence, he now presents
absolutely no proven risk to commit or attempt sexual misconduct involving a minor.
Enforcement Bureau's Failure of Proof
29. Nonetheless, the Bureau argues that Mr. Titus presents a danger. The Bureau argues
that conclusion based on a non-probative, defective test that was relied upon by Detective
Shilling to assign Mr. Titus to sex offender Level 3 and publicly pronounce him a high risk to re 
offend. Substantial questions have been raised as to reliability of the WASOST in predicting an
31 See FED. R. EVID. 403.
32 The Bureau did attempt to bring in a rebuttal expert to testify after the hearing was concluded. The Bureau's
request was denied for being tardy. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 08M-51 (reI. Dec. 5,2008)
(decision denying Bureau's post-hearing Motion to Permit Testing by Rebuttal Witnesses).
11
Federal Communications Commission FCC lOD-Ol
offender's risk to commit a pedophilic sex crime. Detective Shilling testified that he uses the
WASOST only "[b]ecause state law requires me to." (Tr. 801.) In fact, the test is useless
because it does not test for risk of re-offending where, as here, the offender has been a law 
abiding member of his community for many years.
30. Upon release from prison in 1995, a committee chaired by Detective Shilling
assigned Mr. Titus a Level 2 sex offender status showing a "moderate risk" to re-offend. (EB
Exh. 2 at 5.) In 2004, after a decade of being crime-free in the same community, Detective
Shilling arbitrarily increased Mr. Titus' risk assessment to Level 3, showing a "high risk" to re 
offend. (Tr.864.) Detective Shilling later affirmed his Level 3 ranking at hearing. (EB Exh. 14;
Tr. 800-01, 814.) But he gave no credit to Mr. Titus for being a long time law-abiding member
of the community, despite his acknowledgement that "time in the community without re-offense
is an important aspect in terms of assessing the risk for re-offense." (Tr. 821.) Detective
Shilling failed to take into account this "important factor" in arbitrarily raising his risk to a Level
3 sex offender.
33
31. Moving beyond his unjustified Level 3 reclassification, evidence in this record also
does not support a conclusion that Mr. Titus likely would use his Amateur Radio to solicit
minors for sex. (EB Exhs. 6,9-10.) Some, none, or few minor HAM operators may be in close
proximity to his radio repeater facility. (EB Exh. 6.) There is, however, no evidence and
therefore no risk that Mr. Titus would use his HAM radio to solicit minors. This conclusion is
based on expert opinion evidence of his rehabilitation, a present absence of sexual interest in
children and adolescents, and a record of non-recidivism for the past 18 years.
32. Moreover, Mr. Titus has held an Amateur Radio license for 20 years, and there is no
credible or reliable evidence even suggesting that he ever has used or ever would dare to use
HAM radio communication as a means to contact minors for illicit purposes. And, it is officially
noticed that the Internet is the chosen tool of pedophiles for readily reaching minors and
children.
34
By contrast, an Amateur Radio solicitation would be highly risky in view of a culture
among HAM operators of self-monitoring traffic over Amateur Radio frequencies. The risk to
Mr. Titus of being monitored for any misuse of Amateur Radio is many times greater than the
Internet, particularly since he has registered as a sex offender and can be readily identified and
apprehended if necessary.
Candor Assessment
33. Finally, the Bureau asserts that Mr. Titus lacked candor because he testified that he
had an inability to recall details of his sexual crimes or treatment. (EB Proposed Findings of
Fact and Conclusion ofLaw at 11-12.) In order to establish a lack of candor, the Bureau has the
burden to establish by a preponderance of reliable evidence that Mr. Titus misspoke and that in
33 Detective Shilling should have taken into account Mr. Titus' long history as a law abiding citizen by exercising
his option to depart from the numerical WASOST score. (EB Exh. 14 at 4.) Detective Shilling, however, made no
such departure despite his testimony that such history is an "important aspect" of risk assessment. (Tr. 821.)
34 47 C.F.R. §1.351 (applying Federal Rules of Evidence to Commission hearings); FED. R. EVID. 201(a)-(b)
(providing for judicial notice of adjudicative facts).
12
Federal Communications Commission FCC lOD-Ol
doing so, he intended to deceive the Presiding Judge.
35
In this case, the Bureau relies solely on
speculative inference based on Mr. Titus' inability to recall derelict and distasteful events
perpetrated many years ago. There is no reliable evidence in the record to support a finding that
Mr. Titus was not truthful in his inability to recall those details of such long past, distasteful
events. Mr. Titus' asserted memory loss of details that may have occurred before 1995
36
is not
by itself a basis for finding a lack of candor in his testimony.
ORDER
For the foregoing considerations of the evidence and legal authorities showing that the
Enforcement Bureau failed to carry its burden of proof, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Amateur Radio Operator License of Amateur Radio Station KB7ILD held by Mr. David L. Titus
SHALL NOT BE REVOKED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this License Revocation Proceeding EB Docket No.
07-13, IS DISMISSED on the merits and with prejudice.
37
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Richard L. Sippel
Chief Administrative Law Judge
35 Swan Creek Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, 39 F.3d 1217 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (citing Weybum Broad. Ltd. P'ship v. FCC,
984 F.2d 1220, 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (intent to deceive [is] an essential element ofa misrepresentation or lack of
candor showing)).
36 The repeater license was not put in issue by the Bureau in the OSc. Therefore, the repeater license is not
revoked.
37 This Initial Decision shall become effective and this proceeding shall be terminated 50 days after its release if
exceptions are not filed within 30 days thereafter, unless the Commission elects to review the case on its own
motion. 47 C.F.R. § 1.276(b).
13