NH Man Arrested for Videotaping Police

macinrack writes to mention a story about a New Hampshire man who was arrested for videotaping police on his doorstep, using a fairly standard security camera system. He was officially charged with 'two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device.' From the article: "The security cameras record sound and audio directly to a videocassette recorder inside the house, and the Gannons posted warnings about the system, Janet Gannon said. On Tuesday night, Michael Gannon brought a videocassette to the police department, and asked to speak with someone in 'public relations,' his wife said and police reported. Gannon wanted to lodge a complaint against Karlis, who had come to the family's house while investigating their sons, Janet Gannon said. She said Karlis showed up late at night, was rude, and refused to leave when they asked him."

sigh

[by Anonymous Coward]

And they wonder why people don't respect the police...

No kiddin'.

[Rimbo (139781)]

Police reported that Gannon "has a history of being verbally abusive" toward police, and that after his arrest, he remarked that the officers "were a bunch of corrupt (expletives)."

Hard to argue with Gannon.

Re:sigh

[Romancer (19668)]

So the police with their dash cameras and the tollbooths with their license plate cameras, and the stop light cameras, grocery stoor security cameras, mini mart cameras, department store cameras and even the security cameras that they have in the police station where he was arrested are all ok, but on his private property where he lives and is getting harrassed, he can't use one to show the police what they've done to violate his rights?

yeah, ok. now which way to canada?

PS, in the article the police try and argue what happened at his house, if he warned them about the camera and if he had posted signs about the camera.

now if there's video tape of those events and facts, just review that. no argument. no problem. case closed.
I'd like to see if the cops are on film warning motorists that they are on camera every time they get pulled over. now compare.

Oh, Canada!

[WebCowboy (196209)]

We welcome you to the country where home doors are opened, police officers are polite, and we don't need cameras to check our private parking spot.

Please try to resist being smug. As much as I find a lot of what the US gov't does disagreeable it really irritates me when fellow Canadians brag about how much better our lot in life is in comparison with our southern neighbours. I thought we were supposed to be humble folk, but it seems some of us have developed a superiority complex. Historically Canadians have had trouble "blowing their own horn" so we should be sure to note our accomplishments. However, if you must brag, please be realistic. Canada has its share of challenges too:

* A recent behavioural study of major international cities on "politeness" placed Toronto fairly high on the list (Montreal, the other Canadian city did not do as well but did alright). Guess which city beat both? NEW YORK CITY. That's right. Most notably, New Yorkers were significantly more likely to open a door for a stranger in a public place. I guess that means "doors are opened" in NYC ;-)

* There are places in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal where I most certainly would NOT leave my doors unlocked. OTOH, I don't think people ever use their locks in most of Montana, North and South Dakota, Maine, etc. I know this isn't apples-to-apples comparison but most Canadians live in a major city as is the case in the US (I grew up in rural Canada and yes doors are still open there too). The point is that Canada isn't THAT much different in this regard

* I've witnessed RCMP officers and city police be somewhat less than polite in dealing with people too. Some of it has been widely publicised (Anyone remember the pepper-sprayed protester in Vancouver? And Prime Minister Cretien's cavalier response with the joke that he prefers his pepper on his dinner plate?). When the Hells Angels held a patch-over ceremony in Alberta a number of years ago, anyone who rode a Harley and was dressed the wrong way was badly harassed by the cops.

* Years ago when a Quebec separatist group kidnapped and later killed a politician our "beloved" Prime Minister invoked the "War Measures Act", which allowed for police to detain anyone without charges and suspended many other civil liberties. This was in effect nation-wide, even though the FLQ Crisis only presented a direct threat to savety in Quebec. RCMP in places far away from Quebec took advantage of the situation and we had "troublemakers" in small town Alberta held in custody for days without charges.

* Speaking of Quebec, this is a province that has "language police" that will fine you in your shop doesn't have French on it, or if some non-French language on your signage is too prominent.

* West of Ontario, it is illegal for farmers to sell most crops to anyone but the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers who protested this by pubically deciding to sell their grain directly to someone else rather than through the wheat board had their doors kicked in and were dragged to jail--and had their trucks and grain seized. Sone farmer in Ontario does the EXACT SAME THING? Sure, that's OK--the act applies only to BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I could live with a government imposed monopoly, distasteful as it is, if it applied equally to all Canadians. As it is now this situation is a travesty.

* Well, I still live in Canada and I know that a lot of private parking spots are equipped with cameras here. In the past year or two there has been a dramatic increase in vandalism (mostly grafitti and car prowlings) and as a result more outdoor surveillance cameras are going up, and developers are putting out a lot more security guards in under-construction subdivisions as theft and vandalism increased there too.

OTOH Canada has a lot to be proud of too:

* Big, expensive and ineffective gun registry notwithstanding, there is WAY less gun violence in Canada than in the US

* Canadians ar

Re:sigh

[aplusjimages (939458)]

At my work if the client treats me like an asshole, I get fired if I return the favor. You think cops would be held to the same standard. A 16 year old at McDonald has to follow that rule as well.

Re:sigh

[binary paladin (684759)]

Dead on. Dead on.

The problem is that in our society we have arbitrarily elevated cops to the status of "real" heroes because they "risk their lives everyday for the 'safety' of the community." A few months ago a metro officer was killed in the line of duty and there was this huge procession and they made a big deal about it.

What no one bothered to mention is that it had been nearly 15 years since a metro cop had been killed. More people are killed/maimed/whatever working on construction sites here. Way more. The fact is that we've put these servants, and that's what they are, on a pedestal when it's a job they should serve with humility and compassion for their community.

For everyone one "real" criminal they haul in I wonder how many nothing-but-revenue tickets they pass out? There's nothing "heroic" or "honorable" about hiding your car in a poorly marked 25 zone that some jackass decided should take up a block in the middle of 45s and ticket people there. Which is another problem. Popular media shows cops fighting dangerous "real" criminals most of the time. Even the show Cops doesn't show some guy sitting in a car, "This is Unit 328, hiding here at the bottom of a hill where people generally go faster than normal. We've made over $3,000 on tickets today and we've still got a few hours to go. One day and I've almost made my entire week's quota."

And EVERY cop is dirty. Every single one of them. Either by their actions or their omissions. Ask ANY cop whether or not he/she knows a dirty cop. They'll say yes. After that, ask that person what he/she has done about said dirty cop. Nothing. A big fat nothing. And what's worse is when SOMETHING does happen they always get some ridiculous slap on the wrist. If I worked for a company that got sued for $50,000 and LOST on account of something I did, I'd be gone. I'd be fired. Not here. They get a week of PAID suspension and they're back on the street supposedly learning their lesson.

THey've become an elevated class and just like all elevated classes, they act the part. Like pricks. Total pricks. If they accuse you, regardless of what procedures they seem to ignore, you're guilty and that's that. Add that to the fact that there's no fucking accountability for lower court judges in this country, it's just easier to plea out even if you haven't done anything wrong because they make it expensive to fight.

Re:sigh

[zuzulo (136299)]

Folks appear to be missing the point here - the mistake Gannon made had nothing to do with being polite to the police. His mistake was recording audio as well as video. There is a large body of case law confirming the legality of recording video without subjects permission, but as soon as you include audio you run into another set of case law which is much more restrictive. There is a reason virtually all surveillance systems do not record audio data ...

Re:sigh

[jay2003 (668095)]

A posted warning about about audio & video recording on private property should be sufficient. If you don't wish to be recorded, stay off the other person property. In fact, you can look it the reverse way. Entering private property an refusing the consent to the recording is illegal trepassing since you don't have the owner's permission to be there without being recorded.

From artcile, it looks like the Nahsua police department has no problem breaking the law. The article clearly says the policman did not have warrant yet and refused to leave the property when asked. This is all too typical, the police see the need to vigourously enforce this wiretapping law but will NEVER charge the officer with trepass even though there's video tape envidence of the crime. If the police are so concerned about illegal wiretapping, I suggest they get some warrents to search the local at&t switch room and see what they find.

There was no reasonable expectation of privacy

[Atroxodisse (307053)]

That only applies if the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. When standing on someone else's private property with a sign that reads "You are being recorded by surveillance", or whatever the sign said, you have no expectation of privacy.

Re:sigh

[soupforare (542403)]

Citizen, I believe you forget that enforcers are above the law.

Re:sigh

[multimediavt (965608)]

Actually, if you read the statute [state.nh.us] the letter of the law was violated, but the spirit of the law may not have been. It's really going to be up to the courts to decide this one and may result in portions of the statute being revoked, or emended. IMHO, the law was meant to protect people from having their rights violated by recording devices or intercepts/wiretaps. But, there are many states where things like internal video surveillance cameras in businesses are illegal, or must be clearly marked to the outside as being present. It would seem, from the statute, that NH is one of the ones that prohibits such things except under very specific circumstances. The statute clearly states that *any* recording or intercept of telecommunication or oral communication without the express consent of all parties is at least a misdemeanor.

Re:sigh

[AmericanInKiev (453362)]

Yes - stellar advice. Works wonderful throughout the world - look at how we treated the Indians - they respected the us and made a peace treaty with the us, and the us ran them out on the trail of tears; oh yeah - and the slaves were probably all victims of resrespecting authority.

Yes - in your lilly-white gated community, if you tip your fedora to the cops and never question the discrimination de jur, you will probably not have your flat flattened. but if you happen to embrace an unpopular economic theory; stand by to be victimized.

By the way - please continue to enjoy the freedoms which people such as yourself have not and could never have defended, advanced, or invented. The ignorant are blessed with the same liberties as those by whose toil, vigilance, perception, and sacrifice - all personal freedoms are maintained.

It doesn't really matter if there is more to the story or not - the important fact is that the police are trying to set a precedent that one cannot - in one's own home - operate a camera for the purpose of defending one's self against aggressors. If we allow civil rights to be eroded for others - the erosion will quickly spread to one's own front door.

AIK

Re:sigh

[M0b1u5 (569472)]

Sorry no. A lot of cops are just assholes - no two ways about it.

You need to remember, that cops deal with assholes all day long - and they are conditioned to think that if they think you are guilty - then by god - you ARE guilty - and by default - an asshole.

So, even if you are EXTREMELY polite and VERY accommodating, they can STILL treat you liek shit. One time I was attacked by an insane ex girlfriend of mine in my own home, after she had trashed my bedroom, and caused about $1000 of damage in my bathroom. I had to eject her from the house, using the minimum force required.

I was bleeding from her scratches to my face when I got her out of the house, and I was shaking like a leaf. I actually rang the police straight away and said that I had been attacked in my own home, and that I had to eject her. Oh, she tried to kick her way through my plate glass window next to my door too, to get back inside. I thought she was gonna sever her foot if she broke the glass.

Anyway - she ended up calling the cops - and they rang me back telling me it wasn't over. They arrived and came in, and the fuckers are reading me my rights in my own home, when I'm the one dripping blood!

I made a full statement the following day - and then the prosecuting sargeant really went to town on me - reckoning he was gonna charge me with assault (I weighed twice what she did) and that I was gonna go to prison but worst of all - that I was a bad man. (Which I am not.) This because - in HIS experience, if there's an altercation - then it's always the asshole guy attacking the tiny, defenceless girl.

I went to see my lawyer straight away - and due to me having two witnesses in the house at the time - who didn't see a lot but heard it all - she said that she'd rip the poilice a new one if they even THOUGHT about arresting me.

I confidently returned to the police station. Took some more verbal abuse from the sargeant before telling him my lawyer would rip him a new one, and that I was leaving. He told me he wanted me to hand in my 2 rifles, and my gun license. I told him that I would do no such thing - and that he should find some criminals to harrass.

That was the end of that. But a very harrowing time.

Re:sigh

[SealBeater (143912)]

But the fact is only about 20% are assholes and some cops can become assholes by assholes.

I'm willing to believe that 99% of cops treat their co-workers different than they do civilians.


Its obvious he was obstructing Justice and to have a son on weapons charges will bring many police into the picture.

So, by your definition, refusing to allow a police officer into your home is obstruction of justice? That's a reason to knock on a door at 11:30pm, stick your foot in the door and refuse to leave? If he wasn't a cop, I would have either forcably removed him or shot him. The attitude of "well, he didn't cooperate, so he deserves what he gets" is rather commonplace amoungst cops. Our "cooperation" ends where our legal rights begin. Most cops are assholes, simply because they believe that our rights aren't as important as thier job.

SealBeater

Re:sigh

[wealthychef (584778)]

There are assholes everywhere, but it is a well-known fact that if you put nice people in positions of absolute authority over others, they turn into tyrants. The degree to which they turn depends on the degree of authority you give them. So it is perfectly reasonable to assume that cops are bigger pricks than the rest of us. That being said, we need them and should cut them a bit of slack. Plus their jobs do require a bit of prickishness just as self defense. Still, they should get training to help reduce offense. And the big irony of this case is that filming cops with hidden cameras is exactly something I would say we need to do to reduce their bullying and miscreance.

Ask the President

[neonprimetime (528653)]

Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective's consent.

Doesn't he know that the President is the only personl legally allowed to wire tap?

get this straight, okay?

[misanthrope101 (253915)]

Don't you mean, illegally?

Apparently you just don't get it. Liberals rarely do, so don't take it personally. The President of the United States cannot do anything illegal, because the very act of commission on his part legitimizes his decision. Because we are in a state of Presidentially-declared war, everything, and I mean everything, he does is under the aegis of the War on Terror. When the President makes a decision, it is within the umbrella of the authority given to him by the necessities of the War on Terror, and that fact retroactively makes his actions legal, regardless of what the text of the law literally says. It's as if his decision actually reached backwards in the space-time continuum, subtly coloring, perhaps even redefining, the meaning of words like "torture," "surveillance," "warrant," etc.

This authority is vital to national security, possibly to our very survival, and the only thing that could possibly void that power would be the election of a candidate from the Democratic party. If that unlikely event were to come to pass, then yes, the President would be capable of committing an illegal act by authorizing actions in violation of written law. In, and only in, a Democrat-run White House is the President capable of authorizing or committing an illegal act.

Re:get this straight, okay?

[jonfelder (669529)]

Did you hear that? That was the sound of a joke going right over your head.

Ugh!

[gentimjs (930934)]

I live here in NH and am very upset by this. Many police cars here carry cameras on thier dashboards and tape you when they cops pull you over for a ticket! In addition, all the tollbooths on rt 93 around Manchester all have cameras .. I wonder if any felony acts are being commited there, where I've seen no signs warning me I was on camera?

Re:Ugh!

[Plugh (27537)]

I live in NH too... I moved here (along with many others) to fight for Freedom.
A lot of us over at the forums on NHFree [nhfree.com] are weighing options as to how best to respond.\

We're known for standing up against the NH police when they step out of line!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-301788115 4843817240 [google.com]

Re:Ugh!

[Onan (25162)]

Which seems pretty backward. The government should be held to a higher standard than citizens, not a lower one.

Re:Ugh!

[arivanov (12034)]

The universal standard as far as politicians are concerned seems to be: All animals are equal. Some are more equal than the others.

Re:Ugh!

[misanthrope101 (253915)]

Actually I think the police should be required to record both audio and video of every official interaction with the public. I think every interrogation should be recorded in full, and any breaks in the recording for more than 10-20 seconds (to allow for tape change) should mitigate against any 'confessions' obtained during that interrogation. Yes, I'm serious. This would protect the police who are accused of brutality, assuming they were innocent. The "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide," should apply, but only to the government, because government is where the higher potential for abuse and brutality lies. You don't hear cases of 7-8 armed civilians beating the hell out of an unarmed, handcuffed police officer, but flip that around and it's suddenly less remarkable. Recorded interrogations would protect both the police and the accused, and prevent both frivolous lawsuits from the accused and brutality from the police. The only reason the police wouldn't want an uninterrupted record of the interrogation is if they fully intend on doing things that are illegal and unethical, and they want to prevent a judge and/or jury from seeing how they got that "confession."

This is absurd on so many levels

[mrchaotica (681592)]

1. The police are public servants. Not only should it be legal to videotape them, it should be encouraged as part of citizen oversight!
2. Police routinely videotape everything they do; they should expect to be treated the same way.
3. Not only was this guy arrested, but the police tresspassed on his property and kicked his wife out for 5 hours while they tried to get a search warrant -- even though they were effectively already illegally searching the place!
4. They complain that he was allegedly rude to them, but think it's okay to be rude to him. In reality it is exactly the opposite: he can call them whatever he damn well pleases because he has Free Speech, while they are restricted while on duty because they're representatives of the State.

By the way, isn't New Hampshire supposed to be the state all the Libertarians are moving to, and wasn't it chosen because it was the most Free to begin with? Jeez, if this kind of thing can happen there the rest of us are really screwed!

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[rsilvergun (571051)]

By the way, isn't New Hampshire supposed to be the state all the Libertarians are moving to

That's why the police are taking a hard line. God Damn hippies are movin' in.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[malchus842 (741252)]

Not only was this guy arrested, but the police tresspassed on his property and kicked his wife out for 5 hours while they tried to get a search warrant -- even though they were effectively already illegally searching the place!

Number one rule - never let the police in your house unless they have a search warrant. Never. No matter what. Step out on your porch to talk to them. Or on the driveway. Or sidewalk. And really, don't talk to them without a lawyer present unless YOU called them to report a crime.

This sounds paranoid, but the police are no longer the friends of the honest citizen - they view EVERYONE as a criminal these days.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[soft_guy (534437)]

they view EVERYONE as a criminal these days.

What do you think the point is of passing huge numbers of unenforceable laws? The point is that the police can pick anyone to be a criminal by selective enforcement.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[Plugh (27537)]

Yes, New Hampshire is the target of the Free State Project [freestateproject.org]; I am one of the First 1000 [freestateproject.org] to move into the state.

Keep in mind:

• There are only ~400 Free-Staters in New Hampshire so far. The target is 20,000; over 7,000 have signed up but not yet moved.
• NH was chosen just 2 years ago. You have to reside here 2 years in order to run for statewide office. This coming November will be the first opportunity to do so for the very earliest movers -- we have over a dozen people who will be running.
• We've already scored victories -- we have people elected to local office (school board, city council, etc), we killed a proposed statewide smoking ban, we slashed the red tape around home-schooling, and more.
• You're right -- in any other state, you're pretty much screwed. If this kind of thing bothers you, bothers you enought do do something, you should come join the rest of us who are not taking this shit lying down!

Check out the grief we gave to the cops on a past case where they misbehaved here [google.com], or see our fight against the National ID here [google.com]

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[The One and Only (691315)]

I signed up for the Free State Project too. You're leaving a few things out.

• No one is actually obligated to move to New Hampshire until 20,000 people have signed up. This is the other side of the deal: if a critical mass is reached, then we all have to move within 5 years of member number 20,000 signing up. If a critical mass is never reached, no one has to stake their lives on moving to the middle of nowhere.
• Membership only reached 5,000 a couple years ago. Member growth has hit a wall, and has no clear signs of picking up again.
• The Free State Project has all but given up on the 20,000 target, and is instead trying to pressure the first 7,000 to move now so the project is not a total loss.

New Hampshire is a beautiful state, and parts of the state are within commuting distance of Boston, allowing a few decent opportunities. It's a lot better than Montana or Wyoming, two other states that were highly popular in the voting. I was optimistic about the FSP, but if we don't reach 20,000, we are never going to get anything done. And we aren't gonna reach 20,000 anytime soon.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[Simplulo (250142)]

Failure to protect rights has killed more people than second-hand smoke ever has. I am an asthmatic, but I support your right to smoke whatever you want on private property. If you don't like second-hand smoke, exercise your rights and boycott those establishments that permit it. But don't impose your values (even if they were not based on questionable science) by force.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[dmatos (232892)]

Yes, heads must roll. However, do you really think that a financial penalty that will "wound the police force for years to come" is appropriate? Consider:

Funding for the police comes from the taxpayers. Any fine paid by the police force is ultimately paid by the taxpayers.

The police are ostensibly there to protect the public. Financial hardship would leave them less able to perform that task. Longer response times to emergency calls, crimes going uninvestigated, because the police force cannot afford enough employees to do their job properly.

Perhaps more appropriate would be a civil suit filed personally against those responsible for the events, rather than the police force as a whole. The family can still be compensated through this, and it will (hopefully) act as a deterrent against others in positions of power that might consider abusing said power.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[finkployd (12902)]

No, what needs done is the man to be cleared of all charges (and have them removed from his record) and the police officers involved fired. Not put on paid leave, not given a stern talking too, thrown out onto the street fired. They are given public trust and police powers and are held to a higher standard. I want to see more police officers outright fired without second chances when abuses like this occur. The level power they are given comes with responsibility, and abuse of that is unforgivable in a just society.

I agree the police department should not be fined though, that just hurts the taxpayers. The problem is not the department, it is a few people in it that should no longer be there (including the jokers who trumped up the bogus felony charge).

Finkployd

Not All Powerful

[Mikkeles (698461)]

The law cannot protect you from the police.

That sad part is

[Serapth (643581)]

Most people will look at this and see a corrupt police force and yet another sign of our times. Yes, I see the irony that a citizen is getting charged under a wiretapping law in this day and age.

Problem is, most people don't see these stories for what they truly generally are. Stupidity. You know, there are stupid cops and even stupid judges. Most of the time, when cases like this make it out into the world people think that the system is to blame. Normally thats not the case, the stupidity of the officers involved are to blame. Well, either that or some queer powertrip, which is far too common with law enforcement aswell.

In the end, this will all get thrown out in court. Thing is, nobody knows at what cost it will be to the guy involved. Thats truly the greatest flaw of all in the system. IMHO, there should almost be a pre-court judge that can take a look at cases in advance as a checksum against stupidity, and throw them out right away if they are as dumb as this one. I suppose that would be rife for abusing too though.

Unlawful to record your home?

[konigstein (966024)]

according to wcusurveillance [wecusurveillance.com] on surveillance:

"The laws of 13 states expressly prohibit the unauthorized installation or use of cameras in private places. In Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire , South Dakota, and Utah, installation or use of any device for photographing, observing or overhearing events or sounds in a private place without permission of the people photographed or observed is against the law. A private place is one where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance. Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michagin, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Utah also prohibit trespassing on private property to conduct surveillance of people there. In most of these states, unauthorized installation or use of hidden cameras is a felony, punishable by a 2000.00 fine and up to 2 years in prison."

Odd. bolding and italics are mine.

Re:Unlawful to record your home?

[voice_of_all_reason (926702)]

"Private place" has a different definition than "private property." As horrifying as this situation is, I don't think you're interpreting this correctly.

I beleive the statute you are quoting more concerns you placing a camera in the ladies room of your restauruant and then defending it as it was on your property. Front stoop is private property, but not a private space.

Re:Unlawful to record your home?

[MooseTick (895855)]

"The laws of 13 states expressly prohibit the unauthorized installation or use of cameras in private places"

If the camera was on the man's property, then you couldn't hardly say that the installation was unauthorized.

Slow news day

[PCM2 (4486)]

Being arrested, being charged, and being held guilty of a crime are three entirely different things. So far, I hear somebody got arrested.

As for the why, this article seems a little short on details. But one thing I've heard several times (though it's totally hearsay and it probably varies from state to state anyway) is that it is illegal to record both video and audio without prior consent. Most of the surveillance cameras you see in stores and the like only record video.

Similarly, it's illegal to record a telephone conversation without telling all parties on the line that it's being recorded. I think that's federal law.

In other words, yeah the cops probably had a right to arrest the guy. Did the cops it done as a form of harrassment? Yeah, probably. Well knock me over with a feather. Cops, harrassing people? Never!

Problem

[warp1 (231206)]

Video tapping the police is not the problem here, it's wanting to file a complaint. Here in Phoenix, AZ a local news crew went to all the city police departments explaining that they wanted to file a complaint against an officer on that policed force. The television newsman was run out, ignored and threatened. Only the Phoenix police had a system of citizen complaints and treated the newsman with respect. I believe it was an eye opening news story for both people making complaints and the police departments stung.

Re:Problem

[I'm Spartacus! (238085)]

A South Florida newsteam did an expose like this as well.

http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_033170755.h tml [cbs4.com]

Out of 38 police departments, he was able to obtain complaint forms from THREE departments. On officer ran him out the office and actually threatened him by putting his hand to his gun.

Nowadays, I wouldn't call the police to ever settle a dispute.

Nashua Police Contact Information

[catch23 (97972)]

If you would like to give them a piece of your mind, here's a few phone numbers that are worth jotting down:

Conley, Donald, Deputy Chief Executive Officer
603-594-3500

Hefferan, Timothy, Chief of Police
603-594-3600

duh!

[frovingslosh (582462)]

What do you expect in a country where we discriminate against applicants to the police force because they are too intelligent [ananova.com]?

Jury duty

[HangingChad (677530)]

Why can't I get called for jury duty on a case like this? Besides the fact I don't live there. I could pretty much guarantee a not guilty verdict, or a hung jury at a minimum.

Now at last we can turn the arguement around: If you're not doing anything wrong, why worry about the cameras? Police routinely tape large demonstrations and outdoor events, how is this any different? There's no expectation of privacy in public place, that's why they had to use wiretap laws. It wasn't the video, it was the audio. I'm guessing N.H. is a two-party state, where both parties have to consent to monitoring.

Either way this was a hugely bad move for the police department. Now it looks like they charged the guy in retaliation and are trying to cover up misdeeds by their own personnel. The defense will want to play the tape for the jury and they'll get to see the officer's unfiltered conduct. Not his well-dressed, well-mannered courtroom testimony. He might not have had a damage award case if they hadn't arrested him, but they might now if the jury is convinced the police acted out of malice. Dumb and dumber.

Smartest move the prosecutor could make would be to throw out the case, but none of those involved strike me as particularly gifted in the PR department.

So much for the Supreme Court counting on improved training to keep police conduct in check.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[dakryx (646923)]

Is it seriously to hard to atleast read the article summary to see signs were posted?

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[drinkypoo (153816)]

Wouldn't it solve the problem just to have a small sign in the front window saying "This Area Under Video Surveillance" ?

No, no it wouldn't.

That's because, while it's legal to videotape people on your property where a sign is posted, or in any public place where they have no expectation of privacy (like out in front of your house) it's illegal to audiotape them without their express consent.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[pete6677 (681676)]

OK, I've figured it all out now. The guy has a teenage punk for a son with no regard for the law, and he's not much help. The cops decide they're going to teach him a lesson when he kicks them out of his house. Seeing as he lives in the ghetto, he has no civil rights. Yes, that's correct, ask anyone who lives in a ghetto of any city and they'll tell you that civil rights don't exist there. They take this as an opportunity to walk all over him, using the cameras as an excuse to make a felony arrest just to get back at him. There's no legal basis for this at all, and even less basis for the charges against his wife. It will all get thrown out and he'll sue the cops since they've made it so easy for him to do. The losers will be the taxpayers as usual. Moral of the story, if you live in the ghetto and have a delinquent son, don't expect nice treatment from the cops. But if they're stupid enough to do what these cops did you'll likely get a nice payoff.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[turgid (580780)]

...or, as my mother used to say while she was beating me, "Two wrongs don't make a right!"

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[PB_TPU_40 (135365)]

However being charged with a felony is a BIG issue. If you are charged with a felony it is enough for some jobs for you to be denied, also it will permanently be on your record, even if you are not convicted or the charges are dropped. I was charged with two class B felonies that were bogus, everything ended up being pled down to a misdeamnor and even then it was a no-lo plea. Every job I've applied for since has come back and asked me about the charges. Once I go through and explain what happened. The care less that I have a conviction for a Gross Misdeamnor and care more that I had been charged with a felony. Charges alone can ruin your life, most dont know it, but its true.

Another example is you cant get a Federal CWP if you have ever been charged with a felony. Doesn't matter what it was, or if you were aquited.

Re:Will the ACLU take this case?

[badasscat (563442)]

This is a clear cut violation of First Amendment rights. Not the free speach ones but the free press ones.

Huh? Free press? A guy video tapes somebody on his doorstep and suddenly that qualifies him as a member of the press?

Regardless of whether he's press or not, I think you need to read the Bill of Rights again because you obviously don't know what it says. You don't have to be a literalist to understand that this doesn't mean what you think it means:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see how this case has anything whatsoever to do with congress abridging freedom of the press. This is about a guy who got arrested for superfluous reasons. It's obviously one of those situations where the cops got annoyed, so they looked for whatever law they could find that they might be able to charge him against. It should be looked at in that light; trying to turn it into some weird and inappropriate first amendment discussion is not going to help anyone.

Re:whoa whoa whoa there

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)]

How can it be wiretapping if there's no wire being tapped?

How can the patriot act be called what it is? Why is it that if I wear a pistol in a holster on my belt, in plain view, covered with blinking LEDs, while wearing a t-shirt that reads "I carry a firearm" I'll be arrested for "carrying a concealed weapon." The names of laws often have nothing to do with what the laws say.

Why is it a crime to monitor what our public servants are doing?

Because the police are criminals and they follow the orders of the corrupt politicians who pass these laws. I know quite a few cops, but I've never known one who did not flaunt the law and brag about how they don't have to follow it since they are cops. I've never known one who does not have a "funny" story about how they abused their power for their own personal ends. If you haven't noticed this by now, you haven't been paying attention.