Slashdot Log In
NH Man Arrested for Videotaping Police
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jun 29, 2006 03:27 PM
from the hold-still-for-your-interrogation dept.
from the hold-still-for-your-interrogation dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Photograph the Police, Get Arrested 902 comments
Servo writes "Last month a man was arrested in New Hampshire after presenting evidence of a police officer being verbally abusive that he had captured on his home security camera system. Now just recently in Philadelphia a 21 year old student was arrested on his property after he took a photo of the police who were in the process of arresting a drug dealer down the street." From the article: "Cruz said that when he heard a commotion, he walked out of his back door with his cell phone to see what was happening. He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene. 'I opened (the phone) and took a shot,' Cruz said. Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Wiretapping Charges Dropped 333 comments
Ada_Rules writes "I realize that the end of a story is not nearly as sexy as the beginning, but police in Nashua have dropped the wiretapping charges against a man that had recorded both video and audio from on his home security system. The man had brought a videotape to the police station to back up a claim that a detective was rude to him while on his property as part of an investigation. In addition, the police have determined that the man's complaint about the detective was justified."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask the President (Score:5, Funny)
Doesn't he know that the President is the only personl legally allowed to wire tap?
Ugh! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ugh! (Score:5, Interesting)
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!5 4843817240 [google.com]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-30178811
Parent
Re:Ugh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Ugh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
This is absurd on so many levels (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This is absurd on so many levels (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:This is absurd on so many levels (Score:5, Informative)
Keep in mind:
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]
Parent
Re:This is absurd on so many levels (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Not All Powerful (Score:5, Funny)
That sad part is (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
"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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Unlawful to record your home? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the camera was on the man's property, then you couldn't hardly say that the installation was unauthorized.
Parent
Slow news day (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Nashua Police Contact Information (Score:5, Informative)
Conley, Donald, Deputy Chief Executive Officer
603-594-3500
Hefferan, Timothy, Chief of Police
603-594-3600
duh! (Score:5, Informative)
Jury duty (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Solution: A $5 Sign? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Solution: A $5 Sign? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Will the ACLU take this case? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent