Slashdot Mirror

Glen Aldrich is a carpenter with no more than a high school diploma.

I think having regular citizen legislators, with not much financial gain to be had from the job, is an excellent way to run a state house. It means you are more likely to get people involved for the right reasons, instead of career politicians looking for money and power.

I concur, and note that the first Free-Stater elected to the NH House was also a carpenter (technically, a contractor). Here's his victory speech; it's quite telling.

...a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889...

That's not a good thing - it means that representatives are exclusively funded through independent wealth, this may seem like a good idea, but the practical upshot is that working class and to a certain extend middle class can't participate.

I don't know why you would make that assumption. There are many, many political activists that are quite poor, and that requires dedicating more time to the cause than is asked of part-time legislators. In fact, looking through the biographies of the current legislators gives lie to your assumption. For instance, Michael Abbott is a retired high school teacher who started out working at a grocery store. And Glen Aldrich is a carpenter with no more than a high school diploma.

I think having regular citizen legislators, with not much financial gain to be had from the job, is an excellent way to run a state house. It means you are more likely to get people involved for the right reasons, instead of career politicians looking for money and power.

...a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889...

That's not a good thing - it means that representatives are exclusively funded through independent wealth, this may seem like a good idea, but the practical upshot is that working class and to a certain extend middle class can't participate.

I don't know why you would make that assumption. There are many, many political activists that are quite poor, and that requires dedicating more time to the cause than is asked of part-time legislators. In fact, looking through the biographies of the current legislators gives lie to your assumption. For instance, Michael Abbott is a retired high school teacher who started out working at a grocery store. And Glen Aldrich is a carpenter with no more than a high school diploma.

I think having regular citizen legislators, with not much financial gain to be had from the job, is an excellent way to run a state house. It means you are more likely to get people involved for the right reasons, instead of career politicians looking for money and power.

Hmmmm ok. I am going to presume that your incident was in 1993 ... because in mid-1993 a law was passed that took effect January 1, 1994, that replaced the existing code and made possession of various weapons prohibited ONLY if one was a felon. The law was HB 166 - link is here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...

AFAIK Hampton Beach has not had any other law regarding the possession of weapons. The state of NH does have state preemption on most weapons laws, although I can't confirm for how long that has been the case.

Given that it's been over 10 years, not to mention the fact that the law you were convicted under probably does not exist anymore, my presumption is that you can get your record expunged, assuming you haven't gone on a wild crime spree since then. (Obviously if you pursue this, talk to a lawyer about it, not me, as I am not a lawyer.)

Many states had awful laws regarding concealed carry 20-30 years ago - thankfully that has changed over time. The legislature got constitutional carry passed last year, but it was vetoed by the governor (and probably the same thing will happen this year).

Not sure if any of this helps, but hopefully it does. I know that there are more and more folks in NH trying to get rid of as many of the bad laws as possible, and there has been some success ... hopefully more when the FSP reaches its goal and more folks start moving.

What is interesting is a few years earlier they could legally have sex. Then for a couple of years it's a felony. Then it's legal again.

Incorrect, barring any recent legal changes in the State of New Hampshire.

Felonious Sexual Assault: II. Engages in sexual penetration with a person, other than his legal spouse, who is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age where the age difference between the actor and the other person is 4 years or more; or
If he was 17 and her 15, that's only two years, well within NH's 4 year 'R&J' exemption. Indeed, by the way the statute is constructed, once legal they're always legal.

Though the second article says 18 and 15, but even at 3 years and change it shouldn't have triggered statutory rape charges by the letter of NH law.

Lacking statutory rape, they'd have go go for 'actual' rape charges, IE it was against her will, and browsing news articles, that's what they did. They simply failed to make that case.

New Hampshire is not, except in certain cases. Coverage is only required by the following (Title XXI 264:2):

I. Upon receipt of an abstract of the record in case of conviction of any person for one of the following offenses, the director may suspend the license of the person so convicted and the registration certificates of any motor vehicle, trailer, or semi-trailer registered in the name of such person and require the surrender of the registration plates of any such vehicle, unless and until such person gives and thereafter maintains proof of his financial responsibility in the future:
              (a) Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs;
              (b) Failing to stop and report when involved in an accident;
              (c) Homicide or assault arising out of the driving of a motor vehicle;
              (d) The second time for driving a vehicle at an excessive rate of speed;
              (e) The second time for driving a vehicle in a reckless manner and a violation of such other of the provisions of any state law relative to vehicles as the director shall determine.

Note that the director has the ability to demand proof of coverage, but is not forced to do so by law. The state defines minimums for auto insurance, and the insurance companies try to use that to deceive people into thinking coverage is mandatory, but the minimums are only for folks that have run afoul of what I quoted above.

I looked for any recent changes in the law, but nothing jumped out at me. The text I quoted is directly from the state:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XXI-264.htm

Motorists may be required to have coverage by the terms of their auto loan, but that's between them and their bank. It's not a matter of law.

If Wikipedia is correct, NH stands alone. I'm surprised at that. It's a non-issue for those of us that live here.

In New Hampshire, our state equivalent to FOIA, RSA 91-A, requires that a government entity respond within 5 days to a right-to-know request or they can be hauled into court. RSA 91-A:4, IV. They don't have to provide the information within 5 days, but they at least have to respond saying they have received the request and either say how long it will take to comply with the request, or explain---under a very short list of enumerated exemptions in RSA 91-A:5---why the request is being denied. Denials themselves can of course be appealed. RSA 91-A:7. And RSA 91-A:8 authorizes the courts to award attorneys fees to the complainant if they're successful in demonstrating the agency violated the right-to-know law. Wilful violations by individual bureaucrats can even render them personally liable for all the court costs. RSA 91-A:8, IV.

New York's FOIA law doesn't have remedies similar to this?

...but lawyers say as one of a series it confirms there is no longer any debate about the benefits of the vaccine.

No, it doesn't. The question of the benefits of the vaccine is a scientific question best left up to science, not lawyers, to decide. What this series of cases confirms is simply that people no longer have a right to opt out of vaccination.

New Hampshire recognizes a right of conscience to opt out of vaccines. It's in statute as a religious exemption (RSA 141-C:20-c, II) and backed up by our state constitution, Part I, Arts. 4 and 5. There's a well-organized movement here to improve the law to allow people to opt out of vaccines without resorting to the "all-or-nothing" religious exemption, for example, with HB1555 (2010). Perhaps this family ought to immigrate here and seek asylum like that homeschooling family from Germany.

This kind of surveillance is fortunately illegal for the police to do in New Hampshire.

How long before all RC helicopters (and all hobby RC planes for that matter) will be banned ?

They are already trying in Texas and in New Hampshire. Notice the inclusion of drones by name in the legislation, and the lack of differentiation between government use and private use.

This article from a few weeks ago shows that two other state legislatures, specifically Florida and Virginia, are attempting a legislative fix to drone use, though those attempts are targeted specifically at government use of drones. The mayor of Seattle cancelled the Seattle PD's drone program and ordered the chief of police to return the ones they'd already bought to the manufacturer for a refund.

With that said, attempts to block government use of drones are probably doomed to failure, since the FAA has already been directed by the 112th Congress to integrate drones into the national airspace via HR 658 (relevant section here,) and police departments across the nation are buying them in droves, despite what happened in Seattle. The DHS's "loan a drone" program, coupled with DHS's $4M grant program to local law authorities to acquire drones, would strongly suggest that government use of drones is here to stay.

Given the push/pull legislative wars being driven by the privacy vs. public safety debate, I doubt that banning RC aircraft is a viable legislative option. What is (probably) going to happen with RC aircraft is what has already happened with other "hobbies" that are deemed to be a threat to public safety (think: greenhouses that could be used for growing pot, legal chemicals that could be used to manufacture illegal drugs, model rockets that could be weaponized.) Purchases of RC aircraft and related equipment will be tracked at the point of sale and those records will be forwarded to the feds, where the purchasers will end up on an FBI watch list, just like the purchasers of the above-mentioned items.

In my own area, a Judge has ruled they are not legal.

That's good - in my State highway surveillance also is prohibited.

While most States were busy installing them, the New Hampshire legislature banned them. We have so many legislators that it's really infeasible to buy them off. I think this was the same year they told the Feds to got to hell on RealID also.

236:130 Highway Surveillance Prohibited. â"
        I. In this subdivision, "surveillance'' means the act of determining the ownership of a motor vehicle or the identity of a motor vehicle's occupants on the public ways of the state or its political subdivisions through the use of a camera or other imaging device or any other device, including but not limited to a transponder, cellular telephone, global positioning satellite, or radio frequency identification device, that by itself or in conjunction with other devices or information can be used to determine the ownership of a motor vehicle or the identity of a motor vehicle' s occupants.
        II. Neither the state of New Hampshire nor its political subdivisions shall engage in surveillance on any public ways of the state or its political subdivisions. ...

No, the police should have arrested her (and DID arrest her) for criminal trespass (a misdemeanor under NH Law - 635:2, Section III, paragraph (b), subsection 2):

635:2 Criminal Trespass. –
I. A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place.
II. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor for the first offense and a class B felony for any subsequent offense if the person knowingly or recklessly causes damage in excess of $1,500 to the value of the property of another.
III. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor if:
          (a) The trespass takes place in an occupied structure as defined in RSA 635:1, III; or
          (b) The person knowingly enters or remains:
                    (1) In any secured premises;
                    (2) In any place in defiance of an order to leave or not to enter which was personally communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person; or
                    (3) In any place in defiance of any court order restraining him from entering such place so long as he has been properly notified of such order.
IV. All other criminal trespass is a violation.
V. In this section, "secured premises'' means any place which is posted in a manner prescribed by law or in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, or which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.
VI. In this section, "property,'' "property of another,'' and "value'' shall be as defined in RSA 637:2, I, IV, and V, respectively.

The only way they would have simply "cited" her would be if she "accidentally wandered into the Apple Store, and was just chilling out there, not realizing it was somebody else's property, when the police found her there. Since she "knowingly entered or remained in any place in defiance of an order to leave or not to enter which was personally communicated to [her] by the owner or other authorized person," it's a misdemeanor - she was told to leave by Apple employees, and by the police. She refused.

She then resisted arrest for this misdemeanor violation, and the police officers escalated the force they were using against her, with the result being that she ended up tased, arrested, and will now face misdemeanor trespassing charges. Hopefully this was her first such charge, and hopefully she didn't smash a couple iPhones while resisting, because if she did more than $1500 worth of damage and has other trespass charges on her record, she could be facing Class B felony charges.

You could always move to a state that doesn't engage in such privacy invasions, such as New Hampshire. Here, you can actually check off a box on the license application form requiring them to not even store your photo in their database.

The New Hampshire Legislature also prohibited its DMV from implementing the federal "Real ID" program which is what's driving a lot of this crap. The state also prohibits its agencies and localities from implementing red light cameras, license plate readers, &c., too.

It's an extremely complex moral area, and the law has to cut through the crap by applying somewhat arbitrary limits.

The law does nothing of the kind. If anything, it just makes the situation more complex. Read my state's for example.

But it's also nonsense that driving with 799mg/L of alcohol in your blood is fine, while driving with 800mg/L is wrong. But the only manageable way to codify this stuff into law is to draw a line at some arbitrary point somewhere near where the public consensus is.

How about simply codifying that if someone causes an accident, they're responsible for all the consequences? Why not do that, rather than outlawing victimless behavior (i.e., driving intoxicated without having actually caused an accident) and then coming up with arbitrary concentration standards that will (a) unfairly punish people who can handle liquor better than others, and (b) in other cases not punish people who are more sensitive to alcohol and become inebriated more quickly.

Bringing this back to the discussion at hand, it's the same thing. Mature, responsible people (or their partners) are unfairly punished because they're below an arbitrary age like 16, while someone who takes advantage of an immature 19-year-old isn't. How about instead we go after people who actually victimize someone?

Move to New Hampshire. It is illegal for government agents to use these things here.

In many jurisdictions in this so-called "free country," chatting with someone whom one merely believes to be underage is a crime, regardless of if the "underage" person is lying. For example, N.H. RSA 649-B:4. Ten years in jail because some 40-year-old guy convinced another 40-year-old guy he was really a 12-year-old girl.

Highway surveillance is outright prohibited here.

(The rare reason: It violates the privacy of a citizen who is involved.)

Yup. This was always the excuse they'd bring up when we in New Hampshire were fighting this issue legislatively. Domestic violence cases, child victims, whatever emotional bullshit they could throw up to keep the wiretapping law here usable as a weapon to prevent people from recording police abuse---which is how they always use it here.

Fortunately there was recently a very positive U.S. District Court ruling, Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), which overrules all of this and makes legislative attempts to fix the problem a moot point.

Many places define value for purposes of theft as the highest amount possible determined by reasonable standards. In New Hampshire for example, the theft law defines "value" as:

"Value'' means the highest amount determined by any reasonable standard of property or services. (RSA 637:2, V)

Are you suggesting that because you don't like the manufacturer's pricing models, that we should just write a special exception into the laws for phones requiring some other standard be used?

This is not a situation like when the RIAA claims a mere copy of bits on a disk representing "music" and sold for $0.99 is actually worth $50,000. If someone steals someone's smart phone, the victim actually paid the $800 for that physical, tangible property, and will have to pay $400 again to replace it.

There are certainly problems with the felony laws: In many places, the threshold between misdemeanor and felony was defined decades ago and hasn't been updated for inflation. For example, it was set to $500 in New Hampshire sometime in the 1970s, and was only increased to $1,000 in 2010 (SB205, 2010), whereas $500 in 1971 is actually worth $2661.24 today (Inflation Calculator). But this doesn't mean we should be adding special exceptions into the laws for products people don't think are worth the purchase cost.

Many places define value for purposes of theft as the highest amount possible determined by reasonable standards. In New Hampshire for example, the theft law defines "value" as:

"Value'' means the highest amount determined by any reasonable standard of property or services. (RSA 637:2, V)

Are you suggesting that because you don't like the manufacturer's pricing models, that we should just write a special exception into the laws for phones requiring some other standard be used?

This is not a situation like when the RIAA claims a mere copy of bits on a disk representing "music" and sold for $0.99 is actually worth $50,000. If someone steals someone's smart phone, the victim actually paid the $800 for that physical, tangible property, and will have to pay $400 again to replace it.

There are certainly problems with the felony laws: In many places, the threshold between misdemeanor and felony was defined decades ago and hasn't been updated for inflation. For example, it was set to $500 in New Hampshire sometime in the 1970s, and was only increased to $1,000 in 2010 (SB205, 2010), whereas $500 in 1971 is actually worth $2661.24 today (Inflation Calculator). But this doesn't mean we should be adding special exceptions into the laws for products people don't think are worth the purchase cost.

There is no federal statute requiring the pat downs, USC simply states that TSA deal with airport security under direction from DHS. As such the supremacy clause does not come in to effect as there is no conflicting federal statute.

NH passed http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB0628.html earlier this year. The current language only allows for citizens to make complaints, the original version made TSA pat downs a felony. I expect it will be updated next year re include that.

That net positive was the result of political work. This was originally 2 bills, one Open Source, one Open Data... Both bills had high price tags on them, and it was clear both were fairly bogus numbers (IMHO).
I removed language that caused some of the estimates, and got them to agree that the positions needed for one could be met by the 3 positions in the other bill, and that cost savings of $300k were a bare minimum. (Originally, due to 'Consider', not a requirement, the cost saving was $0, plus 10 people to implement...)
That $300k is a guesstimate and likely low.
So merge the 2 bills together, for a sum total of net neutral/positive, and get it passed in a year where we cut $1 billion dollars from the State Budget. If it was fiscally costing anything, it would have been toast.

There was no upstream/contributing back in previous bills, as I was careful to not add lots of requirements. This bill is like steering the rudder on a big ship that takes miles to turn.... so it's high principles, low on specifics. The specifics will come from the CIO, and his staff, who 'get it'

It's been over a year.... I submitted the bill Fall 2010, post election. Previous work in 2006 and 2008 to get even a study committee to look at Open Source in Government died quick deaths (I was not in the House, just an citizen activist) but all of that work and others taught me how the system works. So really, I've spent about 7 years or so learning how to get stuff like this done.

details: http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=741&sy=2012&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2012&txtbillnumber=hb418&q=1
And HB310 was the OpenData bill that contained the original other half.

The states can get in on this too. New Hampshire has a proposal for a new state law to record abuses by the TSA. Here's a snippet of HB0628:

"VII.(a) In order to assist in the accuracy of records created by law enforcement officers in paragraph III, all citizens being searched shall be afforded their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America and under Part 1, Article 22 of the New Hampshire Constitution to record, or designated a person to record, using any type of audio and video recording device, or a device that records just audio or just video, all interactions with an agent described in paragraph I, even in the presence of a law enforcement officer, without exception."

Paragraph I specifies the TSA by name.

Followed by:

"(c) If a law enforcement officer does not enforce the provisions of this chapter or makes it difficult for a citizen to exercise his or her rights as specified in this section, the law enforcement officer may be guilty of official oppression pursuant to RSA 643:1."

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB0628.html

It passed in the house. Now it goes to the senate.

There are lots of other voting systems that would reduce this problem. My favorite is approval voting for its simplicity and good qualities, but lots of other methods would be leagues ahead of what we use today, from Instant Runoff, to the suite of Condorcet methods to range voting.

There was a bill in NH in January to introduce approval voting (the motivation was probably to strengthen tea party candidates without hurting republicans), but it was voted "inexpedient to legislate," which a brief investigation tells me means "not going to be brought to the floor."

• 12 legislators is nearly all we need. We have an active caucus in the legislature, not of FSP newbies, but of these 12 + some seasoned veteran legislators. If you look at the roll call votes for hot issues, very often the spread is less than 12.
• Anti-police state stuff? We got it. NH House passed a "record the cops" bill (now in the Senate), the NH House now passes medical marijuana & MJ decrim bills every session (we need 2 more votes in the Senate to override the Governor's veto). An NH legislator (Dan Itse) informs me he's submitted a 4th amendment assertion bill for the coming session, in response to recent incidents.
• Sunshine law? Hell yes, one of the best in the country: NH RSA 91-A. But for even more fun, read the NH Constitution, Part I Art. 3.
• IIRC, NH was the first to submit an anti-TSA-invasion bill. It's passed the House, currently in the Senate.
• Warrantless wiretaps? I dunno. have to check. There's certainly plenty of "protect us from the feds" sentiment.

The Wiretap statute doesn't apply.

Why not?

A person is guilty of a class B felony if ... without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person:

(a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication;

Glad to see Slashdot pick this up...

The actual bills:

Open Data: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0310.html
Open Source: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0418.html

I'd love to see this legislation copied in every state... patches are welcomed, btw. I can't grant commit access, but bug reports are always welcomed.

I'd also be glad to answer questions, if anyone has any.

Glad to see Slashdot pick this up...

The actual bills:

Open Data: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0310.html
Open Source: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2011/HB0418.html

I'd love to see this legislation copied in every state... patches are welcomed, btw. I can't grant commit access, but bug reports are always welcomed.

I'd also be glad to answer questions, if anyone has any.

This is a National ID card. Call it what it is and be done with it, don't try to hide it as part of an immigration bill.

Several states already have laws on their books preventing their executive branches from servicing a National ID card. A few years ago they called it "REAL ID".

e.g. New Hampshire. Folks interested in these issues ought to come out and lend a hand.

New Hampshire law, FWIW, does require consent, not just knowledge.

NH RSA 570-A

New Hampshire has already passed into law that any federal identification program is unconstitutional with 2007 HB0685. To quote the bill, which was signed into law;

The general court finds that the public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in any driver's license program pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005 or in any national identification card system that may follow therefrom.

Agreed. DEC during the 80's and 90's was a magical place. I benefited from their generosity going to school in Nashua, NH. They donated PDP-11's and eventually VAXEN to the high schools and local library.

I sat down at a terminal of the PDP-11 at the library, and the rest is, as they say, history. They launched my career and I am eternally grateful.

I got to visit the Spit Brook facility as a teenager. It was like visiting Mt. Olympus.

BTW, black flies don't give lyme disease - ticks do. Black flies come out in May and torment you by flying around your head in swarms. Ticks latch onto your body and suck your blood.

This is a timely article. The state of NH is currently considering passing a law allowing cities to put up these cameras. As usual, we're a bit behind the times.

SB 113:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/SB0113.html

It strikes me as odd that Texas, a state many of us considered the "first and foremost in protecting the rights of its populace against tyranny of federal government"...

Not anymore. That distinction now belongs to New Hampshire: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

[an unregulated market where the government doesn't have its hands in it in some way]...

Golf courses. Sporting goods. Fishing tackle. Women's clothing.

What, the government's not involved in golf courses? Who drags me away if I want to set my tent up on the green at the 12th hole? All land claims rest on government issued deeds.

What, the government's not involved in sporting goods? So I can put a swoosh logo on my new line of baseball bats and not be dragged into court, right? And that lawn darts ban was just a dream?

What, the government's not involved in fishing tackle? So I can drop all the lead sinkers I want into ponds and rivers and poison wildlife?

What, the government's not involved in women's clothing? So I have no worry of being sued for putting decorations on a purse similar to someone else's?

"There's possibly some law against entering an unsecured premises with the intent of committing a crime, but if it exists I couldn't tell you want it is (maybe something like trespassing, but without the need for posting or other notification)."

The term I have heard before is criminal trespass.
I got lazy, but here is what I found on a quick check.

It seems to me (IANAL) that you would need to be deliberately trespassing with criminal intent for this to qualify as an acceptable charge to be inflicted on you.

There seems to be some facts missing from the summary and article to enable a rational 'decision', or consensus here on /.

Links from the article lead us below the tip of the iceberg.

We also have this to work with.

I claim the 'Johnny 5 defense here: "Need more input!"

Maybe someone will finally fix the apparent glaring security hole in New Hampshire's .gov website.

Fortunately, they appear to be illegal in my state already: RSA 263:12, X, 260:14.

Fortunately, they appear to be illegal in my state already: RSA 263:12, X, 260:14.

The New Hampshire House has 375 to 400 members. NH House of Representatives They are each paid $200 a year.

New Hampshire has a population of 1,315,000. New Hampshire Quick Facts

In such a system, where do you think the real power lies?

a) with the executive and the 24 member New Hampshire Senate
b) with the House committees
c) the party leadership
d) the permanent committee staff and the New Hampshire lobbyist
e) the individual members of the House.

Can you cite your source please? This sounds interesting.

There's a lot of debate over this issue. Here's a reasonably good comparison of cost of different forms of energy (though it's provided by a tidal energy interest, so the tidal numbers should be regarded with some suspicion):
http://www.des.state.nh.us/coastal/documents/EnergyCostComparisons.pdf

http://www.puc.state.nh.us/regulatory/Orders/2006o rders/2006%20Telecom%20Orders.htm

this is all public information my friend. the CTO goes to the meetings.
i stay and work.
he says there is only 3 of them left.. and verizon.

"The majority of environmental releases in the pulp and paper industry come from pulping. The environmental impacts of papermaking are much smaller, and it is impossible to distinguish between the impacts from virgin and recycled papermaking. In pulpmaking, however, the differences are large. Compared to virgin pulping, recycled pulping consumes much less energy and generates smaller releases to air, water, and solid and hazardous waste streams."

Making paper from recycled stock requires 64 percent less energy than using wood pulp

Hey, I'm just going by the statute. Some laws are wrong-headed, and this might be one, but that isn't my point. My point is, according to the article's quote of the relevant statute, the recording was illegal.

As it turns out, the article was incomplete. After checking it out for myself, I agree that the cops don't have a leg to stand on.

Here's what the statute says ( http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570 -A/570-A-2.htm ):

"1. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person: (a) Wilfully intercepts ... any telecommunication or oral communication"

Now, this doesn't say jack about "reasonable expectation of privacy." But the previous section defines "oral communication" as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation."

So the "oral communication" being recorded ("intercepted") has to fulfill two conditions before recording it might become illegal. First, the person must clearly not expect to be recorded. Second, the person has to be justified in that belief. If these two conditions are satisfied, and his speech is recorded without his consent, then the recording is illegal.

Again, "reasonable expectation of privacy" isn't part of the statute, but even so, from what I can tell, the cops' speech does not satisfy either of the two requirements needed for the statute to even apply.

So, yeah, the cops would lose if it went to court.

You should really read the law before you try and interpret it. Other than that yes I am sure they did this to save face.

570-A-2

You posted a report, and cite it again above, about a Mr. Gannon arrested in New Hampshire for recording police abuse without their permission, being apparently unaware of the law against it at the time--which is, of course, no excuse. But first the Nashua Telegraph in its article http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic le?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121 and then /. also committed felonies under that same statute by publishing and republishing that article. Specifically, 570-A:2, 1(c) states that a person is guilty of a class B felony who:

"(c) Wilfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph" --See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LVIII/570 -A/570-A-2.htm Such is our national descent into a police state. I hope you have better resources to deal with the fallout than the unfortunate Mr. Gannon.

I think your understanding of the usage of intercept is incorrect. Intercept does not imply a third party in this context.

Here is the definitions section of the statute in question.

III. "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of, or the recording of, the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

Since one of the parties had consented to the inception, the statute clearly states that the offense is at most a misdemeanor (not at least). Furthermore, the definitions at the beginning of the statute clearly states that:

II. "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.

Assuming New Hampshire is regressive enough to prevent citizens from making electronic records of their interactions with public officials (I don't believe a public official has an expectation their normal duties will not be recorded, but assuming they do...), the private citizen had prominently displayed notice on his private property that interception was occurring. Ergo, the officer's expectation that his communication was not subject to interception at that time did not exist.

No crime occurred here except false arrest and vexatious charging by the police department.

The statute in question.

First, I am not a lawyer. I am a law student and this analysis may not be correct and should not be relied on for anything whatsoever!

There are at least two interesting legal questions here. First, is this arrest based on the facts available a proper application of the statute? Second, is this application of the statute Constitutional?

The part of the statute that I think the police were attempting to use is...
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person:
(a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication;

This translates roughly to you are guilty if without everyone's permission you record telecommunication or oral communication. For the purpose of a guy recording something the video is not a problem here, but the audio could be.

I would speculate that the police are accusing the NH man of recording audio (oral communication) of a police officer without the officer's consent. The NH man asserts that he made the police officer aware of the recording. The police don't necessarily agree with that. This is a question of fact that the courts get to sort out. If the officer was aware of the recording and continued to converse he would have assented to the recording. See State v. Lott, 152 N.H. 436. If the officer assented to the recording there is no violation of the law.


Without addressing the constitutional issues, there is a law here against audio recording of persons without consent of all parties and the police are theoretically attempting to enforce that law on the premise that the officer who was recorded did not consent.

Now is this application of the law constitutional?

I will assume that this interaction between the family members and the police took place on the door stoop, and not inside the home.

For purposes of seeing things and hearing things one's door stoop is normally a public, not private, place.

People have a First Amendment right to witness and record by videotape police activity in public. Does this particular application of the First Amendment extend to audiotape of a conversation with a police officer in public (door stoop)?

However, there is also a question of a reasonable expectation of privacy that a person has in his or her conversation. This comes up more frequently in cases involving the federal wiretapping statute that is similar to New Hampshire's, but perhaps not quite as broad. 18 USCS 2510.

The Ninth Circuit (out west and not controlling in NH) has dealt with these situations some. One case involved the videotaping of a police chief speaking over police radio in a park. Johnson v. Hawe, 388 F.3d 676 The state court ultimately found that the police chief was not covered by Washington State's Privacy Act.

Some cases have held that remarks made in a store and captured on videotape do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. See Commonwealth v. Rivera, 445 Mass. 119, 129 (Mass. 2005). The US Supreme Court held that a person does "not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in areas of the store where the public was invited to enter and to transact business." Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 470 (U.S. 1985).

However, a door stoop is not a store. A door stoop is a public place generally, but does one have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation on a door stoop? This is what this case would turn on if it were under federal wiretap law. This could depend on how far the door stoop was from the street or sidewalk. If someone could have walked along the sidewalk and heard the conversation it is unlikely that the conversants on the stoop had a reasonable expectation of

Notice that that applies only to unauthorized installation and usage of said cameras,
Q:authorized by whom?
A: the property owner, which in this case is the person who installed the cameras.
from the same source you cite:
[quote]If audio eavesdropping is also taking place, covert surveillance may be illegal when:

The person with authority over the premises has not consented
The reason for the video surveillance fosters an illegal purpose[/quote]
neither is the case because the "authority" is the property owner, nor is it for an illegal purpose.
    Also generally you fall under wiretapping guidlines only if neither party knows about the recording, and in this case again the property owner clearly knew about it, and was a party to the conversation.

According to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570 -A/570-A-2.htm apparently Mr. Gannon isn't the only one guilty here, the police have broken the same law they cite against him. The police are allowed to make their own recordings, but taking someone else's is considered wire tapping, under their own statues. (I think, I am not a lawyer)