Slashdot Mirror
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."
Is it seriously to hard to atleast read the article summary to see signs were posted?
"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.This space intentionally left blank
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!
Breakfast served all day!
New Hampshire law specifically allows law enforcement purposes. There's a link at the bottom of the article to New Hampshire's wiretapping laws.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
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.
In that vein, here's something a friend pointed me to just today.
Constitutionally Correct
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
What do you expect in a country where we discriminate against applicants to the police force because they are too intelligent?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Keep in mind:
Check out the grief we gave to the cops on a past case where they misbehaved here, or see our fight against the National ID here
Part of the Second American Revolution!
First, the definitions as listed in the law.
As early as the definitions section, it is quite apparent that 570-A is to be applied specifically to State, County, or City employees (i.e. Peace officers), or to persons involved in any business venture. The reasoning behind the law is so that the state, county, or local government cannot just start posting surveillence on their citizenry KGB-style. Same thing goes for business owners.
Given the definitions listed within this law, and considering the fact that not once does the law prohibit the citizenry from placing their own private property (non-business) under surveillence, the defendant has nothing to be afraid of. At this point, without reviewing pertinent case law, it would be quite obvious that the defendant has nothing to fear.
Of course, this could be slightly different when I finish checking all applicable court decisions. Updates will follow soon.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
A South Florida newsteam did an expose like this as well.
h tml
http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_033170755.
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.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
Actually, if you read the statute 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.
I signed up for the Free State Project too. You're leaving a few things out.
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.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
That's why in NH we don't have laws that require you to wear your seat belt, wear a motorcycle helmet, or wear your mittens. You want to be treated as an infant ward of the State? Go live somewhere else. You want to be treated like an adult, and take responsibility for your own choices? Come to New Hampshire. Simple.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
I called the Nashua Police and asked if the article was true. They said it was. I said that is outrageous that they would do that and that the wiretapping act has a very strong wording that implies that it is for the "interception" of communications.
I asked if they had been contacted by the ACLU yet, at which point the officer hung up on me.
They are a corrupt bunch of bastards. A guy installs a security camera on his property because of crime. A camera readily perchased from Walmart. Because he excersizes his rights to require a warrent and not just let them in, and has evidence that they were abusive to him, they loosely interpret a statute intended to protect the privacy of electronic communications to include home security.
Bastards!!! Fucking bastards. What happened to the constitution? Jesus fucking christ, will someone step up and stop this shit?
The Nazi's would have loved police like this.
Obstruction of Justice? Somebody needs to brush up on case law. I don't know about NH, but this is first week material at police academies in Florida. Parents are exempt when it comes to informing and harboring criminals. I also don't think the detective had much expectation of privacy there on the guy's porch. If he was actually inside then it'd be a different story. If the tapes were submitted as evidence in a crime outside, I don't think they'd be pushing wiretapping charges. Of course I'm not siding with these people, their sons may be scumbags, but the parents still have rights. It seems that the parents are whiny pricks as well, but that's one of the hazards of law enforcement. Overall, it sounds to me like this would be a good example of how NOT to conduct an investigation.
I'm not going to spend 18 years before I can reply to this post. So I'll just reply without spending 18 years being a cop.
Go re-read the 4th amendment. Then explain to me why an armed official should expect to be allowed to enter and remain in my home without a warrant and without my consent. If I invite that official in, that's one thing. If I do not, then that's quite another. And your right to expect cooperation in the pursuit of an investigation does not extend to violating the Constitution. If it did, then there would be no need for things like warrants. You could just demand any cooperation you want, and proceed to punish anyone who refused it.
Standing on my rights is not obstruction of justice. Furthermore if I do so and you disregard my rights, I would hope that the judge would come down on my side.
Yes it becomes a game. And of course the people who insist on those rights are usually people with something to hide whom you (and I) have every reason to dislike. But as a private citizen I absolutely want those rights to be maintained, because eroding them is the path that leads from democracy to fascism.
ObDisclaimer: The only crime I have never personally been charged with is a parking ticket. But I did serve on a jury that ruled a defendant not guilty. I'm sure that the police officers involved wound up cursing us. But when your only eyewitness (the victim) is severely drunk and has poor eyesight, make the guy you found 20 minutes later on a busy street be close to the physical description!
No cop has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding his conversations with citizens in the course of performing his public duty. He is required to file a full and accurate report of such conversations, which becomes part of the public record. So there is no expectation of privacy.
Also, the courts have ruled that citizens have a First Amendment right to record the activities and speech of public officials in the performance of public duties. While this right does not extend into city council closed sessions, for example, it certainly extends to police interrogations conducted on a citizen's front porch.
Mr. Gannon will not only escape these charges, he will get a large cash settlement from the police department.