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."

Comments

sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:sigh

[letxa2000]

Not defending the charges in this case (which do seem 100% bogus), but I have found that if you respect the police, they will respect you. If you treat the cops like assholes, they'll probably do the same to you. Now arguably it shouldn't be that way since the cops should be expected to behave professionaly even if the citizen doesn't. The reality, though, is that police are people too and just like we probably would not react perfectly to someone treating us with disresect on the job, police probably don't either. Treating others how you want to be treated is a good way to live life and usually brings the exact results you're looking for.

Now something definitely seems wrong with this police department since the charges are nonsense and it seems like, at that point, they are harassing the citizen. But they do mention the guy's kid is being investigated for some crimes, the guy hasn't been cooperative in the past, and has been verbally abusive. And my completely inappropriate "judge a book by its cover" sensors tell me that by looking at the guy's picture in the article, he rather looks like an uncooperative, verbally abusive redneck. So I suspect that while these charges against him are completely wrong and inappropriate, I get the distinct feeling this isn't some average Joe that's being randomly victimized for no reason by the police. I think there's more to the story here than we know.

Re:sigh

[ScottLindner]

"but I have found that if you respect the police, they will respect you."

I've never had such experienced. They are pricks to you by default.

Re:sigh

[WeAreAllDoomed]

I have found that if you respect the police, they will respect you. If you treat the cops like assholes, they'll probably do the same to you.

the problem, of course, is that the definition of that term is extremely broad, and people in power are wont to define it to suit themselves and their peers.

And my completely inappropriate "judge a book by its cover" sensors tell me that by looking at the guy's picture in the article, he rather looks like an uncooperative, verbally abusive redneck.

you're right - about the completely inappropriate part.

Re:sigh

[Romancer]

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.

Re:sigh

[aplusjimages]

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

[zuzulo]

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

[multimediavt]

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.

Re:sigh

[sherms]

I've been a cop for 18 years. To some people who are getting arrested I get the heat. But the fact is only about 20% are assholes and some cops can become assholes by assholes. I've had people try to shoot me, stab me, etc. I have turned in over 5 cops who have violated peoples rights. The fact is Police are human. But they do try to pick the most patient (overall). So 20% is more accurate than 99%. In Utah we could not have arrested him because the law for privacy is different. If one person in the group of people know there being recorded (in this case the home owner) then it is perfectly legal. Its obvious he was obstructing Justice and to have a son on weapons charges will bring many police into the picture. I like to make it home at night.

I've also had many letters of thanks from citizens. I'm not trying to start a flame ware, just putting down the facts. I do computer forensics, homicide reconstruction, and fatal accidents now.

Sherm
(I was also put on /. in about 1999 for our 911 going to Linux. So I've seen many points of view)

Re:sigh

[flibuste]

yeah, ok. now which way to canada?

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. Click here to sign in!

Re:sigh

[AmericanInKiev]

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

[IAmTheDave]

I think there's more to the story here than we know.

There may be, and I agree with you about the whole "treat your neighbor as you would be treated" thingy... BUT...

The fact remains that he was arrested at the police station where he voluntarily went, with video tape in tow. They didn't arrest him until they found out they had been taped by a security camera. Now, apparently security cameras are legal for businesses, for govn't installations, but according to the police department, are now illegal for securing your own home without the consent of the person that you don't want at your house.

Further, the police were there without a warrant, which means they are unallowed to sieze anything, including the video tape. Beyond that, although I suppose the man's front stoop is considered private property, you have no right outside of your own home to not be videotaped, as is apparent in any store/stadium/street/elevator/etc. as well as upheld by courts.

Now, I have to imagine that this will be crushed by the courts - I cannot believe that you cannot tape your own premises for safety - or WHATEVER - reason. Should you be allowed to, I am having flashbacks to reading 1984 with our hero hiding from the eyes of the ever-on cameras in his home.

Tin-foil hat aside, to your idea of whether or not this person was a PITA to the police at his house that night, well... it's apparently all on tape ;)

Re:sigh

[hahiss]

Not defending the charges in this case (which do seem 100% bogus), but I have found that if you respect the police, they will respect you.

It may depend on who you are, where you live, and what you look like. The experience of my African American friends is completely at odds with yours, and my experience varies depending on whether I look like I'm a college professor or Sid Vicious. (No matter how I dress, I behave like the former.) I also get treated better NOW (no matter how I dress) than I did as a youth (under similar circumstances). This isn't to say that all cops are evil jerks, just that I think your experiences here represent a kind of privilege that doesn't hold for everyone.

Re:sigh

[johansalk]

It depends where you are. In England they are very respectful by default, perhaps it's not carrying the guns that makes them so, you know, gun=prick. Perhaps it's a general, old-fashioned culture of politeness. This happens to be true of the older recruits more so than the new. The new, like all things in Britain, are not as well-mannered as their elders. So much so that, for the elder generation of the police, one of them could be heard saying "be careful, Sir" as he punches you in the face. I'm witness to that. Seen it happen.

Re:sigh

[ScottLindner]

What if the cop is the dirt bag?

I truly was given a speeding ticket at 3am on a Tuesday morning for driving 1MPH over the speed limit, cop was sitting right at the reduced speed sign where the speed dropped from 55MPH to 25MPH, and there was a light that was red immediately after the sign he was at. I was the only car on the road. I tried being nice.. he acted like a prick to me about it.

Cops are pricks.

Re:sigh

[Spud Stud]

Do the "cruiser-cams" in patrol cars record audio? Without my consent?

Re:sigh

[binary paladin]

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

[SealBeater]

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

[BigCheese]

Try I-35 north of KC. I make that trip a bit and most of the people I see are black or Hispanic.

It's called a DWB - Driving While Black (or Brown).

Hell, many years ago I was pulled over for driving a POS car in a affluent suburb.

That being said there are a lot of fine people serving as police in many parts of the country. There are also a awful lot of corrupt, mean, racist assholes out there. Depends on where you are.

If you think either one doesn't exist. You are mistaken.

Re:sigh

[Hard_Code]

Maybe there are other explanatory reasons that I either missed or weren't mentioned, but how would not letting cops in your house without a warrant, or even video/audio recording them be "obstructing Justice"? Now if they DID have a warrant and he didn't let them in, obviously that would be obstruction.

Re:sigh

[complexmath]

I've never had such experienced. They are pricks to you by default.

It isn't wise to dispute a blanket statement by making another blanket statement. Sure, the job does tend to attract people who want power over others, and the demand for police (it's a dangerous job with terrible pay) will likely keep the barrier for entry fairly low. However, I've met just as many policemen who took the job for far more noble or practical reasons. The truth is that any encounter with a policeman is a roll of the dice, and given the potential result of any such encounter, many people choose to avoid them. This is obviously particularly true of those from backgrounds where police experiences are typically bad: racial minorities, low income individuals, etc.

What likely happened here is as you'd expect. Some idiot police harrassed the defendant and when they discovered there was a tape of their behavior (most people ignore security stickers and such unless they're looking for that sort of thing) they decided the best course of action was to lean on the guy in hopes that he'd either be cowed into not reporting them or that they'd luck out and get the original tape as "evidence" in the short time before their case was thrown out as baseless.

A friend's father found himself in a similar situation a few years back. He was riding his bicycle through a park in a fairly nasty city and a policecar sped by and clipped him, knocking him off his bike, injuring him, and wrecking the bike. The bicyclist got up and made a rude gesture as the police car sped off and the police car stopped, returned, and the policeman arrested the bicyclist for "obstructing justice." The case was thrown out shortly afterwords, but as far as I know the policeman was never brought up on charges of a hit & run or anything like that.

Re:sigh

[wealthychef]

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.

Re:sigh

[dukeisgod]

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.

Re:sigh

[saintlupus]

looks like an uncooperative, verbally abusive redneck.

Why do people think that "redneck" (or "hillbilly", or "white trash") is a socially acceptable term? Let's try substituting some other stuff.

"Looks like an uncooperative, verbally abusive nigger."

"Looks like an uncooperative, verbally abuse spic."

"Looks like an uncooperative, verbally abusive gook."

It's about the same class of word. Please, have a little respect, especially for someone you obviously don't know personally. Judging someone by their appearance is bad enough. Using racist language on top of it makes you look like the fool.

--saint

Re:sigh

[jay2003]

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.

Re:sigh

[M0b1u5]

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

[NynexNinja]

You lack understanding on several grounds. First, you forget that police are public servants of the state government, and as such they are not treated the same way with respect to monitoring of audio/video that ordinary citizens do. The same way that the police have the ability to record their communications with the public, the public also has the right to record their communications with the police, or any other state government agency acting on the public's behalf for that matter. Secondly, this recording occurred on the private property owned by this individual, so just in the same way that a corporation can monitor the actions of employees working on their private property, citizens also have this right. Thirdly, there was a sign in plain view with clear notification that monitoring was taking place on the private property of this individual.

Re:sigh

[Dare nMc]

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

ummm, 20% is not a "only" it's gotta be a embarrsing number to ya? (but about true in my best guess) , granted it isn't 99% (in the places I have experience.)

I have probably encounted 20 on duty cops, for a net total of 16 nice cops for 5 minutes each. one complete ass cop, with no clue of the law for a hour. and 3 jerks with attitudes for 15 minutes each. thats 80 minutes of positive re-enforcement, and 105 of negative. (oh take 15 minutes of that * 10 because I was soo mad that I was on the verge of hunting that bastard down after duty, luckily I cooled. Was after he mistook me for a ex-felon he had a run in with the same name.)

I do wish most jurors had the experience I had, because you would know that cops would tend to give tickets/arrests only to people they think are guilty. So when they get into court, they say whatever it takes to get the person convicted, because they already "know" their guilty. Before my experience it was a "why would the cop care he's not involved" So (at least some lie first to overcome the posibility that the defendent would also by dishonest later.)

I have turned in over 5 cops who have violated peoples rights.

was any ill effect handed to those 5? Seams judges don't care/don't respond to a dishonest officer. Actually had the judge tell me he knew (and could have easily proven) the cop was lyeing on my way out of the court, after finding me guilty of 1 of 4 (driving related) charges. Thinking it would make me feel better.

probably if the system punished the bad officers, instead of rewarding just on stuff like convictions... Perhaps the officers wouldn't go bad so often, or at least would get pushed out more.

Re:sigh

[kwandar]

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

I was with you up until this line. Now mind you, I'm Canadian so things may run differently, but how is refusing to tell police what you know and/or not supplying information, without there being a court order, obstruction?

You have my curiousity piqued; where does obstruction of justice start, and an individual's rights end?

Re:sigh

[soupforare]

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

Re:sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for this.

I am a reserve cop here in sunny CA. Yes, for those of you that aren't sure what that means-I am a volunteer cop. I don't get paid. I wear a uniform, I patrol on foot, I pull people over, I write tickets, and I call for backup.

Why do I do this? Because it is a public service a real way to be involved in the community.

I can tell you this, as well. Our Sheriff would hang a deputy by his toenails if he found out one of his men was pulling some of the stuff that has been described here. We have to smile and say 'sir' and 'maam' to the point where, literally, a line such as "Okay, sir, I am going to start pulling my trigger now, please duck" is not completely out of the question.

See what happens when YOU put on a uniform and are sent out alone to patrol a long highway on a Friday night, knowing you are at least 20 minutes alone after a call for help, even at insane speeds by your co-workers with the lights flashing. We put out lives on the line for the public, and rarely do we find people in the public who realize this.

Cops dont suck, we go after people who do suck. Get it? If we weren't there, those people who suck would be coming after you. Of course there are bad apples in uniform, but peace officers are being painted with a wide brush here. Are you winning to become a target for the betterment of you community? Do you have any idea what it feels like to bust into a house that you know is used for narcotics distribution, just wanting for the shotgun blast to come through the wall where your back is?

Try walking a mile in our shoes one day. Your perspective might change a little.

If you are nice to me, and if you don't look like you are trying to hide an open bottle of beer, and I don't see any evidence of drug use in your car, we're going to have a conversation. If you give me attitude (and this is a bad one here.. Give me attitude even if you have done nothing wrong, and I'll keep you at the side of the road for 45 minutes trying to figure out how many citations I can give you. My record was 10 and I only stopped because I got bored. The judge laughed at the guy when he showed up in court), or your record comes back that you are an unsafe driver, you might well get a ticket. However, you are just as likely to be able to drive away with 'a warning'.

Do I want power over other people? Hell no. I got involved after Sept. 11th. There was a need, and I stepped forward. What have YOU done?

Re:sigh

[kimvette]

Actually he may be able to sue the city, town, or state (depending on the jurisdiction of the signage at that location) for creating an entrapment zone. Dropping from 55 immediately to 25 is unreasonable. Not only that, if you slow down to more than 10mph under before the 25mph sign, you can get tagged for driving BELOW the legal limit (10mph below posted speed) or for hindering the flow of traffic, and if you coast down you get cops like that who happen to be one of the few assholes who make all police officers look bad.

Also, 1mph over the limit? That's within normal variance. Hell, many precincts will reprimand officers for writing anyone up for less than 5mph or 7mph over. Check the laws in your area, you may be able to file a complaint. They HAVE to provide some lenience for coasting down (e.g., they CANNOT write you up 10 feet after the speed drop, it's unreasonable and entrapment) and they HAVE to provide some lenience for terrain (e.g., on a long downgrade, don't be an asshole and write someone up for 1mph over, or if a steep grade, even 10mph might be reasonable given the alternative - brake fade rendering brakes useless).

That's like an officer pulling someone over for proceeding through a red light when the driver was previously waiting PAST THE WHITE LINE for an opportunity to proceed. The driver is OBLIGATED to proceed through the red light to clear the crosswalk and intersection, and yet I've seen people pulled over for precisely that. Following the law can get you fucked just as badly as ignoring it. Also, some officers like to pull people over for passing in passing zones (this happened to me) - why? Because the rookie "doesn't think passing zones should be legal." -- I begged that prick to write me up and then follow me to the station when I go talk with his supervisor (incidentally I've seen him around town since then and he's actually been pretty nice - I think he's gotten over his power trip of being an officer).

On the other hand, some officers aren't all that bad and will give verbal warning for extremely excessive speeds. Just like everyone else there are good officers and then there are assholes. Unfortunately, the parent happened to run into one of the assholes - probably a rookie.

Re:sigh

[macwhiz]

Ah, but if you read all of the statute, you'll read the part that says

"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.

I wonder... if you're standing in front of a surveilliance camera, on someone's front porch next to the street, and there are signs pointing out the camera... are you really justified in believing that the camera couldn't possibly be recording you?

Re:sigh

[kimvette]

Not all officers are like that - not by a long shot. In fact the asshole cops are in the vast minority.

Re:sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the rest of them rip down this "blue wall" bullshit, the assholes make the whole office smell like shit.

Every time someone whines about how cops get no "respect" I ask them what the "straight" cops do to earn it when the crooked ones lose it. A cop gets crooked and the "straight" ones are all over it to make sure that "one of their own" gets away with it.

Take for instance the recent HPD crime lab scandal in Houston. Years of perjury and tainted evidence, and when a defense attourney finally discovers that they've been lying on the stand about their DNA tests (and possibly ballistics and other tests as well) all the cops and prosecutors have NO idea that they've been lying all the time. They are SHOCKED by the fact that they've put away 100s of people on bogus evidence. They just thought they were always SO lucky that the number one suspect always came back as a match and everyone could go home early, right?

But hey, the good news is that now, after a year of an internal investigation (since the PD couldn't scrape together the pennies for an external audit) everything is hunky dory again and the HPD crime lab is ready to ride again.

The only DNA analyst fired in the Houston Police Department crime lab scandal got her job back Tuesday. Whooo-eee what's that STANK?!

Re:sigh

[marklark]

Sherm, thanks for your service.

I think what you're missing is that, without a search warrant, the police officer with his foot in the door is trespassing. Period.

Please have your warrant handy before attempting to search my home.

Please have your warrant handy before displacing my wife and children from our home.

It's simple, really.

Re:sigh

[wiredlogic]

Go be a cop for 18 years, then reply. Focus on what I was saying, not distorting it.

It's a shame. You've wasted 18 years of your life and you still don't know how to properly and legally execute a search on someone's private property.

Re:sigh

[AgNO3]

Wow, So being a cop for 18 years means you can violate civil rights because you THINK you are right.
Hmm. Lets go over the run down of bullshit things cops have done to just me (35 year old male)
Got pulled over once when a cop was behind me and he said after I ask why he pulled me over, "you where driving to carefully." NO KIDDING a cop car behind me and I was driving carefully. Then there was the time my girlfriend and I where driving in a car and I was pulled over and when I ask why he said he want to count the occupants of the car. So I counted for him, 2. Then there was the time I witnessed a cop car run a red light with none of its lights on and smash into a another car. The cops kept insisting that I did not see what I said I saw. Even to the extent that they tried to put words in my mouth through intimidation. That time was so bad I called a family friend of mine who is an FBI agent (lawyer would have charged me) to come to help me.

Then there was this Guy on his porch in the Bronx that got shot for reaching for his wallet. 41 times I believe. (Diallo's case)

There was a case in Devner of raiding the wrong house and killing the dude inside and then LIEING and puting a gun in the dudes hands. HOLLY SHIT.

http://v6.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~4330~11 29795,00.html

Now how about the cop in San Bernardino California that shot the air force security officer IN COLD BLOOD. http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,86767, 00.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS

Let me put it simple. You are a cop, (probably don't even know where the term cop comes from I bet, quick Google it) Have you ever heard of the Blackstone ratio? LOOK IT UP.

Here is a great post to a editorial comment on NYC police brutality.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0 6E1DD1239F935A35755C0A96F958260

Or maybe police cover there own asses.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14542prs20040128.ht ml

I mean Google searching for police abuse returns 70 million hits. Teen sex only returns 72 million. Seems that maybe Police abuse could be nearly as pervasive as teen sex. WTF?

If there is any doubt as to whether to shoot or not shoot. You DON'T SHOOT. I would rather the police offer was shot then he shoots an innocent person. Sorry but that is the job YOU CHOSE. The civilian has more of a right to survive a misunderstanding then you. If you are unsure of the outcome of the situation you withdrawl rather then risk an innocent life.

Re:sigh

[Xabraxas]

Not defending the charges in this case (which do seem 100% bogus), but I have found that if you respect the police, they will respect you. If you treat the cops like assholes, they'll probably do the same to you.

You must live in suburbia. I used to think the same thing when I lived in a nice quiet suburb. Now that I live in the city, amongst a predominatly minority population, I can see that that isn't the case. Being hassled by cops is a part of life now. For example I was accused of stealing a car by a cop while I was walking home from work one day. On another occasion a friend of mine was pulled over while driving home from my apartment at 2AM for having something hanging in his rearview mirror. The cops attempted to search his car, but being an intelligent citizen he refused because they had no probable cause, and the cop was rude as hell telling my friend that he must have something to hide if he was unwilling to have his car searched.

I have never had to deal with harrassment like that when I lived in the suburbs. The cops practically camp out in my apartment complex. One night I was walking home and there were five cops with their guns drawn patrolling my neighborhood on foot. It was a little frightening. One time I was a victim of fraud and I went to the police station to make a complaint and I was treated like the criminal. Let me just say that living in the city is an eye-opening experience (and I'm not talking Manhatten).

Now something definitely seems wrong with this police department since the charges are nonsense and it seems like, at that point, they are harassing the citizen. But they do mention the guy's kid is being investigated for some crimes, the guy hasn't been cooperative in the past, and has been verbally abusive. And my completely inappropriate "judge a book by its cover" sensors tell me that by looking at the guy's picture in the article, he rather looks like an uncooperative, verbally abusive redneck. So I suspect that while these charges against him are completely wrong and inappropriate, I get the distinct feeling this isn't some average Joe that's being randomly victimized for no reason by the police. I think there's more to the story here than we know.

That shouldn't matter. It's your right as an American to be a prick. There isn't a law against being an asshole, even though I don't like dealing with people like that either. Any customer facing job requires that you deal with pains in the ass, but as a professional you deal with it. Cops are supposed to be professionals. If it was a case of being uncooperative with the police during an investigation then you can be charged for that.

Re:sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:sigh

[pizpot]

The very fact that people are mentioning that THERE MAY BE MORE TO THIS STORY THAN stated in the article goes to show how police should not be above the law, and warrents are important. They are human, and have enemies, and people who they want to screw. Case in point.

Re:sigh

[TomRitchford]

Hey, Sherm, thanks for a very reasonable post!

I agree with you that it's only a small minority that causes the trouble. The cops I know are fine; but I used to live next door to a cocaine club and it was very clear then that the cops in the area were on the take. I'd sometimes complain to them after they were called to break up some fight at 6 in the morning and they'd say, "Hey, the place has a license!" and I'd say, "But it's 6 in the morning! By law they should have closed two hours ago! And they literally have piles of cocaine on the bar, go look!"

And they couldn't even look me in the eyes.

I've been here in New York City 20 years and I have to say that I've grown more and more frightened of the police. My friends are mainly older and two of them have told me flat out that they wouldn't let their kids enter the police force now. After the mass illegal arrests at the RNC where dozens of cops were proven by video to have perjured themselves repeatedly -- yet not one of them was even reprimanded -- I don't know a single politically active person who doesn't see a cop as a potential enemy now.

Oops, I started this with the intention of backing you up -- but it didn't work out. :-( Sorry, thanks for a polite and civilized comment anyway.

Re:sigh

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>And EVERY cop is dirty. Every single one of them.

Someone who had been stalking a Microsoft contractor drove onto the corporate campus waving his gun out the window. The Redmond SWAT team responded. They got him stopped, set up a perimeter, and started the wait-him-out routine. This routine includes SWAT officers getting refreshment breaks while the stalker doesn't.

I heard about this from a former cafeteria employee who was on the scene. The Redmond police loaded up their trays with odds and ends and beverages and went to the cashier. Then they discovered Microsoft's free beverage policy.

The police refused to accept 50-cent cans of soda for free. This escalated to a manager who finally made up a price for the free sodas so the police could live up to their department policy of not accepting gifts.

"Ask, and ye shall receive": you hire the mayor and the mayor hires the police chief. Make the same demands the citizens of Redmond did, and you can get the same results.

Re:sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Go be a cop for 18 years, then reply. Focus on what I was saying, not distorting it.

I am sorry, but that is the biggest cop-out I have ever seen.

Not cooperating with a police investigation is not obstructing, even if this is the previlent attitude among cops. Protection of our civil rights should be the first job of our police. If time on a police force is something that changes this view, then I would say you (and perhaps most police officers) have been on the job too long.

As far as I am concerned, this cop should be thrown off the police force, and barded from having any government job for having violated this guys rights. I don't know which bothers me more, that the majority of police don't share this view, or that time on a force reenforces the opposit view.

Re:sigh

[WedgeTalon]

Redneck is a race?

Re:sigh

[binary paladin]

I'm assuming you have never been arrested. I guess my clients just always seem to get arrested on the asshole shift. And even a cop who normally "isn't a prick" suddenly thinks you are the criminal devil incarnate the moment you mention your so-called "rights."

Most cops will be nice to you if you bend over and let them do whatever they want. Sure, sure. But whatever you do, don't assert your rights. Then you'll find that the majority become pricks, plain and simple because if you don't want to let them search your car or your house you MUST be hiding something and your MUST be a criminal.

Re:sigh

[CHESTER COPPERPOT]

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.

I think you have an ax to grind. It's not at all arbitrary and it isn't in "our society."

Police do risk their lives everyday. They have to deal with the mentally ill, drunks, druggies and domestic disturbances on a regular day-to-day basis. The problem is you /.'ers think that cops are going to die in some spectacular shoot out or car chase, when it is going to be that simple traffic stop or domestic disturbance when someone pulls a knife or gun on them when they aren't prepared for it.

And the risk of death isn't the only the problem, they risk their sanity and their physical health. You think it'd be easy to walk into heated situations dealing with them day-in-day out? It's going to take a toll physically and mentally. Police divorce and suicide are incredibly high for a subculture.

On the topic of heroes ... Every society and culture elevates certain individuals to hero status. Slashdot elevates Linus (whilst Bill gates is the devil) to that status on a regular basis. The term does get thrown around liberally. To persons outside the subculture, and the affect of the hero, it might seem we are crazy putting Linus to that level and Bill as the villain. Who are we to decide who is a hero or not? It seems to be quite an arbitrary label in its own right and made on a individual, personal and subjective level.

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.

I agree that they should serve with humility and compassion at times, however all the time isn't possible for a number of reasons. One reason I can think of is the dual purpose of policing. They must serve as a force and as a service. Or to put it as Thomas PM Barnett said of the "new" structure of the military, they must serve as a Leviathan and as a Systems admin service at once. A force to bring into line the nefarious elements of society and as a service to uphold the good and help society. It must be damn hard to walk the line between those completely different mindsets. One is a mindset of destruction and one of creation. Both are needed, but I bet you it pushes some police over the edge into the Leviathan mode more than service mode.

Oh, and where you claimed "And EVERY cop is dirty. Every single one of them. Either by their actions or their omissions." You know what I think would help cops not go dirty? By actually elevating them to some form of warrior/hero status which you so want to take away. This elevation might have a side effect of instilling a form of chivalric maxims or bushido code. It might take a cleaning out of the internal system, but for us on the outside holding them to a bushido/knights code of honor might very well hold them responsible for their action when they are dishonoured rather than them being just another "servant" as you put it. The word Servant also brings up powerful ideas. Servants are expendable, they also deal with menial tasks. Upholding the law is not menial task. Your use of the word servant shows more about your biases and grudge against the police than it does for an objective description of their role.

Re:sigh

[dbIII]

And EVERY cop is dirty. Every single one of them. Either by their actions or their omissions

I disagree with you - and I live in a state where at one point the police commissioner himself was taking drugs from the evidence room and replacing them with talc, and the police minister himself probably only avoided jail time by dying before his trial came up. When the way to advance rapidly in the police force was to be corrupt or to turn a blind eye, where the local press couldn't speak out due to the threat of losing the government advertising money that kept them afloat and there was nobody to report things to without being victimised the majority of the police force kept clean. It probably was the police union that kept them going. The corrupt portion of the force was known as "the joke" - the place was Queensland, Australia and it all came out in 1988. You get corrupt police rising rapidly to the top when you have corrupt government - I suspect you should do what we did and get rid of elected officials that are on the take and you'll find it sorts itself out fairly rapidly afterwards. As a side effect of getting rid of elected officials that are on the take you'll probably get rid of a few of those weird laws pushed by a tax dodging Hollywood and recording industry.

Re:sigh

[letxa2000]

She went to a payphone and called 911 and hung around till the cops came. No ambulance, just cops. Nobody heard from him for a week until he turned up as a John Doe at UCI, comatose with no wallet. We know he had his wallet on him because the reason he was in Mission Viejo was to pick up his wallet from his friend's house. A request for the police report got the 1st of 9 pages. The last 8 pages cannot be found. The doctor at UCI told my aunt that the injury he had could only be cause by upward blunt trauma to the nose and normally would cause INSTANT paralysis. Cops say he hit his face on the handlebars. Of course, the ONLY damage to his face is to his nose.

So what are you saying? That a lady called 911 and reported the thing and at that point the decision was already made to screw your cousin over? Obviously so, otherwise an ambulance would have been sent. Instead, they send cops who found an injured person on the side of the road with a witness (the lady) hanging around and, after the fact, decided to beat the crap out of someone who had his foot impaled on the foot rest, take his wallet, and leave him in a coma in the hospital?

I'm sorry, sir, I'm just not buying it.

Re:sigh

[anaesthetica]

Redneck is a derogatory ethnic term used to refer to denizens of Appalachia and the South principally. Those areas were predominantly settled by Scotch-Irish (there are several studies showing how the modern Southern accent is derived from Scotch and Irish speech patterns). The racism of the English toward their Celtic neighbors carried over to the United States and continues in the long tradition of mocking "redneck" speech and culture. How many times have you used a Southern accent mockingly to demonstrate someone's stupidity? Happens all the time. When the United States first experienced mass immigration from Ireland, the Irish weren't considered "white" by the existing English settlers. So yes, calling people "rednecks" is a racial slur.

Re:sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

So, even if you are EXTREMELY polite and VERY accommodating

Actually cops take classes in how to handle people, control the mood and environment, and abuse any accommodation offered. My buddy who was a cop suggesteded a minimum respect rule, don't go out of your way to be rude, but don't go out of your way to be polite either, and never ever offer anything - because they will abuse that and turn into permission to search your home/car/person/bags. He also said cops will strongly imply that they have powers and rights that they do not have. He told stories all the time about people who allowed themselves to be browbeat or tricked into letting cops search their property when they didn't have to.

Don't be a trash talking moron, but don't expect the cops to ever treat you as anything but an enemy.

Re:sigh

[JudgeFurious]

I'm a former cop and I think you're dead wrong. You're painting a large group of people who do a generally unpleasant job with a very large brush. I didn't call it "heroic" you'll notice. It's not. It's mostly long shifts of boredom punctuated by a very few moments of scared shitless.

  Every cop is not "dirty". You just don't know shit about cops. It's understandable really. Not many people really do know what they're talking about when they decide to start venting on law enforcement. People all want the world to work the way it's supposed to but nobody wants to be inconvenienced by the law themselves. Let me drive faster than the speed limit, don't give me any shit about the smell of beer on my breath, and get out of my yard because it's my right to kick my old lady's ass if she's out of line.

  If you think cops are all total pricks you should see some of the total pricks they have to deal with.

  Actual strike that comment. It wouldn't do you any good. You probably are one.

Re:sigh

[FishinDave]

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.

Re:sigh

[Madcapjack]

Sure, not all cops are assholes. I believe you. Only about half of the ones I've met were. Some were really helpful, really. Others were unneccesarily rude, threatening, and yes, racist. sometimes its hard to blame them, since yeah, they are stressed out a lot, and deal with the pricks of society regularly. more than that- a lot of folks don't like to even hang out with off-duty cops- who feels comfortable with the law breathing down your shoulder all the time? but I do blame them. i blame the bad cops for being bad, and the good cops for not doing much about the bad cops. its not like it isn't in my family- my uncle was a cop, and a complete jerk who liked to scare the holy shit out of little kids, and endulged in a few shady activities. So should cops be painted with so broad a brush? no, but they ought to start thinking about why so many people are ready to do so- without going into lame excuses, much less about being misunderstood. and yes, a lot of on duty cops regularly violate traffic laws- and it pisses a lot of people off.

Re:sigh

[glesga_kiss]

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.

Wise words. Here's the proof:

The Milgram Experiement, which proves that most people are capable of torturing and killing given the right conditions.

Stanford prison experiment where randomly choosen guards/prisoners degraded into some of the worst abuses of authority in any experiement. It had to be stopped early it got so bad.

Ask the President

[neonprimetime]

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?

Re:Ask the President

[KaotiX]

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

Don't you mean, illegally?

Re:Ask the President

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a total load of crap.

Madison -- the father of the bill of rights argued against them on the grounds they weren't needed because the federal government didn't have the right to make laws breaking those things anyway. Our consitution explicitly denies the president all powers and then grants him specific ones.

It's not the other way around. Just because they feel like they can write a bill on whatever they want doesn't mean they have the right to.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[dakryx]

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

Ugh!

[gentimjs]

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!

[alshithead]

New Hampshire law specifically allows law enforcement purposes. There's a link at the bottom of the article to New Hampshire's wiretapping laws.

Re:Ugh!

[Onan]

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

Re:Ugh!

[Plugh]

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 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

Re:Ugh!

[soft_guy]

New Hampshire law specifically allows law enforcement purposes.

Are police the only ones allowed to enforce the law?

Re:Ugh!

[arivanov]

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!

[alshithead]

My opinion is that anyone should be able to record their interactions with the police in any manner. I would never have thought that it might be illegal to video or audio tape on the premises of my own residence much less the interaction with a public official on my own property.

Re:Ugh!

[TubeSteak]

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

That's true about the government.

But this isn't the government, this is the police.
The police aren't accountable to you.
They're accountable to their boss.

In simplified terms:
Police --> Bosses --> Chief of Police (&/or Commissioner) --> Mayor

Some places elect the Chief of Police, in other places the Mayor or a commission appoints them. Either way, a problem with the police has to be escalated through several layers before you deal with anyone publicly accountable.

Re:Ugh!

[alshithead]

In most jurisdictions, yes. They have what are called "police powers" that regular citizens don't have. You can make a citizens arrest in some jurisdictions but if you don't do it by the book you'll be in jail too...and probably sued.

Re:Ugh!

[Simplulo]

My home town is Simi Valley, home of the Rodney King trial. Think of all the rioting that was caused by someone videotaping police brutality. Mercifully this will never happen in New Hampshire. Pass the soma, please.

Re:Ugh!

[ThomaMelas]

It's not the video that causes the problem. It's the audio recording. NH is a two party consent state (ie both parties have to agree to the recording) as opposed to the federal standard of one party consent.

Re:Ugh!

[Plugh]

No doubt. We'd have a hell of a lot of work to do wherever we landed!

Make no mistake: the Free State Project is not about moving someplace already free; it's about moving the most active pro-Freedom people to a place that can be freed, with a hell of a lot of hard work. See the 101 reasons NH should be the Free State info that the NH Libertarian Party put together before the vote was taken on which would be the designated Free State.

Re:Ugh!

[jazman_777]

This occured in Alabama.

Yo, Vinny! How are ya?

Re:Ugh!

[misanthrope101]

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."

Re:Ugh!

[misanthrope101]

Check out the number of people released from death row every year, often with coerced confessions. Well, also lying witnesses, jailhouse snitches, etc, too, but to say that cops "roughing someone up" is a rare occurrence may be stretching it a bit. I don't think all confessions are coerced, but other things go on, too. How would a jury react to watching cops tell a mother that she would lose her children if she didn't talk, or telling a teenager "we're going to charge YOU if you don't tell us about your friend--we don't care either way, but someone's going down." Is that abuse? Probably not, but it might cast an interesting light on the boy-scout image cops portray on the stand. Juries should see how these things happen. On the other side of the coin, it would also minimize frivolous lawsuits, so save the public some money.

Re:Ugh!

[Alchemar]

They just had that problem in Houston. I lawyer on a DWI case noticed that the audio kept dropping from the in car recorder every time that the officer had to explain that the suspect was slurring his speach right there. The lawyer got a judge to allow him to look at all the previous tapes made by that officer. If it was an expensive car with a not to positive case, the audio cut out. If it was definately a DWI, or a lower priced car, the audio was fine. The officer doubled his salary be having to sit in court collecting overtime for all the cases that suspects had enough money to defend themselves from bogus DWI charges.

This is absurd on so many levels

[mrchaotica]

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

[Politburo]

I don't think this episode is representative of NH. It sounds like your typical cop abusing their power.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[rsilvergun]

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

[Triv]

You're thinking of the FreeState Project. It was initially supposed to be Vermont, but New Hampshire Won out in the end.

--Triv

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[mrchaotica]

Libertarians are many things, but they are certainly not hippies! You must be thinking of Greens.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[malchus842]

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

[Telvin_3d]

You have to be joking
What this is is a perfect example of the opposite. The judge needs to award costs, and a little extra for the trouble and tell the cops to stop acting like idiots. End of case. No lasting dmage has been done to anyone, as long as the law gets laid down in a blunt manner nothing else is needed.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[shrubya]

Huh? There's plenty of Libertarian hippies. Not quite as many as gun-nuts or anarcho-capitalists, but they're in there.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[dmatos]

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

[Plugh]

Yes, New Hampshire is the target of the Free State Project; I am one of the First 1000 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, or see our fight against the National ID here

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[soft_guy]

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

[Baricom]

No lasting dmage has been done to anyone

Felony arrests usually show up on background checks. I hope he doesn't need to find a job any time soon.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[Foobar of Borg]

Number one rule - never let the police in your house unless they have a search warrant.

Quite true, but in this case he didn't let the policeman in his house. The police officer stuck his foot in the doorway and wouldn't leave when specifically told to by the owner. Unfortunately, it is not too uncommon for police to pull crap like this. But you are definitely right. Since there are some cops who get off on bringing people in, you should never say anything, and be damn careful what you say even if you are the one reporting the crime.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[Zack]

Did you really just source the Onion to try to prove a point?

Really?

No... you didn't.... did you?

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[gravis_23]

Umm why would you EVER kill a smoking ban? Don't you know that smoking will kill you, and negatively impact EVERYONE who inhales your cigarette smoke? How can you be so daft?

Enjoy New Hampshire. Don't ever leave. Then we'll never have to meet.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[$1uck]

I'll go one up on you.... someone I know who happens to be an Assistant District Attorney gave this bit of advice:
Don't say anything to the police period. Anything you need to say to them can be said in court. Granted if you have a lawyer, and are wanting to strike a bargain it may be in your interest to talk, but always do so with a lawyer present.
Just to repeat the police are not your friends.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[The One and Only]

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]

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

[truthsearch]

I say no lawsuits. Every police officer directly involved should be fired. If they've been instructed or ordered to act in such a way then whoever instructed them should be fired. That's a financial punishment to the cops involved and a warning to others who think it will be tolerated.

If this is part of their training then the legislature should order the training be changed.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[finkployd]

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

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[Plugh]

The 20,000 number was really a total guess, based on the notion that Free Staters would not be that active. Given the amount of activity here in-state, most of us who have actually moved estimate we really only need a few hundred people. If those people are willing to run for office, and assist in other people's campaigns, this already largely independent state is likely to go "tipping-point". Yes, the number of new signups is low, and I wish it were higher, but that's not the prime focus, really. Every single person who moves here has an impact so, so much greater than they could in any other state, thanks to the low population, mostly classically liberal culture, and open structure of government.

It's easy to nay-say on the sidelines. It's just so much bullshitting unless you're willing to at least give it a shot.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[geekoid]

Except it is BAD FOR OTHER PEOPLE. What about the right of the people who don't spew poison into the air?

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[Plugh]

The smoking ban would have applied to all bars and restaurants. Places that are *privately* owned, where the owner can damn well set a non-smoking policy if he or she wants to, and where patrons can choose not to enter a clearly-marked "smoking allowed here" bar. Nobody has to participate -- th ewhole point is that the acceptable level of risk is for individuals to choose. Not the goddamn government.

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.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[metamatic]

New Hampshire is a beautiful state, and parts of the state are within commuting distance of Boston, allowing a few decent opportunities.

If right-wing Libertarianism is so freakin' great, why is it that Liberal high-tax Massachusetts is where you all have to go to get a job?

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[jay2003]

Actually, I like to see every citizen get a special line item on their property tax showing how much their share of police misconduct payouts is. In some cities, like Oakland, these settlements and verdicts run into the millions every year. The citizens don't realize how much of their dollars are being wasted because of police misconduct. If the voters knew they were paying $50/year a piece so the police could abuse the citizenry, they might pay a little more attention at the ballot box.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[MoneyT]

They can go somewhere else. No one forces you to eat at any particular restraunt, and you have no right to tell an owner he can't allow smoking there.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[WeAreAllDoomed]

When Officer Smith has to keep his old, ratty patrol car for another year because Officer Jones was an asshat, Officer Jones becomes unpopular. Peer pressure is powerful.

officer jones doesn't care so much about officer smith as much as they both do about chief brody. and chief brody catches hell from the mayor when the municipality gets hit with repeated penalties.

the goal of enforcement is to keep at bay a culture of corruption and mutual cya-ism in the police force. this is a matter of (unwritten) department policy, not individual behavior. if the culture isn't changed, you can be sure that incoming police officers will adapt to the culture rather than worry about the one-in-a-thousand chance that they'll get nailed by some guy with a video camera.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[Dun Malg]

And seat belt laws are not for the protection of the driver; they're for people around the driver because the seat belt keeps the driver at the controls after the initial impact.

Citation, please? I call bullshit. Seatbelts are designed to prevent injury. In any accident severe enough for the seat belt to perform it is unlikely that controlling the vehicle is even possible. If it was about control, they'd mandate 4-point restraints instead of collarbone-snapping diagonal shoulder belts. You ever tried to steer with a broken collarbone? How about early seat belts, which were only lap belts? Were they designed to keep you in control of the vehicle after your skull bounces off the steering wheel?

Somebody seriously f'd up.

[ivan256]

Did these guys think that because they were the cops, they didn't have to answer to anybody? If the contents of the tape is what this family says it is, some hard lessons are going to be learned. Unfortunatly, the people who are going to pay are the taxpayers, and not the cops themselves.

Not All Powerful

[Mikkeles]

The law cannot protect you from the police.

Time for a new state motto.

[base3]

"Live Free or Die," indeed.

That sad part is

[Serapth]

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]

according to wcusurveillance 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]

"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?

[Politburo]

Since this happened on the doorstep, I don't think it qualifies. However, I don't know NH case law on this aspect. Furthermore, if there was a clear sign and the officer maintained their presence in the area, they were giving implicit permission.

Re:Unlawful to record your home?

[MooseTick]

"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.

Re:Unlawful to record your home?

[bishiraver]

IANAL. This sounds like a law made to prevent OTHER people from recording your home. However, it certainly does seem to be able to be construed to mean that you yourself cannot record your home. HOWEVER, the law ALSO defines a private place as one where "a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance." Since when should a police officer reasonably expect to be safe from recording, if he's on your front porch? That's a public area. If this were taken to trial and the man found guilty, this could have terrrrible rammifications. It means that home-video evidence of crimes could be dismissed from evidence because they were gained illegally (example: woman has hidden video recording, husband starts beating her; woman calls 911, man breaks into her house and doesn't notice the phone off the hook as he beats her unconscious; parents set up nannycam and find their nanny shaking their child to death. In all of these cases, the video / audio recordings could be thrown out of court if this law were twisted to mean what these police officers want it to mean)

Re:Unlawful to record your home?

[John Leeming]

The key to these laws in these states is "covert", even if not explicitly stated in the law.

If the camera is in plain view, anywhere, it is not "covert". If there are signs posted, it is not "covert".

Recall, this is an issue with the so-called "nanny-cams", several cases of which are still winding through the courts; the defense being that it is within the walls of the home negates the issue of being "covert", as one can do anything within reason within one's own home.

It does not, however, trump the consent to be recorded issue, though that's usually done by the court "in the interest and furtherance of justice".

This does, however, raise an interesting possibility...

Taken as presented, it is possible that by stating "I do not consent to being recorded" when pulled over by a highway patrol officer, any attempt to use that recording for conviction may be voidable since it negates Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent (and assuming that you don't blather on thinking that your words automagically protect your Fifth Amendment rights). Pleading the Fifth, then continuing to talk, is seen as waiving the Fifth by the courts.

By extension, this might apply to the use of radar; while courts recognize "plain view" as acceptable, the fact that an officer has to use a sophisticated device to record your actions without your consent (which is not granted by the issuance and acceptance of a driver's license, by the way), negates the "plain view" applicability here. You can grow marijuana in your back yard, and the police may suspect, but many a potential conviction has been tossed out because an officer placed a brick or box down and used it to stand on to look over the fence. "Plain view" means "plain view", not "plain view if you use something to get past what's blocking your ability to see".

Mr. Gannon may have an interesting precedent looming in any pending court action on his arrest.

Re:Unlawful to record your home?

[symlink]

"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.
Not only that, but can the outside of someone's property really be considered a private place? Private property, maybe.. but "private place" implies an expectation of privacy. Can you have an expectation of privacy if you are outdoors where anyone can see/hear you?

D'oh.

[TheRequiem13]

Well, I feel like a dolt.
:/ Live and learn to read.


I guess I assumed there wouldn't have been any issue with a sign.

New Hampshire Wiretap laws

[alshithead]

There's a link at the bottom of the article to New Hampshire's wiretapping laws. I'm not a lawyer but the way it reads to me is that you must give permission in order to be audio taped. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. It could be that by posting signs then you give tacit approval if you choose to come on the property. Or, maybe posting signs isn't sufficient and you have to have someone agree to taping before starting. I did also note that the cops have exemptions that allow their patrol cars to tape as well as other law enforcement exemptions.

Slow news day

[PCM2]

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!

Re:Slow news day

[Moo Moo Cow of Death]

In most states, no you do not need to have another parties consent to record their phone call. In ALL states that have those laws you can record if they say they are going to record. In ALL states you can record person(s) on your property both video and audio, no restrictions. So no, they (the police) were wrong on almost every count and can be sued. With a good lawyer, they'll probably get quite a bit of money.

Re:Slow news day

[Hallow]

"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."

It's not federal law. Wiretapping statutes vary on a state-by-state basis. If the taping occurs in Virginia, for example, only one party needs to know and consent. However if the taping occurs in Maryland, all parties must give consent.

Re:Slow news day

[thorholiday]

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.

Actually, only a handful of states require notification of all involved parties. Most only require one-party notification.

http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-amer ica.htm#The%20US%20Federal%20Law

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[neonprimetime]

Yes, but the summary did not say a $5 sign ... I'm sure Gannon's signs were the cheap ones from WalMart ... for about $1 ... and you know those just don't hold up in court.

Unbelievable

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see. Someone comes on his property, stands in full view of the owner and anyone walking down the street, the owner videotapes him and then uses the tape to try to lodge a complaint and they charge the property owner with a crime? Worse yet they try to use eavesdropping and wiretapping laws when he filmed the cop in public view on his private property. If he's convicted then we are really living in a fascist state.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[ModernGeek]

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.

Looks like he had already done that. This kind of stuff is ridiculous, I can't believe Americans are putting up with this kind of shit from the people we pay to protect our cities. More and more rights being taken away. My only question is how having security cameras on your own private property is against wiretapping laws? I bet this family is going to make a killing after they get done with that PD.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[teklob]

It appears as though he did have a sign stating exactly that. Bottom line in these sorts of scenarios is that the police are the ones with the guns. I applaud this guy, because the video tape will show exactly who was doing what and I have a strong suspicion that the cops are at fault.

Police State USA, here we come.

[denis-The-menace]

All we need now are a few more of these incidents, a few FOX reports siding with the police and the conversion will be complete.

Sad but true.

Civil Liberties

[31415926535897]

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)."

Obviously this means that his civil liberties can be trampled on.

Re:Will the ACLU take this case?

[MasterShake]

Actually, this isn't a free press issue either. IIRC, you are allowed to record whatever you want on your own private property. This includes phone conversations and video of whatever happens on the property.

Also, when on public property, there is no right to privacy (The right to privacy is also not explicitly stated in the constitution or any of the amendments as many people believe. It is, according to case law, implied however.) The dash cams are recording you while you and the officer are both on public property (the roads).

Note, I do think that privacy should be explicitly protected and very probably in the constitution.

If you record your own property, you do not need to notify anyone that you are recording (think video surveilance of stores.)

IANAL, however I have had the benefit of 20+ years of hanging around police officers at home. The exact limits of where you do and do not have the right to privacy and what forms of surveilance are legal will probably vary somewhat by state. YMMV

you CAN have a judge throw out a case....

[ModernGeek]

What you do is make a motion for dismissal based on prejudice. Show the judge what you got before your court-date and write up the motion. You'll find most judges/upper people in the COURTS to be cool. Just don't go to the PD to try and get anything done. It's how I got rid of my speeding ticket :D (IANAL)

Muppets

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> arrested for videotaping police

I can imagine the Muppets' skit now, "Piiiiggggggs onnnnn Taaaaaappppe".

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[pete6677]

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.

Albuquerque doing this too

[spun]

Here in Albuquerque police did something similar recently. The police have been cracking down on drinking of any kind. Police were stopping all patrons leaving a particular bar and breath testing them. Even patrons taking a cab or a limo were harrassed. The bar owner had a friend come and videotape them. They said he was interfering with a police investigation, and since some of the officers also worked undercover, he was endangering the officers. So they arrested him. His friend started to videotape them arresting him, so they arrested the friend. Then the bar owner came out and started videotaping them arresting friend one and friend two, so they arrested the owner. Never mind these supposedly undercover cops were in full uniform on a busy street, they were endangered by these evil videotapers.

On the other hand, not all cops are bad. Once in college I got a flat tire while driving an unregistered uninsured hippy painted VW bus carrying a bag of weed. A nice officer stopped (in the rain no less) and helped me change the tire without even checking my license or registration, let alone whether a hippy painted VW bus might have contraband onboard.

On the third hand (yes, it's a Larry Niven reference) I've seen cops beat my friends for trying to feed homeless people on the street in San Francisco. Then they poured our soup down the drain and poured bleach over our bagels right in front of about 100 homeless folks.

So YMMV where police are concerned, some are cool, some are total dicks.

Re:Will the ACLU take this case?

[badasscat]

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.

flex your rights

[ChristTrekker]

In that vein, here's something a friend pointed me to just today.

Problem

[warp1]

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!]

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

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

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.

Re:Problem

[Sir_Real]

Same problem in Broward Fl. clicky

officer: Where do you live? Where do you live? You have to tell me where you live, what your name is, or anything like that.

tester: For a complaint? I mean, like, if I have --

officer: Are you on medications?

tester: Why would you ask me something like that?

officer: Because you're not answering any of my questions.

tester: Am I on medications?

officer: I asked you. It's a free country. I can ask you that.

tester: Okay, you're right.

officer: So you're not going to tell me who you are, you're not going to tell me what the problem is.You're not going to identify yourself.

tester: All I asked you was, like, how do I contact --

officer: You said you have a complaint. You say my officers are acting in an inappropriate manner.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Nashua Police Contact Information

[catch23]

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

Clarification

[Khammurabi]

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.

Actually, that's not quite true. If the officer asked the individual to watch his language or curb his swearing, and the individual went ahead and still swore away, the police can charge him with disorderly conduct. From my understanding, "disorderly conduct" is usually written in a vague enough fashion so that police can charge any person who disobeys (does not follow) a police warning or order, no matter how rediculous it may be. If the officer's request is later found to be illegal you can sue, but it's best to do what the officer says to avoid legal headaches.

The owner probably should have had a sign posted, to avoid all of this legal hassle. Simply stating to the officer that he or she is being videotaped makes for a shaky "who are you going to believe" argument. A key issue that I don't see listed is whether the owner turned on the system in response to the officer knocking at the door. If the individual was not running a continuous surveillance loop, it could be argued that the person merely installed the camera system to target certain individuals or the police.

Irregardless of the legal feasiblity of the charge, the charge sounds like a load of B.S. The owner may be a jerk, have two sons who are frequently at odds with the law, and may not feel inclined to rat on his own children whenever the police come around, but that doesn't give the police the right to make bogus charges and penalize the individual however they see fit. Even dicks have certain rights guaranteed and should be able to live without being harassed by police.

Re:Clarification

[VAXcat]

Yes, you're wrong. Supreme Court case Houston vs. Hill prety much settled this one...and the case of Ralph Duran proved it even further. These cases vastly reduced the number of people "taken downtown for mouthing off".

duh!

[frovingslosh]

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

Jury duty

[HangingChad]

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.

No kiddin'.

[Rimbo]

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:whoa whoa whoa there

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[rot26]

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.

Maybe where you live. Where I live (Florida) it's legal to record video without ANY warning whatsoever. Recording audio requires notification, but a notice posted on the door is sufficient.

oversight

[j1m 5n0w]

The police are public servants. Not only should it be legal to videotape them, it should be encouraged as part of citizen oversight!

Quite true. I have long suspected that the single most effective defense against most abuses of power is a camera (at least in civilized places where public opinion matters). Without video footage, no one will believe the abuses really happened.

Ubiquitous surveilance is often seen as a tool of big brother, but it can also be a tool against oppression as well. Imagine a society in which many people wear a webcam attached to an ipod-like device with a ring buffer storing everything the wearer sees. Then imagine you are a corrupt police officer who likes to intimidate and/or abuse certain people. Would it give you pause if you knew your actions were quite likely to show up on the news the next day?

Well...

[DaSenator]

...IANAL (yet), though I am currently in law school. The law itself is not directly pertinent to the defendant.

First, the definitions as listed in the law.

570-A:1 Definitions. - As used in this chapter:

...
V. "Person" means any employee or agent of the state or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation.

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.

If you record them...

[Anonymous Coward]

...make sure you have something on them.

(posting anonymously for this one)

It worked for me when I tried to get a bunch of Boston & Mass. State Police officers to stop drinking and tossing their empties on our street. After complaining to them directly and failing to have an effect, I went out with my camera the next night and positioned myself prominently. One confronted me and showed me his badge, which I deliberately requested to look at in detail; and when I recited exactly what I'd watched them do over the past several minutes, I sensed him noticing my camera. Second thoughts, maybe? He left, I never made a report to his superiors, and the problem fixed itself.

P.S. I subsequently have had wonderful experiences (unrelated to any of this) with Boston Police officers patrolling our neighborhood. In one case I spent a day in court as a potential witness with a couple of officers who had helped me apprehend a break-and-enter theif, only to have the a$$wipe judge decline to hear me or the cops and set the sentence to time served. So this guy with a 20-year, 14 page criminal record is back on the street ready to be picked up again. Anyway, just wanted to be clear I support these guys in general, and lament that the liberal, spineless Boston judicial system doesn't make their jobs any easier.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[PB_TPU_40]

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.

smoking kills everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already scored victories ... we killed a proposed statewide smoking ban

Gosh, thanks for fighting for the freedom to pollute and cause involuntary health problems for others!

Re:smoking kills everyone

[MojoRilla]

The US Surgeon General has just released a 670 page report stating that there are no safe levels of second hand smoke.

From CNN:

More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans are regularly exposed to someone else's tobacco smoke, and tens of thousands die each year as a result, concludes the 670-page study. It cites "overwhelming scientific evidence" that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and a list of other illnesses.

Of course, the US Surgeon General and overwealming scientific evidence are much less convincing about smoking dangers than joemawlma, so please listen to him.

NH Statute 644:9

[Spritzer]

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 644:9 states:

II. As used in this section, "private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from surveillance including public restrooms, locker rooms, the interior of one's dwelling place, or any place where a person's private body parts including genitalia, buttocks, or female breasts may be exposed.

This would suggest that a front porch is fair game as it is not private. . Unfortunately, paragraph I states:

I. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person unlawfully and without the consent of the persons entitled to privacy therein, installs or uses: ... (c) Outside a private place, any device for the purpose of hearing, recording, amplifying, broadcasting, or in any way transmitting images or sounds originating in such place which would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible outside such place.

This would imply that a CCTV camera with a recorder in another room is illegal. What I can't seem to find is any statute referring to a felony. I'm thinking we have another case of idiot cops on a power trip getting caught and digging their hole deeper trying to hide it.

Re:NH Statute 644:9

[kavau]

Just read the paragraph carefully:

"A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person unlawfully and without the consent of the persons entitled to privacy therein, installs or uses: ...

The police officer's are not entitled to privacy in this guy's front yard, since they (hopefully) wouldn't expose their genitalia there. So they don't have to give their consent, and it's not a misdemeanor.

wtf

[moxley]

Unfortunately I think this is where we're all headed. Should you use the sort of evidence "the authorities" use against citizens to prove misconduct on their part and you are either a "terra-ist" or are violating felony wiretap laws...Even on your own property? wtf..

Maybe Mr Gannon should have said "The Camera is there to keep America safe from "terra-ists." - that seems to be the "get out of constitutional protections free card" du-jour...

Maybe Mr Gannon didn't know that America is fast becoming a fascist kleptocracy...

This just seems ridiculous, the guy was on his own property - I would think he'd have a better chance of pressing trespassing charges against the "officer" then some corrupt police department that is being terribly abusive with their autority would have of charging him with these felonies.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not down on all cops or law enforcement officers - there are some who do a great job and respect the law and constitution, but this kind of thing is becoming all to common.

get this straight, okay?

[misanthrope101]

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]

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

NH is a two-party consent state, for recordings

[Anonymous Coward]

NH is a two-party consent state, where the two parties (or all parties, if more than 2) must consent to the recording (audio and/or video). The full text of the NH state regulations, along with penalties and exceptions, are in NH RSA CHAPTER 570-A
WIRETAPPING AND EAVESDROPPING at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lviii/570 -a/570-a-mrg.htm

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[ThomaMelas]

It's not the video, it's the audio. The law isn't really aimed at CCTV systems but telephone recording. The problem is that a mike is a mic and a recording medium is a recording medium. Simple solution? Don't record audio.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[kontos]

The NH law says that All parties to the conversation must consent. If the article is accurate, this should be a pretty quick case, and the poor homeowner is screwed.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[Caradoc]

I hope every citizen in that town files lawsuits for the same behavior for the dash cameras that every one of their police cars has.

Both sound and audio?

[alanthenerd]

The security cameras record sound and audio

Both sound and audio eh? Funny, I kinda thought they were the same thing

I called the Nashua Police

[mlwmohawk]

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.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[turgid]

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

Only partial sympathy

[Hoi Polloi]

There seems to be a lot of blame to pass around. The cops overreacted to being disrespected and the dad is shielding his (seemingly) rotten son.

The article has some delicious irony in it.

"She said they installed the [camera] system in response to crime in the neighborhood, and at their house."

"Karlis was investigating the Gannons' 15-year-old son in connection with a June 21 mugging outside Margaritas restaurant, for which two other teens already have been charged, according to police reports. The boy also is charged with possessing a handgun stolen three years ago in Vermont, and resisting detention, police said."

Sound like they just need to videotape their kid.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[Mistlefoot]

And every store and bank in New Hampshire that has a video camera is violating the same law? This is absolutely the silliest arrest I've read of in a long long time.

There was no reasonable expectation of privacy

[Atroxodisse]

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.

Oh, Canada!

[WebCowboy]

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:Private property?

[psykocrime]

Since when cant we videotape what happens on OUR OWN FUCKING PROPERTY?

Since we all forgot that we are sovereign individuals, and not subjects of any
nation-state or government; since we all began to accept that the government
has some intrinsic authority which overrules our own sovereignty; since we
all began to believe that we answer to the government, instead of them
answering to us; since we all forgot that we are EXACTLY as free as we
CHOOSE to be; since we all forgot that we have as much freedom as we
choose to have and are willing to defend.

To add to that

[phorm]

A private place is one where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance.

The guy had signs posted. I wouldn't reasonably expect to be "safe" from surveillance in a place where there were actually signs stating surveillance was used...

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[hammock]

Everything you describe would be OK in Old America. Now in New America, since you jackasses voted Bush in, the Constitution is about as valuable as a used piece of toilet paper, since using the 911 attacks that he orchestrated to justify deleting the citizens' rights to _everything_.

Terrorist this, NSA spying that, the United States is the scariest place on Earth.

Re:We should all be thanking W......

[yndrd1984]

The argument of "the Democrats are worse" is pretty much run out. It can't GET worse than now.

Yes, it can get worse - "President Ann Coulter".

Modded up?

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Okay we have a name tag Sealbeater, sitting on a spam domain filled with google adwords links, and the sig is, wait for it... Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!! I'd be a bit more cautious about throwing around accusations of assholery if I was you, my son. Glass houses and all that. Thankfully I am not, so although its something of a gaffe to feed the trolls, I am feeling generous today.

The poster in question was referring to that particular case, not to broadly general rules of conduct. Also you refer to "cops" and "civilians" as being something different, which leads me to believe that you have a view of the police as being some sort of military force out to dominate your world with an iron fist. Inferiority complex much? Of course, as you so eloquently put it, survival of the fittest, and you do have the fucking guns, apparently, so the police are just a rival militia to you.

I seriously doubt this will make a dent, Davey Crockett, but for the benefit of the other readers, let me tell you how it is. The police have to deal with serious assholes all the time. They wake up at 2am for their shift at 3am, and straight away they are dealing with halitosis laden drug dealers, drug addicts, wife beaters, child molesters, thieves, career criminals, fraudsters, you name it, they come eyeball to red glazed eyeball with them. People that you would literally cross the entire town, never mind the road, to avoid, people for whom prison is a holiday home, or in more extreme cases a brothel. And here's the kicker; the police have to play by the rules. If they don't, the lawyer will let said scumbag roam free, and the last thing you want is Johnny biker boy cruising the streets looking for your home address with a hard-on.

Of course the nasty types don't feel any such need to play by the rules, so let me ask you. After ten years of waking up at 2am and not going into a nice office to look at the HR lady's shapely backside, but wondering if you will make it home in more or less one piece, what kind of person will you be? I'll tell you, it depends on the person. Some police officers deal with it well, some have outlets for their frustrations, some have family that support and understand them. Some don't or just don't deal with it well in any case. So that's where good cops go bad; avarice, stress, fear, or just plain frustration at seeing the same shitheads walking out after two years and doing the same things to pretty much the same people. Before you start bawling like the survivalist microbe that you are about the bad, naughty cops, you walk a mile in their shoes. Or even better, walk ten years in their shoes.

Yes, there are bad police officers, and they need to be taken out of circulation just like the career criminals. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is the worst idea anyone could ever have. Be polite to the police, and generally they will respond in kind. This has been my experience in every case.

Re:Modded up?

[Tripster]

Well put and completely true that being nice to them will result in a response in the same fashion.

Then again, maybe our RCMP here in Canada just have to deal with a lot less of the kinds of issues you bring up, we do have less violent gun crime since guns are generally harder to get a hold of here.

I have had great experiences with the police overall, I have no criminal record and I am far from a perfect citizen or anything. My younger years were a non-stop party for the most part, and yet I came through them without a DUI or possession charge, etc. Instead all my dealings with the cops were generally civil since we showed the officer respect. Several times they pulled us over and we'd have the vehicle overcrowded or something, usually we had a non-drinking driver and I think they respected that in us. Sure they'd make us pour the booze out if it was open but then they'd just tell us to get out and walk, then drive off and we'd pile in the vehicle again (we once had 15 in a van :)) and go on our merry way.

I once was at the local truckstop for after party coffee time, it was pissing down with rain, we were pretty much gooned already and noticed a officer filling up his car at the pumps, we asked him if he was heading downtown and if we could get a lift .. sure thing, in the back we went and he dropped us off at home, even though we were pretty much drunk enough to spend the night in the drunk tank. That cop got my respect long before that night but I sure appreciated him then.

Now think about the other types who show no respect to the cops, I would bet my past history with them would have been a lot different had I shown them none.

Most of them are good guys trying to make the streets a safer place for all of us, cut them some slack and treat them with the respect they deserve for being there because you may just need to call them one day yourself.

Re:Modded up?

[Dun Malg]

Before you start bawling like the survivalist microbe that you are about the bad, naughty cops, you walk a mile in their shoes. Or even better, walk ten years in their shoes.

No, thank you very much, I do not need to perform a particular dirty job to know that if the job turns someone into a law-bending dickhead on a power trip, they need to not be employed in that capacity. I don't care why the job fucked them up. It isn't relevant. Oh, you deal with vicious drunken animals every night and it turned you mean? Tough shit, pal, act like a professional or get out of the business. I spent six years intermittently dodging bullets, mines, and IEDs in the Army, so I know what the pressure of life-threatening employment is like. We didn't beat up the random hadjis who showed their soles to us, so I think a cop can do the same for civilians at home. Having a dangerous job doesn't excuse assholery.

Re:Modded up?

[Fortran IV]

Well said. Thank you. I've known plenty of people who had bad experiences with cops, from routine minor harassment to a fellow arrested on charges sufficiently bogus that he won a lawsuit against the city. Yeah, there are some rotten cops out there.

But I've also seen an awful lot of cops standing in rain directing traffic after storms knocked out power and traffic lights, and cops cleaning up after some drunk spread himself across a hundred yards of asphalt, and so on. Every single time I've personally been on the receiving end of police attention, whether for traffic violations, accidents, or general uproar, the officer has been unfailingly polite and respectful, even when I didn't deserve it.

Twice, years ago, domestic strife led me to attract a cop's attention. Once I was simply driving in a blind rage, and a cop pulled me over after I passed a car on the shoulder. I stopped, but then for three or four minutes I simply sat there trying to squeeze the steering wheel in two, as the cop patiently rapped on my window and—with increasing volume but unfailing courtesy—requested my attention. When I finally stopped staring at the dash and rolled down my window, he let me explain my bad temper and sent me home with a warning, even though he would have been justified in at least runnning me through a field sobriety test and could easily have found a pretext to toss me in the pokey for the evening.

The second time, a year later in another town, my then-significant other decided my apartment was a good place for a screaming match, a decision that displeased my neighbors. Now, by most accounts I've seen, "domestic disturbance" is high on the list of calls a cop hopes to end his shift without hearing—there's simply no telling what's going on behind the door you're about to knock on. But when an officer appeared on my porch that evening, he was again polite and patient. Nobody got threatened. Nobody got arrested. By his complete courtesy he embarrassed both of us into better behavior, at least in the short term.

When people say, "All cops are pricks," they aren't merely failing to recognize the large number of officers who do a hard job with patience and dedication—they are actively isolating those good cops from the public that depends on them. Swear out complaints against the bad ones, folks, but give the good ones some support. Please.

questions for you

[darknite1979]

Do you know how many police have fought having video recorders in there patrol cars? Do you know that these recorders are there to watch the police as much as they are to watch you and me? Do you know how many police officers have been fired due to dash mounted recorders? Do you know how many people have sued and won because of dash mounted cameras? Do you know how many police have "accidentaly" dammaged the recorders because they didnt want them? If the police fight to keep the cameras out of there patrol cars then you should fight all the harder to have them put in because if they dont want them they are obviously doing something they shouldnt be doing. Whats even sadder is officials who dont want the cameras put in because they know how bad there police REALLY are.

I never said Bush was the antichrist, so spare me

[misanthrope101]

I never said that the current President "can do no good." I never considered him the personification of evil. And Congress did authorize force, though after being misled by selectively quoted intelligence, and that still isn't a "declaration" of war. But all of that is so much fluff--I never said that Congress wasn't complicit.

President Clinton did lie about a blowjob, and I don't care. At all. It's completely insignificant in the balance of world affairs. The current President lies about torture. It wasn't under oath, so isn't impeachable, and that distinction is about as morally insignificant as you can get. It's wrong to torture people and then redefine the term in mid-sentence and then pretend you're being forthright about what you're doing. The way those people are being treated would be called torture if it was happening in our country to our citizens, and we know it. It was called torture before we were doing it, wasn't it? If it was your mother or best friend being interrogated in Dallas with these methods, you'd call it torture.

Where is the moral contumely that we were basting eyeballs-deep in during the Clinton impeachment? Where is the outrage? There isn't any, and you know exactly why--Bush is a Republican, therefore whatever he does is lily-white in the eyes of Republicans. Morality, legality, propriety, everything is subordinate to politics. They'll impeach a sitting President over a blowjob but sit placidly by while a President authorizes torture, secret prisons, indefinite detentions, warrantless wiretaps, etc. So spare me your moral equivocations. I don't care if Clinton got blown on film every Sunday at noon while holding the King James Bible in one hand and a joint in the other--if torture doesn't make your moral compass wake up and take notice, there is something fundamentally wrong with you as a human being.

Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree on this, and you are deeply disturbed by what the Administration is doing. If so, you have my apologies. I'm just so sick of the faux moralizing about Clinton, coupled with the complete blindness on issues that really do matter. Blowjobs, even adulterous ones later lovingly covered with perjury, are a miniscule speck, an electron-sized mote, of immorality, compared to torture of human beings. To bring up Clinton and his interns in this context is to color yourself either as a shameless political hack or a pretty despicable human being.

His property

[AriaStar]

As ploce are public servants, employed by us via our tax dollars, should we citizens not have the same right as other employers to monitor the behavior of our employees? If our phone calls at work, our work e-mail, and where we go online can be monitored, and we can be filmed at work, by our employers, with or without any additional notification, then we should be allowed to monitor the police. Otherwise their power goes unchecked and along comes corruption. The word of one cop has more weight that three citizens, unless there's a videotape the backs up those citizens.

Those surveillance cameras are not hidden. They're pretty clear. And that man has the right to protect his family. If someone broke into his house and the proof he had were tapes, would he be the one charged with a felony while the burgler got off because the evidence would be inadmissible? yeah, let's punish the good guy and let the bad off the hook.

We've got to question what the officers did that they do not want that tape shown. If they were orderly and didn't threaten or act like asses toward that family, then there should be nothing to fear. But if they arrested a man and he's been charged with two felony counts simply for recording, then it would make sense that there is something to hide. They must have acted out of line.

And this man being arrested does not indicate that he did anything wrong in the way you might be thinking. Hostility, trying to attack an officers.... No. If simply recording is against the law, then they can arrest him for that and nothing else. He could have been entirely peaceful, as well as his wife and sons, and still could have been arrested. And now, even if all charges are dropped, this man still has an arrest on his record. And if his wife bailed him out via a bail bonds place, then they are out the 10% paid to the bail bonds place. Money lost, embarassment, a record of arrest....

Sad, sad day when taking steps to ensure personal safety in a non-violent way results in grounds for arrest.

If police treat people like assholes ...

[Skapare]

If police treat people like assholes, then you can expect people to return the favor. If cops behave incompetent, they deserve the verbal abuse they get.

About 20 years ago, a friend of mine was visiting a nearby town. Maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but he was pounced on in a convenience store by 3 local cops, causing him several small injuries. These 3 cops were abusive both verbally and physically. It wasn't quite a Rodney King level of beating, but it did require a visit to the hospital, which was denied him for several hours. His "crime"? He opened one of the soft drinks he was carrying while standing in a long line at the register. How do I know his story rings true? My friend IS a police officer. He was just off duty, out of jurisdiction, and not in uniform.

Police officers are (supposed to be) trained in dealing with abuse from the public, including physical abuse. Verbal abuse is something they are supposed to just shrug off as if it never happened. That I learned in a CJ class I took way back when I was in college. I wonder if it's still true.

I think it's pretty clear the tape showed an abusive officer. They saw it and they reacted to it on the spot. If the tape had shown a police officer doing exactly his duty and nothing more, why would there be such a reaction?

The police should have thanked Mr. Gannon for bringing it directly to them, and dealt with it as an internal matter. It was to their advantage that he went to them first instead of the local newspaper or TV station. Now, people will be watching the police and they will be taking their evidence not to the police department. The Nashua Police Department did all police officers throughout the country a major harm by this action. It's just plain disgusting.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[PB_TPU_40]

Actually it is because of the charge. The conviction was called No-lo. I admited no guilt, and it was not by jury, it was taken as a plea agreement to avoid a possible conviction on the felonies. If you're staring at a felony and they offer a misdemanor thats a big freaking deal, felonies are guranteed prision time, loss of gun rights, voting rights, and its permanently on your record. Misdeamnor, fine and maybe jail, or community service, and after 2 years you can get it expunged. Note this was for an auto wreck, my car hit ice and I lost control. My fiance and I were the only two people seriouly injured. They charged me with a count of vehicular assault on her behalf, against her wishes, and another for a man that suffered a few scrapes. It turns out later that the second count was because he works in the prosecutors office. If you look at most any paper work you fill out for security clearances and jobs, it asks if you have ever been CHARGED with a felony. If you think there is any correlation between the law and justice, you're grossly mistaken, and for charges to be filed, the DA has to be on board so at that point its on your record for good. I've talked to numerous people about this, it isn't that I was convicted of the misdeamnor, they said the charge would still stand out on a background check. As it is I had to go have my gun rights reenstated because they just charged me which was enough to revoke them, has nothing to do with the misdeamnor, the felony charge was placed into the system so that bars me right there.

Now had they disclosed the fact that the guy worked in the prosecutors office I could have had it sent to another county where more than most likely the charges would have been dismissed. They hid this fact until I entered my plea agreement, and he was not listed as working for the prosecutors office till after it was all over. They will do anything they can to further their carrers and they dont care if it tank yours. Note if I was convicted of a felony, no professional engineering licence, no security clearance, nothing pertaining to engineering, and 2 years upstate minimum. Everything I would have worked for would have been wasted. Most likely I would have won, however even if you're innocent, there's still a chance of being found guilty. As I'm 22, with where this happend, I'd have a high chance of having a bunch of old ladies on my jury, please note the jury of your peers thing is BS, its usually homemakers and the elderly. If they think all the kids are just little SOBs that drive too fast, it doesn't matter that I was doing the speed limit and that the truck sped up or any other factors. Charges alone cause serious grief, and the worst thing about it is they can do completely bogus charges.

Re:sigh no good deed goes un-punished

[callingalloldhippies]

"Do I want power over other people? Hell no. I got involved after Sept. 11th. There was a need, and I stepped forward. What have YOU done?"

All of my life:

I have reported illegal behavior in my neighborhood, turned in illegal drugs, stolen property hidden on or near same, advised the local police when violence is occurring in my vicinity and guess what? Been ignored, talked down to, like I was taking up their valuable time with issues beneath their interest and on at least 2 occasions treated like what I was reporting somehow insinuated MY participation in said reported incident.

Finding a hit and run victim in the road late at night and placing my car in a position capable of protecting the victim until the police and paramedics arrived bought me 4 hours of interrogation until a bartender wandered out of the bar at the end of his shift and attested to the fact that the victim had been utterly boiled upon leaving his establishment and it was hardly likely that I was 'a perp' but just the unlucky fool who did the right thing and reported the find.

AND: I did not suddenly decide to be a good citizen on 9-11. I was raised to be one from childhood.

THAT'S what I have done!

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[heinousjay]

No one is guilty. Just ask the people in prison. They'll all tell you how innocent they are.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[Pooua]

"if you really were as innocent as you claim, you would have taken your chance before a jury."

That's an arrogant thing to say. If you have the choice between a small chance of severe punishment on one hand and much less severe punishment on the other, most people would opt for the less-severe punishment. Why gamble? Why do so many companies, for example, settle out of court? Is it because they are really guilty, and this is an easy way out? I know that is not always the case. Sometimes, the risk is simply not worth the principle.