Slashdot Mirror
Wiretapping Charges Dropped
Ada_Rules writes "I realize that the end of a story is not nearly as sexy as the beginning, but police in Nashua have dropped the wiretapping charges against a man that had recorded both video and audio from on his home security system. The man had brought a videotape to the police station to back up a claim that a detective was rude to him while on his property as part of an investigation. In addition, the police have determined that the man's complaint about the detective was justified."
It seems that it is less that the little guy here won, so much as the DA simply thought he wouldn't win. The decision is less based on the merit of the claim so it doesn't seem like anything is really gained by this happening.
Cops bring up surreptitious charges and laws fairly often, or will try to convince you in a similar manner that you don't have any rights. I have friends that are cops, good cops, that have told me this.
Also, as I have many, many friends that are amateur and professional photographers, they were stunned when they heard this; some have been in similar situations with police and/or security. Luckily, there's this nifty little document I found from an attorney explaining the rights of photographers.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
A lot of the time, at pretty much every news outlet, we hear the inflammatory first part of the story, and then when never find out what really happened, what the other side of the story was, or how it turned out. Thanks for following up!
In a fair society:
1: He is entitled to compensation, say $1000 per hour for every hour between the time he was charged and the time he knew for sure that the charges were dropped.
2: The police involved should be sent back for a minimum of 40 hours of updated training in the laws they are supposed to be enforcing.
3: The city attorney, who didn't immediately drop these bogus charges (he, at least, has no excuse at all for not knowing the law) should be immediately fired, suspended, or recalled as appropriate.
4: If there were any judges involved who didn't immediately drop the case, they should be impeached.
Then there'd have been some true justice here.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Now they can focus on the guy they dragged out of his yard and arrested for daring to photograph the cops with his cellphone camera. After that, they can re-evaluate just what "Live Free or Die" means.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Going to jail, for wanted to have a secure home.
There seem to have been a lot of recent news articles focusing upon cases in which law enforcement agencies have gone completely overboard. I do not want to be protected by an agency in which those who run it take advantage of their authorative positions, which is what appears to be being the case.Article says that the police still think he's guilty, but the case isn't worth prosecuting.
I think I have to agree with the police on that. Sure, the guy had a sticker that says he's recording things, and normally, if the police were on his property after seeing the sticker, that would count as consent to be recorded. But apparently, the sticker was too small to be reasonably noticable. Given that, I'd say the police did not implicitly agree to be recorded, and as they did not explicitly agree to be recorded, that's all she wrote.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
This has yourtube written all over it...
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Rather, the lack of continuing injustice.
Justice would be more along the lines of;
- lots of financial compensation taken from the paychecks of the entire police force (thin blue line my ass, more like gang of thugs they started the "us vs. them" attitude, they can live with it when "them" strike back)
- the cops involved, fired. _ALL_ of them. Within 50 yards and able to speak up (still posessing vocal cords) and not stopping it. Fired.
- DA, bullet in the head for not being a voice of reason INSTANTLY. He wasn't elected king after all, but rather to uphold the law and that is not being done now is it?
Cops are 80% of the problem in a lot of neighborhoods. This is no exception.
This is very true. Over a year ago I was ran off the road by another car, causing me to lose control and hit the wall. The guy that ran me off the road naturally kept driving. When the police arrived, the first thing out of the officers mouth was something about how he knew I was racing, and could tell I hit the wall at 160mph (I was driving a dodge viper). In anycase, I really hit the wall doing 50-60, no way would I have been able to walk away from an accident at 160mph. I told the officer this and he said I was lying and that I was going to get charged with reckless driving, but he'd lower the charges if I'd admit to racing. I wasn't going to confess to something I didn't do. He wouldn't listen to a word I said and tried to make me feel just as you said, as if I had no rights. Then he started spewing something about having witness that saw me racing. At that point I told him to write me the wreckless ticket and that I'd gladly see him in court.
Come the day of court, no witness. The cop and the prosecutor had to drop the charges because they had no evidence. Furthermore I had photos of my car after the accident to show that the damage was not consistant with a 160mph accident, and they had nothing to refute it.
Leasson learned here is, know your rights, and know that the cops are not on yourside, its up to you to prove you are innocent.
The technology exists and can become ubiquitous.
There have been many examples where the fortuitous presence of a video camera, has revealed extremes of behavior in security personnel.
There's too much "Us", and "Them", in the security agency mindset. Lets make "evidence" (That which is seen) work both ways, its not "us" and "them", its "we the people".
The people must watch the watchers.
There is no god; get over it already! Never exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage.
Now what am I going to overreact about?!?
signed,
Slashdot's tinfoil/civil rights/Bush-Hater's Club/EFF community
I am not a lawyer. Now the wrongly arrested Gannon should file a civil suit against the police. It looks like he has a decent case for false arrest. This is one standard way a person goes on offense to remedy wrongful police behavior. It is not super effective, but it is much better than doing nothing.
The state wiretap law notwithstanding, [police chief] Hefferan said citizens and businesses have the right to set up security systems that include audio recording, but they must post clear, obvious notice to warn anyone within range. The "obscure little sticker" Gannon had posted on the side of his house wasn't enough, Hefferan said.
While police are never good sources for a fair interpretation of the law, the police chief's assertion that the problem was the size of the sticker denoting the video/audio recording indicates that the police don't have much to stand on.
if i installed a home security system in my house (if i lived in that state) and some one robed my house. i would not be able to use the cameras to identify the persons but instead i would be charged for wire taping. that is messed up! they really need to think a little more. wire taping is used via phone (video phone and voice is what that law was made for) not live actions. if this law was made for what their interpritation is of it then all news crews in that state would be screwed if they didnt put up a big sign saying they were recording.
(yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
When I read the first article about that man who was arrested because his home surveillance system had recorded a police officer who came to his home to speak to him I was fairly disturbed. It is no secret that our constant "legal" state of national emergency, that we have lived under for decades, has pretty much suspended the constitution. The laws passed following 9/11 took things that much further to where we are now. A man has the right to film his own property and anyone who passes onto it, so why was he arrested and charged with wiretapping because of the police's dislike of him? The thing I dont understand is how can the police allow themselves to be so propagandized and "programmed" to the point at which they no longer enforce the liberties granted to us under the constitution. I have read internal FBI memos that have been leaked and they discuss how the agents should be on the look out for different types of terrorist groups and they list certain characteristics of each. They characterize people who speak of their "constitutional rights" as being trouble makers. Am I the only one who see something wrong with this? Then again, I guess for most people it is easier to buy into the whole "less liberty/freedom = more protection against terrorists." I hear it all the time. Yes, those big bad arab-muslim terrorists are going to kill all americans...just after they get done killing each other in iraq. I'm not sure if you all have read the papers yet, but the media is reporting how iraq is on the verge of a major civil war...if it hasn't begun already. All i'm saying is this police oppression is nothing more than an extension of the post-9/11 mindset of tyrannical militarism and unreasonable punishment. This is just like the story a few days ago about the three 12 yr old children in england who were arrested and booked for breaking dead branches off trees so they could build a treehouse. What ever happened to the police protecting the people? I have heard more and more, from young and and old alike, that even though they are doing nothing wrong they still feel like they are guilty of something while in the presence of the police. I just dont see why they feel the need to be so intimidating and accusatory.
fascism, simple oppression, simple ultra right wing fascism is creeping in, when will you people learn.
Wake up.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
Cops bring up surreptitious charges
spurious? maybe specious?
To be fair, let's not forget the police officers' side. They were after the homeowner's son, in an investigation connected with a mugging. They found in that house a stolen handgun. They found enough evidence to charge the boy on that mugging.
All this means the police did have a valid reason to investigate the case. The officers may have behaved improperly, but the fact that they were investigating a crime and had a legitimate reason to be there still stands. According to the state law, the homeowner did commit a felony if he recorded the officers' conversation without their knowledge and consent.
I do not think he's entitled to any compensation at all, what he did was to try to obstruct the investigation of his son's crimes. If I understood TFA well (and I *did* read it) the only reason why the wiretapping charges were dropped was because the city attorney thought that, given the public uproar on the case, a jury would be unlikely to find the homeowner guilty.
Well, I hope that, if the son is really guilty of that mugging, the jury gives him his due punishment.
The police don't really have a choice on this one. They've already acted, and put the now-very-public process in motion.
... that's one of the motivating/correcting forces that keeps them from abusing their position as LawGivers.
They can't admit that they're wrong. That'd destroy their credibility. They're supposed to be "experts" on the law and it's interpretation. If they came out and said "Whups, we screwed up," there'd be formal inquiries and all sorts of hell to pay.
The case is a loser. If they continue down that road, they make it more public and the damage is worse. The DA recognized that there's no chance they'd be able to convince a jury to convict, simply because the jury is composed of folks just like the defendant. The DA pulled the plug as more of a damage-control reaction than "it's the right thing to do."
So they've basically pleaded "no contest." They're dropping the charges without admitting any wrongdoing. They're hoping the matter will slide under the carpet as soon as Britney Spears or Mel Gibson is in the headlines again.
As for "right or wrong," I firmly believe that the police should be under public scrutiny as long as they're acting as an agent of the state. They are acting in the public trust, and consequently *all* of their actions need public exposure and scrutiny. They should expect *zero* privacy while on the job
Leasson learned here is, know your rights, and know that the cops are not on yourside, its up to you to prove you are innocent.
Actually, your own story says otherwise. The cops had to prove you were guilty. Since there was no evidence you were guilty, the case was dropped.
Since there was zero evidence to indicate you committed a crime, you have a good case for a police harrassment complaint and/or lawsuit against the cop.
Cops try all the time to get people to admit to crimes, and often people do, rightly or wrongly. You have the right to remain silent - use it.
Not everyone accused of a crime is guilty of the crime. That's why there is a court system. Don't argue with the cop. Argue with the judge.
If these cops have dashboard cameras on their patrol cars, aren't they basically guilty of the same thing?
I don't recall ever seeing a cop informing a suspect of the existance of their cameras or requesting permission to film them.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
"I just dont see why they feel the need to be so intimidating and accusatory."
Because they're assholes and bullies, plain and simple. And please don't ANYONE tell me hoe it's "just a small percentage of bad cops that ruin it for all the good cops." Any time a cop thinks the "thin blue line" is more important than the public, they've gone over to the dark side. Any time a cop looks the other way when fellow cops violate the law in ANY way, they're equally complicit. And if you think this is an exaggeration, look at how highly respected Internal Affairs or civilian oversight groups are held in esteem by every cop on the force in any given city, and how willing those cops are to cooperate with lawful investigations. Look how much they kick and scream about having video or audio recordings of their dealings with the public.
These people are supposed to be trained professionals who are paid to do their jobs as such. And before you whine to me about how hard their job is, A: they have the badges, guns, big sticks, and the ability to put people in a cage, and B: they knew the job was dangerous when they took it. In fact, for many, that's WHY they took it. We have a right to hold them to a MUCH higher standard, and to come down on them EXTREMELY hard when they don't measure up to that standard. And if they don't like those conditions, they're welcome to find another job. Of course, in that other job, they wouldn't be able to be thugs and bullies, right?
Remember, kids, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Police power is no different than any other.
Nooooo! Evil will infest the land of Hyrule once again!
Just because it can't be explained doesn't mean it isn't true. Science fits into reality... not the other way around.
fascism, simple oppression, simple ultra right wing fascism is creeping in, when will you people learn.
Um, got news for you, that's ultra LEFT wing fascism. Those are left-wing soviet-style, Hitler-style tactics. The right wing fought AGAINST Hitler and Communism, it's the left wing that embraces strong government.
Look, lets take the cops out of this for a second. I'm sitting in my lab right now with a nice, thick, soundproof wall between my boss and me, talking to my fellow employees about what an asshole my boss is. Little do I know, my boss has installed a secret surveillance system and camoflagued the warning sticker among all the other industial signage to be disregarded when you enter the door of a chemistry lab (Class IIIB and IV lasers..., [fill in the blank] can be harmful to your health, etc.). He fires me, and when I ask for just cause, he produces the tape. If a story like this were run, the whole slashdot readership would jump on the 'down with Big Brother' bandwagon, and I would be the victim. The only difference with this story is that cops are involved. Some cops might be assholes, but we have to respect the fact that they are people too, and they also have rights granted by law. Either you support privacy laws, or you don't, and I think how often the NSA program gets mentioned by posters indicates our stance. No wonder the administration is so successful snatching our rights if we're as coherent as a teenager after his 12th shot of espresso. Honestly, this dude's decision to turn over the tape to the police is as stupid as (disclaimer: I'm using the words 'as stupid as', not 'equivalent to'... I'm not saying this is a valid analogy, merely that its just as short-sighted) me going to the cops and saying, "Look, I've been downloading all these ripped games and movies, and I've come across over 100 with malicious code attached. You should really go after the guys posting all these trojans." Here's to idiocy!
You mean "specious". "Surreptitious" means "secretive, sneaky".
Great. Now maybe the Nashua police can get around to busting that punk ass kid of his. Legally, of course.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
"Cops bring up surreptitious charges and laws fairly often" I'm not sure "surreptitious" is the correct word here. Spurious might be a better one. Surreptitious implies something is hidden. Laws are defined and publicly available. It is a citizens duty to know the laws and obey them. When in doubt, check it out. I always carry a pocket knife. It is a tool that comes in handy often. I know the concealed weapons laws of my state to ensure that I don't carry a knife that violates the law. There are cops, who if they are unhappy with you, may try to pile on charges. That is their right. If you are violating the law it is their duty to do something about it. A better route is to not make them unhappy in the first place but it you do, know your rights and don't give them any additional ammunition. My personal opinion is that you can record anything in any way you wish on your own private property. The caveat being that visitors of course have some reasonable expectation of privacy in your bathroom or similar situations. Your front porch should be free ground for recording without any warning of any kind. If their state law says what he did was illegal then the law is wrong and should be repealed or corrected.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
Here's to idiocy, indeed. Does your boss have the power to put you in a cage? Or deprive you of your liberties? Does your boss have the power to SHOOT you? No. The worst your boss can do is fire you. Maybe. Depending on your value to the company, and/or whether you're smart enough to be a member of a union, you may only end up with a reprimand. Or your BOSS may be fired or reprimanded. You, sir, are an idiot of the highest order.
Seriously, the correct answer here, if citizens are really outraged, it to push through a ballot measure to change to be a 1-party state. That solves future problems like this.
Remember: This isn't a US thing, this is state by state. Some states, like New Hampshire are rea 2-party, and bitchy at that. All parties involved in being recorded have to consent beforehand. Of course, police get an exemption from this for their cameras in the cars.
Well that's not how it has to be. Other states are 1-party states, meaning only 1-party has to be informaed of the recording. So you can't go and tap your neighbours phone, but you can tap your own and not tell anyone. So long as one person knows, it's fine. Further some places, like Arizona, have a law such that if you own something, you are implicitly a party present or not. So you can record your own property, phoneline, whatever, and even if others are conversing without your presence you are still a party because it's your stuff.
So that's what it comes down to here. The NH voters just need to get this on the next ballot and change it. Now I'm guessing, for all the outrage, they are just going to let it drop and forget about it. Kinda sad, but really nothing you can do.
Where the fuck have you been the last 6 years? Open your eyes and stop repeating Rush Limbaugh from 1992. The US government has done nothing but get bigger and more oppresive since the ultra right has been in control...
In theory, completely true.
Today, I can't see evidence that either side wants less central government.
I think you have made a very important point, although it is not the jury of which the police are afraid but the judge.
If a jury refuses to convict, all they are saying, technically, is that they are not convinced the prosecutor has proved the facts of the case. It says nothing about the law. Indeed, juries have no power to alter or comment on the law.
But what if the judge makes some rulings about the law? He can do anything from flatly declaring the law unconstitutional to putting a particular interpretation on its language. For example, the chief of police admits recording devices are legal if you post "notices" that warn people about it, and then says that the "notice" the guy had posted was insufficient -- not really a "notice" at all. Oh yeah? Sez who? What if a judge were to make a ruling about what size "notice" is really a notice? It could happen. Almost certainly would happen if this were an important element of the trial. Then the police are stuck with that ruling. They can never make the argument later that a certain notice wasn't really a notice because it wasn't floodlit, was printed in soft purple instead of bold red, et cetera. Whatever the previous judge said constituted a notice is it.
Any rulings a judge makes become precedential, or at least citeable, in other court actions. As you say, this could easily constrain the powers of the government in similar cases later. Better by far to drop the case and avoid the danger.
The bullshit about "not being able to convince a jury" is just a way to save face, of course.
Don't you kids remember that what is "illegal" is the voice recording?
This was said repeatedly in the previous
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
If Jack Bauer's interrogations had been recorded and shown to the public, he'd have gotten away with preventing an assassination, but the US would have been nuked twice, gassed once, and infected once. If recordings occur, they will get out to the public.
FTFA: Gannon said. "I'm not saying my kids are perfect, but the way they came on, they acted like my kids killed the president or something."
After which Gannon was promptly arrested for threatening harm to the President of the United States.
It was on private property... and it's not like they couldn't have known about the recording device, as the article mentions there was a sign on his property indicating that recording equipment to monitor the area was present.
If this guy could be charged with wiretapping, why couldn't banks be charged for the same thing for having video cameras on their premises?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I believe the technical term would be "bullshit" charges, as in "Cops bring up bullshit charges and laws fairly often." I don't think any other word comes close to expressing the concept nearly as well.
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
New Hampshire is traditionally a state where citizens love their privacy. The idea of being a two-party state is to make it damn hard for citizen A to record what citizen B has to say. I don't think that's a bad idea. But I doubt people thought much about the issue of citizens recording the police, probably because they didn't realize -- pre Rodney King -- that this would generate any information useful to the preservation of public order.
Now we know better. Turns out to be very useful to watch the police, as useful as it is to keep an eye on any public servant entrusted with the peoples' power. So I'd say the right thing to do is classify the police -- or any government agent -- in the same way as we classify public personages, like candidates or actors in public. These people by their choice of profession and action implicitly give consent to be recorded. It's not a felony to record John Kerry making a public speech (should you have sufficient stamina or caffeine), or film Mel Gibson getting arrested on Highway 1, even if neither gives his prior consent. These people have chosen to be "public personages" and are in public, and that means they no longer have the same rights to privacy as Joe Citizen.
If the police are out in uniform doing the public's work, it seems to me there should be a clear presumption that they're just as much public personages as a candidate for the state legislature giving public speeches, and that they have implicitly given permission to anyone to film or record them. (An obvious and sensible exception would be when they're undercover, not in uniform.)
In your example (Miscarriage of Justice suits), the bad cops are an even bigger problem. Not only for the wrongful arrests and such, but also because their actions cost the taxpayers even more money.
So, instead, why not just garnish the cop's wages to pay any fines?
Why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill for a bad cop's stupidity?
But what makes his home really insecure isn't the absence of cameras. What makes his and every other citizen's home insecure is the existence of people like his own son, who stole a hadgun and committed armed robbery with it. The guy appears to be a total jerk to have raised such a son and go to such efforts to keep him from getting caught.
If the law says privacy must be protected, then that's that. One should not try to invent exceptions to the law; make an effort to change the law if you don't agree with it, instead. However, I for one would be very careful about creating exceptions to a law that protects privacy, who knows what other exceptions they may invent against me?
There seem to have been a lot of recent news articles focusing upon cases in which law enforcement agencies have gone completely overboard.
This doesn't seem to be the case here. The police didn't break any laws, they may have been somewhat rude, but that's subject to interpretation. What is the proper etiquette to talk to the family of a man who commits muggings at gunpoint? They later got a search warrant and found a stolen gun in that house. This means they had every reason to investigate. I'd rather live with cops who are rude but obey the law than let muggers with stolen guns run free.
I'm tired of this mistake, because it's a very easy rule to learn.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Clearly the police weren't wrong in this case about who did the crime, but they could have been. The laws and articles protecting citizens against police power are there because of that possibility.
There's also the point that it's often the criminals who need the most legal protection.
Ignorance of how the justice system was designed among the majority of Americans is what is going to turn this country into a police state.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
What do you want us to do? March on the capital? No, we'll just be good little dogs.
I have nothing to say.
And this is different from a business doing the samething and the police asking for their video tape? How exactly? That's what I thought it is not. It's the guys private property... end of story. The police department should be sued for false arrest and harassment at the least.
But here is the real kicker -
Police had charged that Gannon violated state wiretap laws by recording officers without their knowledge while they were standing on his front porch
I think they do not even want to go down that road of reasoning.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Now the question is, were you racing, or are you really telling the truth?
..|. O .|..
Or even more likely, you're a cop whos undercover and you're scanning slashdot for people who say things that are un-american.
Stupid cops trying to trick us! Tell him nothing!
oh and for anyone who doesnt find that funny, I've got only one thing to say to you
"Some men just want to watch the world burn..."
But if the cops can spy on us while we're out in public, we should be able to record them when they come onto our property.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
This reminds me of an old boy I know that's a retired logger. He would stash extra gas in cans where he was cutting so he wouldn't have to lug it to his area every day. It's a common practice in the field and has been done as long as there have been chainsaws. Sometime during one year a few teenagers were blundering through the skidder trails in their 4x4 when they ran out of gas. They started looking through the brush for some loggers saw gas and found his. If that was the end of it no problem but the kids kept coming back to snag gas so the guy fills up 3 5 gallon cans and mixes a couple of boxes of brown sugar in each can. Later on in the week after he left the cans a sheriff's deputy pulls up to his house(The old boy had borrowed my handycam for this very visit)and gets out all full of bluster saying that he was going to take the price of the new engine out of my friends hide because his kid was the thief. That little Handycam got everything beautifully. We sent a copy to the news paper and it wasn't long before another deputy showed up to haul him away and try to confiscate the camcorder. He was ordered to produce it forthwith by a judge but it just so happens I lent to my mother in law for her 6 month mission in Costa Rica and he turned over the tape but unfortunately he had left it lying around at his son in laws house where several copies were made and sent to T.V. stations wihout his knowledge:D. I still see him from time to time, he still has that deputies nametag on his hat as a warning to the next prick in blue who wants to fuck with him
Every single cop on the street knows exactly what the law is for such common things as traffic stops or public photography or recording video, and if they were in front of their superiors, the press, a judge, or any public defendant, they would never say the kind of things that they try and sneak in when they are alone with a suspect. I possibly could have worded it "cops surreptitiously bring up false charges", but either way works for me.
I mean it in every sense of the word when I say they are being sneaky and secretive in speaking the way they do in how the law actually applies and what rights a person has. I can think of few underhanded and dirty things more harmful than trying to cheat someone out of their rights and into more jailtime or bigger fines just to impress the higher-ups or reach your quota of arrests for the month.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
If the GOP actually stuck to their platform you would be right. However the Bush administration is every bit as fascist as any communist dictator could ever hope to strive to be.
BOTH extremes use different justifications but arrive at the same end result: total surveillance and total control. The "liberal" exrtremists do it "for the children" and to make everyone equal (save the few in power who are a bit more "equal" than the rest - not very liberal, right?), and put laws into place to favor minorities to "level the playing field" regardless of merit or lack thereof. The "right" extremists want to legislate "morality" and enforce it, sometimes through extreme measures. Today's GOP is not conservative at all; - they are every bit as much into government control as, say, Stalin or Mao Tse Tung was.
If you want to be a true conservative (e.g., for small government, NO government interference in private lives, no tax-and-spend mentality, a true FAIR tax which hits the poor and rich alike, leaving the middle class with sufficient funds to help the needy of their own free will, discrimination based on MERIT alone and not favor or disfavor one based on superficial bullshit like skin color, etc.) then you should entertain becoming a libertarian.
$.02 (Signed, a registered republican, changing affiliation to libertarian in October due to disgust with the GOP's current neo-con stance)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
What I find baffling is the rationale for the law.
For the moment let's forget about the fact that they were police investigating a crime without a warrant. Suppose they were all just private individuals.
Obviously it could be reasonable to make it a crime (1) for A to film B inside B's house without B's knowledge. I can also imagine some justification for making it a crime (2) for A to film B inside A's house without B's knowledge (because that could involve, e.g., filming B on the toilet, or filming B in the act of adultery and then using the film for blackmail). There's also the case of (3) a phone conversation, where both people have an expectation of privacy. But what possible justification is there for a statute saying (4) that A can't film B on A's own front porch, where B has no expectation of privacy? I just don't get it.
And in this particular case, obviously if he'd notified the cops they were being filmed, they would have just ripped out the cameras sooner rather than later.
Find free books.
I chose the word to illustrate the secretive techniques often developed by bad cops to keep a suspect in the dark about his or her rights in any given situation. As another poster replied above, some cops will dream up the most elaborate schemes to get someone to agree to trumped-up or completely false charges; the previous poster was lucky that the cop wasn't as corrupt as he could have been, as I've known of similar situations where the officer said he would charge a friend of mine with resisting arrest or verbally assaulting an officer if he didn't agree to whatever bullshit ticket the cop was trying to pass off on him. The point is that many people aren't as aware of their rights in any given situation, are afraid of authority figures and, worst of all, trust that the officer won't try to completely hide the current laws and rights of the situation from them. These aren't specious or spurious practices that the police will engage in, but practiced techniques of psychological intimidation and ways of speaking to hide the truth but not enough to get in trouble for it.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
I realize that the end of a story is not nearly as sexy as the beginning
Yeah, it always sucks with things turn out right.
The thing is, I shuold be able to record my phone conversations. Why not? You cannot safely assume that what you say to me on the phone is lost forever. I could be writing it down, or maybe just remembering it (I know people who are exceptional at that). Either way when you talk to me you've got to assume that I could be recording, in one fasion or another, what you say. If you trust me to keep that confidence is up to you.
I see the privacy arguments of a 2-party system, I just think they are invalid. It is basically saying "I should have privacy, even when I do things that break privacy." As the saying goes, if two people know it, it's not a secret. So if you tell me, you should assume I can tell others, if I wish, regardless of if it's jsut me telling them from memory, or having a recording of it.
To me it's similar to photography laws (which are fairly uniform). You can photograph my house from public property, there's nothing I can do to stop you. You can't come on my property, of course, or circumvent barriers I have, but you can stand on the street and take pictures (or video) to your hearts content. Thus, if I want to have privacy, I need to keep my blinds closed. If I am standing on my porch naked, I can't get pissed that you took a picture of me. I have no expectation of privacy, because I'm publicly visible, even if I'm on my property.
The point is that there was no evidence or witnesses from the beginning, as the cop was making it up. The case should not have even been brought to court.
It was likely that the prosecutor/police were playing "chicken" to see if he'd agree to plea to the lesser charge of racing. This is not how the justice system is supposed to work - "we don't have any evidence of a crime, but we're going to scare you into confessing to one we can fine you for".
Legal intimidation is clearly an abuse of the justice system.
I have a friend who is nearly a lawyer and she has been involved in lots of protests in her life.
*** _I_ am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Always get your legal advice from a lawyer. ***
When approached by a cop, you only have to identify yourself. You really don't have to answer any other questions.
Anything you say before you are arrested can be used against you. Don't admit to anything. If he asks "have you been drinking/fucking/...", she recommends answering with something like "isn't it a nice day, officer", or "can I help you with anything, officer".
If they ask you if they can search your purse, car, pants, etc. You should always answer, "I'm sorry officer, I do not consent to this search." They will probably do the search - illegally probabably. But if you have not given consent, any evidence most likely cannot be used against you. The trick is that they want to find something and get you to talk. They might not be able to use the evidence they found, but if you then confess about that evidence, you're fucked.
But more importantly, say very early in the dialogue:
"Am I under arrest?" This forces the cop's hand... at this point he either has to arrest you or not. Once you are arrested, he is required to read you your miranda rights.
This should be followed by (if you're not under arrest):
"Am I free to go."
If you ARE under arrest, the next thing you need to say is:
"I want my lawyer NOW".
It's very important to state it in no uncertain terms. Saying things like "I think I should have a lawyer", or "maybe I should have a lawyer", or "can I have a lawyer" are not good enough and don't invoke your protections.
After this, SHUT YOUR TRAP!
REMEMBER... THE COPS ARE ***NOT*** ON YOUR SIDE. THEY ARE ***NOT*** YOUR FRIEND. They will LIE, CHEAT, and do anything they can to get you to give yourself up. Don't fall for it. They do this all day, every-day. You probably never have. Would you play one-on-one with a pro ball player in a wager for your life? It's the same thing here... the cops and DAs are well practiced pro-level players. They will grind you up and dispose of you before you know what hit you.
And the best way to keep from being rail-roaded by the "justice" system is to avoid getting into it in the first place. Know your rights and exercise them.
So remember:
I do not consent to this search.
Am I under arrest?
Am I free to go?
I want my lawyer NOW.
then SHUT UP!
Recording stuff that happens in your own home is against wiretapping laws? what next, oh i know: If you cook in your own home resturaunts can sue you for loss of profit. WTF is wrong with this country?!??!!!
OK, for $1,000, he gets to show up at work the next day (instead of remaining behind bars, and risk getting fired for failure to show up to work) (Or if he owns his own business, leaving the doors closed, or paying someone else to fill his position).
He's still out the $1,000 to the bail bondsman.
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
It may not be sexy, but it is good to hear that there is some justice in this world. God knows, there is precious little of it around at the moment.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
Is left wing fascism like right wing socialism? And since when has anarchism been considered either "not left wing" or "authoritarian"? Since when has theologicalism been considered left wing?
You might want to learn a little about these terms before you use them.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
1: He is entitled to compensation, say $1000 per hour for every hour between the time he was charged and the time he knew for sure that the charges were dropped.
Your idea is a good one. But it must be made certain that such money does not come directly from taxpayer dollars allocated to the police department. All of the officers and other police administration involved should have their portion of that amount docked from their individual pay for however long it takes for them to pay off their debt.
By making the individual officers and administrators directly reponsible, rather than the city or the police department, it helps ensure future incidents don't happen. And it doesn't result in a situation where the victim pays taxes, the police abuse him (with the help of some of the victim's tax dollars), the victim then gets paid reparations from the city or department, and then further suffers from tax increases the next year to offset the cost of the payment to himself by the city/department during the previous year.
Check out the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in the UK
There can be surreptitious charges....
Hear, Hear !
We need more civilian oversight on the "Department of Justice"
the real ac
Yes we are presently living in a police state, and you'd better fasten your seat belts and hunker down because it's going to get worse before it gets better. The only thing we can do in the present environment is to keep a low profile until more people realize the danger and a resistance movement large enough to effect change can be organized - just as our founding fathers did against the dictator King George in 1776.
See also:
http://ron.dotson.net/gov/govkills.htm
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
This is where I get so damn mad at you hotshot armchair lawyers, Attractive nuisance. It is the concept of law that says if you have something somebody wants to steal it's your responsibility to make sure the chance never arises or you can be held liable for damages if the thief is harmed in the act of theft. California democrats are responsible for this tripe and should have been hung for the trouble. I could go on at length about the questionable intelligence of any jackass brave enough to stand behind this assinine miscarriage of justice but I won't, I'll just thank my lucky stars that I am not inflicted with you as a neighbor and subject to your hydrocephalic maunderings.
... or will try to convince you in a similar manner that you don't have any rights.
No kidding. I was arrested once many years ago and when I told the copper at the station (in a joking, not pissing manner), "Hey, you didn't read us our rights!" He said, "Shit, that's only in the movies."
Whether that had anything to do with the fact that I was charged with disorderly conduct instead of whatever it was that they had arrested me for in the first place, I can't say.
I don't think he could have released the video. As I understand it, the police seized the tape when he brought it to them (he should've copied it first), then came to his house and ripped the cameras off the walls.
They still haven't returned the cameras (or the tape, I think) and they still maintain that he broke the law (maybe they're right, but if so, that law is despicable and just wrong).
They say he was disrespectful to them. That may be, but they still owe him a public apology for what they did.
-Rich
...60s, with plenty of poitical activism under my belt, I will assure you that when the government was completely controlled by the big D so called "left wing" party, they were just as big of totalitarian asshats. We even had a larger war based on even larger lies told in public. The tonkin gulf attacks? 40 years for the truth to come out? The only diff now is they have more high tech toys for political oppression, decades more brainwashing of the population in the public indoctrination centers to accept their status as serfs, and their enforcement mercenaries are even more skewed towards the "love to goose-step" sort of mentality then before, near as I can tell anyway. This is why you see them diggin on the all black swat-death squad "look-n-feel". You talk to some of those guys, they would love to be "turned loose" to "deal with" some matters...
The first step in political education and awareness in the US should be the observation that there is what I will call the "controller-boss" class, that's the established duopoly party*, then everyone else. That D and R nonsense exists purely to keep the grassroots activists amused and thinking there's some huge difference and choice. The only real diff is which prioroty of rights they want to usurp, the order of them, not that this is their goal. Their badged functionaries primary, secondary and tertiary jobs are to protect the controller class so they can maintain the further usurpation of the serfs rights, further the exchange and rearrangement of wealth into fewer and fewer hands(always upstream naturally), and to convince the average serf that their situation is hopeless through..well, the word terrorism fits quite well.
* the last big election is a prime example. Their candidate "won", same as always. Skull and bones controller class millionaire vs a skull and bones millionaire. That's about as blatant as it gets. The controller boss class didn't give a hoot which one of their choices got put in. How about the Patriot Act? Check the voting stats.
This is where I get so damn mad at you hotshot armchair lawyers, Attractive nuisance. It is the concept of law that says if you have something somebody wants to steal it's your responsibility to make sure the chance never arises or you can be held liable for damages if the thief is harmed in the act of theft.
Like, I don't know... leaving full gas cans under a bush because you are too lazy to continue lugging up cans of gas up a mountain. I made sure to say *I think this falls under the catagory of "attractive nuisance"*.
California democrats are responsible for this tripe and should have been hung for the trouble. I could go on at length about the questionable intelligence of any jackass brave enough to stand behind this assinine miscarriage of justice but I won't, I'll just thank my lucky stars that I am not inflicted with you as a neighbor and subject to your hydrocephalic maunderings.
Yes it's so much better to get incoherent babble online than from a neighbor. You can disagree with me as much as you like, and even accuse me of having brain damage, but the fact remains that we are talking about several bozos in this example.
1. Kid who steals fuel from lumberjacks. Usually these guys are nice and understand that if you lose fuel one day they likely saved someone's ass from being stranded. This is typical mountain etiquette, but continued theft of fuel is well, wrong.
2. The jackass who sugered the fuel knowing the bozo would put it in a 4x4. While the theft in the first place was wrong, this was also wrong.
3. The cop who yelled at the guy who provided the tainted fuel. There were likely legal remedies that being a cop he/she would know about.
4. The foofoo head on slashdot who disagrees with my opinion that everyone involved is a bozo.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
It is always funny to hear this phrase trotted out. In my opinion, this phrase was created to absolve the CRIMINAL of any blame or guilt and to place the blame on the person who would otherwise be the innocent party. If you're an adult (or nearly so) you should know better than to muck with other people's belongings and deserve hatever you might get if you do.
Further, I believe calling something an "attractive nuisance" should only apply when it is attractive in the eyes of a young child who doesn't know any better. (Example: your backyard pool) In this case the CRIMINAL was a teenager capable of riding a four wheeler and should have known better than to STEAL gasoline.
"I want my lawyer NOW."
Did I miss the part in high school where you got to pick your lifetime personal lawyer? For those of us not intimately involved with the legal system, what exactly should I do if arrested and need a lawyer? I've got the means to hire a private attorney, but I'd have NO idea who to turn to. I have a feeling saying "I need to call my wife so she can find me a lawyer NOW!" wouldn't cut it.
Documentation of questionable police activity, police officer misconduct, abuse, and other crime by cops.
then you should entertain becoming a libertarian.
While I'm sympathetic with many Libertarian stances, the problem with them is that they are extremist wackos. They sound reasonable on the surface, but they can't conceive that their simplistic philosophy just might now work in all cases. Examples:
1) Many want to privatize the Fire Dept. This is stupid for the obvious reason that FIRES SPREAD.
2) Many think that weapon ownership should be unlimited, i.e., private nukes are just fine with them.
3) Many believe that even ROADS should be completely private. This is extremely short-sighted; one of our most basic and important freedoms is the freedom to travel, and this makes it so only people that can afford it can travel.
And it goes on and on. The fundamental flaw with Libertarian philsophy is that it's all based on negative feedback. Nothing should be illegal, until it actually hurts someone. One Libertarian actually tried to convince me that it should be completely legal to fire weapons at people -- until you actually hit someone. His point was that if you make the penalty draconian enough, no one will try it. Of course, this ignores psychos and other idiots who don't care what happen to themselves.
Libertarians have some good ideas, but (as usual) it's the extremists that doom the whole concept. I'd rather have the world we have now, flaws and all, than loose the Libertarians on the world. That world would totally suck for about 95% of everyone (but would be great for the top 5%).
>this police oppression is nothing more than an extension of the post-9/11 mindset
There were plenty of abuses by law enforcement during the Clinton administration, so much so that a coalition of groups ranging from the ACLU to the NRA petitioned for an investigation.
Also check out the history of the civil rights movement.
We need much more than just a rollback to the September 10 situation.
Actually, the cop NEVER has to read you your Miranda rights - even when you are under arrest. They ONLY have to read you your Miranda warnings IF they want to use your statements against you.
I know here in Queens County, I asked the DA about this (I was on Grand Jury) - he said that they often don't bother - bring the guy in, offer the one call, and a lawyer, and never bother with the "statements can and will" - because they have so much evidence, that the persons statements make NO difference in the case. In fact, he said that the claims of coerced confessions are used in court by the defense so often, that confessions/statements are almost worthless UNLESS videotaped, with full warnings, discussions of the rights etc before hand, on tape, that they don't bother
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Very important as always to RTFA.
The homeowner answered his door where a detective was looking for the man's son, who was a suspect in a mugging. The man was confrontational with the detective, who wa also not nice. This exchange was on videotape.
A weapon was found in the house and the son was in fact charged in a mugging.
This is not exactly an innocent little guy story here and when people get into scrapes with the police it seldom is.
Two things:
(1) They don't have to Mirandize you. They only need to read you your Miranda rights if they want to use against you what you say after being arrested.
(2) Most people don't have a lawyer. So, what do you say after saying, "I want my lawyer NOW" and they ask you who your lawyer is?
You are absolutely right about police officers not being on our side. The system is designed against regular people. Avoid police officers whenever possible unless you have reliable witnesses to back up your version of events. The officer's versions of events, it has been my unfortunate experience, is too often not reflective of reality or honor.
Big piles of PIG SHIT
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Good advice. I would like to add some stuff.
Even if you know your rights, it's important not to get carried away, but to just stay polite and to the point. If a police officer asks you if you've been drinking, and you answer, "isn't it a nice day", you're encouraging them to go after you. To use your pro ball player analogy, if you were in that match, would you egg the pro ball player on? If you want to get out of that sort of situation, tell them that you understand that they're just doing their job, but that you can't let them do whatever it is they want to do. Most of these people have good intentions, the reason they treat you badly is that they deal with major shitheels all day long, just so you won't have to. If you let them know from the start that you just want to deal with the situation politely, but that you do know your right, you have the best chance of them not going out of their way to get you arrested.
"I don't consent to this search". You can only say this when you know they about to start some specific search. When a police officer sits down in you car saying "mind if I take a look?", you probably won;t know there's a search going on. The line "I don;t consent to any searches" can be dropped in more easily without anyone doing any actual searching.
I am also not a lawyer, but the people that made the following vidseo are. It contains some good advice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NmC5wHfCdM
It is always funny to hear this phrase trotted out. In my opinion, this phrase was created to absolve the CRIMINAL of any blame or guilt and to place the blame on the person who would otherwise be the innocent party. If you're an adult (or nearly so) you should know better than to muck with other people's belongings and deserve hatever you might get if you do.
That's the thing... the moment the innocent party took it upon himself to add sugar to the gas, they stopped being innocent. It was their intent to attract these kids in their 4x4 to the free gas in the hopes they would use it and harm their engine. This was an active act of malicious and spite. If the gas contained oil as is normal for 2 cycle motors, or if it was diesel, things you would expect to find in a gas can used by lumberjacks, then I would agree it's totally the fault of the gas thieves. But the fault clearly lies with the person who put the sugar in the gas, because through his direct action he caused an engine failure in a 4x4.
There is a difference between justice and revenge. There is absolutly no reason to put sugar in gas unless your intent is to cause harm to someone's engine. This isn't justice, this is revenge.
The harm done to the lumberjack was the loss of fuel presently about $3.00/gal and the amount of work lost having to fetch gas. This is wrong. But this does not justify the wanton distruction of some jackass's engine. This was wrong too.
Again to be clear... if it was diesel or gas mixed with oil, or gas contaminated with water... then any concenquence of taking the gas would be the fault of the person who took it.
Further, I believe calling something an "attractive nuisance" should only apply when it is attractive in the eyes of a young child who doesn't know any better. (Example: your backyard pool) In this case the CRIMINAL was a teenager capable of riding a four wheeler and should have known better than to STEAL gasoline.
Well... Yes I would agree that the four wheeler *should* have known better than to steal gas. It seemed rather clear that they were aware that lumberjacks leave gas for the purpose of using it the next day, and this gas was not abandoned. Someone else *might* not know better, it might look like lumberjack litter, exactly the type of thing that should be leaned up to help protect our forests and streams. And what's the best way to dispose of gas?
I know i'll be modded down for this, but it doesn't change the fact that all parties involved here are wrong.
----------
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I suspect one reason the DA didn't want charges to go through is because he didn't want a precedent set.
It might be possible for the accused in this case to ask for the court to make a judgement even though the DA didn't press charges. That could set a precedent that will make it clear that the NH law cannot apply in these cases. I hope the ACLU or some other organization will support such an effort. Right now, the police can continue to use this law to hassle people.
This isn't good advice in the most common cases. If you are pulled over and you know you won't get in more trouble by getting searched, you should comply completely simply because you are more likely to get off with a warning if you do so. If they ask you if you have been drinking, and you clearly have alcohol on your breath, say "not enough to affect me" or some such. Forcing an arrest when you could get off with just a warning would be a dumb move.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
http://www.aclu-wi.org/wisconsin/police_prisons/bu stcard.pdf
I got scared when I saw this story title. I thought for a moment that the wiretapping charges against the NSA and AT&T were dropped. That would be awful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance
They weren't children, it wasn't mortal danger or bodily harm, the teenagers should have known the risk, and anything he could do to stop them would have involved a lot of effort. Attractive Nusicance doesn't even begin to apply to this case. It is for a child that might unwittingly hurt himself.
What he did wasn't nice, but it wasn't wrong, and only maybe, barely immoral. I would argue it was a very fitting punishement.
That is just plain untrue; the DA who told you this was jonesing you. The Right to Remain Silent part isn't the key, its the requirement that they inform you of your Right to Attorney. If they don't do that reasonably soon after the arrest (that is, the same day (Missouri v. Seibert) and before they ask you any questions that would compel a reasonable person to talk (Rhode Island v. Innis)) then that's the ball game.
No, Fascism (Mussolini and Hitler style) is a right-wing movement. The Fascists and the Communists hated each other.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
I should ammend that... Must avoid the temptation to pretend to be an expert because I read a wikipedia article...
I'm unaware of any cases where attractive nuisance has been extended beyond the defintion given in the wikipedia article. They may in fact exist. The WP article is a pretty clear indication that the intent of Attractive Nuisance doctrine is incompatible with setting someone up to destroy their own property by committing an illegal action. If you know of other uses of it, please elaborate, because otherwise I think you're misusing the doctrine yourself.
Personally, I don't see much wrong with letting a criminal screw himself in ways other than bodily harm.
Cheers
Just a thought,
Ask your friends what are they doing to stop this phenomenon.
If they know about other cops abusing their power but don't do all in their power to sop it, they aren't really good cops.
Ultra-right? The neocons who are running the USA right now are hardly conservative.
You're completely, utterly wrong about the applicability.
My exact words were *I think this falls under the catagory of "attractive nuisance"*. I wasn't going for exact legal defination. But might as well sort through the wikipedia list just for laughs.
> 1. The place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children
> are likely to trespass, and
Well... You nor wiki did not clearly define child... but jack asses in a 4x4 could easily be under 18. It's not clear the ownership of the land in question, but it was painfuly clear that the gas owner knew kids were stealing his gas.
> 2. The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should
> realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children,
It's clear we are talking about an area away from a gas station at the very least, a place were 4x4 vehicels are used. Whether it's out of cell phone range or not is unknown, I presume it's on a mountain off the main roads, hince the need for a 4x4. It is however clear the owner of the gas took action which caused the 4x4 vehicle to fail. The risks involved in being stuck on a mountain would depend on the existance of dangerious wildlife, distance from town, whether condtions. But causing someone's vehicel to break down does present a risk, the risk of not being able to gain access to food or water.
> 3. The children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in
> intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it
Unsure if this would apply... but I highly doubt that the children involved understood the risk of angry lumberjacks putting sugar in gas cans.
> 4. The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight
> as compared with the risk to children involved, and
> 5. The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children
So before we had kids stump jumping in an area that presented little risk of being stranded due to the availablity of surplus lumberjack fuel, and rather than remove the fuel the lumberjack in question sabotoshed the fuel knowing the kids would use which could have resulted in a hazzerdious condtion.
But thanks to your link, you see i'm not completely wrong, certinaly is in the same *catagory*.
They weren't children, it wasn't mortal danger or bodily harm, the teenagers should have known the risk, and anything he could do to stop them would have involved a lot of effort. Attractive Nusicance doesn't even begin to apply to this case. It is for a child that might unwittingly hurt himself.
They were teenagers, which are reconised as being children under most state laws. They had NO way of knowing some jackass was going to put sugar in the gas cans. I didn't learn about sugar in gas tanks until I was an adult. Diesel, oil, rain water, these things are found in gas cans, but sugar is not.
While you could be right, it may not be 100% wiki's idea of *attractive nusicance* (They were attracted to free gas) but it certianly is a form of sabotage.
What he did wasn't nice, but it wasn't wrong, and only maybe, barely immoral. I would argue it was a very fitting punishement.
Engines tend to cost thousands of dollars. Gas costs $3.00ish/gal. I see a very huge gap between the damage caused by the sugar in the gastank and the theft of gas, even if we take lost hours of work into account. Just become someone steals something from you does not give you the right to damage their property, it doesn't even give you the right to sabotage their property.
A brief review.
1. The normal risk of using someone else's gas cans is the risk that the fuel in them is not compatable with your machinery. Could be diesel, could have oil mixed with it, c
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
But we're not talking bullshit charges here. The way their law reads this guy was violating it. The charges weren't bullshit, he broke the law. I actually read the article when Slashdot first covered this. I also read the New Hampshire wiretapping statues. The idiots who wrote and passed their wiretapping law are stepping all over their citizens' rights. How can it be illegal to record audio and video on your front porch, with or without notifying those being recorded? There's no expectation of privacy while standing on SOMEONE ELSE'S front porch. The only reason they didn't charge him with anything is because there was no way they would get a conviction. The detective was a dick and it's on tape. The negative publicity the police got from this encounter would continue and flow on to the prosecutor's office for prosecuting. It's highly unlikely that any jury would convict the guy for taping audio and video on his front porch...no matter how their fucked up law reads...especially if they got to see the tape with cop being an arrogant bully. If there is any bullshit here it's the fact that the law was passed in the first place not that the charges are bullshit. The charges would be legitimate under New Hampshire law.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
Absolutely 100% wrong.
You're willing to give up your rights to avoid being inconvenienced. That attitude makes it that much harder for the rest of us who would like to KEEP our rights.
How you react to a cop while being a protester at a protest is a lot different than how you should react in other situations. Protests have media coverage and other protesters who are usually recording events. You can play games with cops all you want but usually the best outcome for anyone dealing with the cops comes from being polite and cooperative...especially if you don't have shit to worry about in the first place. Driving drunk? Got drugs in your car? Have an illegal weapon on you? Well, then you already screwed yourself in the first place didn't you?
"THEY ARE ***NOT*** YOUR FRIEND. They will LIE, CHEAT, and do anything they can to get you to give yourself up."
If they can get you to "give yourself up" then you must be doing something wrong. I can't give anything up if I haven't done anything. I'm glad that you know all of the cops in the world so well that you can indict them all as corrupt and evil. Personally, I know a few cops who just want to make the world a better place for their families and for us and our families. Sure there are some who just want the power trip that comes from being a bully and sure some of them are willing to be unethical in doing so, but cops don't have to tell the truth.
I've never heard of any regulation that says they have to tell the truth to or about a suspect they are investigating. If they can get information from someone by lying to them that's fine...as long as they tell only the truth in court. Suppose they tell you your neighbor is suspected of being a crack dealer? You may know he smokes dope and you're cool with that but now you think the neighbor is a crack dealer and that bothers you so you tell the cop you've smelled pot coming from his place. The cop gets a search warrant and busts your neighbor and there is no crack, just pot. The cop lied to you and busted someone breaking the law and in court he can say he got the information about the pot smoking from you by lying to you about the guy being a crack dealer. Is that wrong? In what way? Maybe it sucks being lied to but you didn't get harmed in any way. The neighbor was breaking the law and knew he could get busted for it so he doesn't have any legitimate complaint. Now if the cop planted an additional couple of pounds in guy's place when searching that's a different story but how often do you think that really happens?
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
As I've just returned home from work, I'm a bit tired myself, but could you point out which portion of the post had incorrect grammar? Your subject title implies that it was an it's/its mistake. I see only one instance of "it's", and in the manner it's used ("So long as one person knows, it's fine.") is correct. The sentance is meant to read as "it is fine", thus the apostrophe is necessary.
As I said though, I'm tired, so I may be missing the mistake to which you refer.
I read that he had a sign saying he had video surveylance... I have a video camera - it happens to be at the top of an 80' crane and aimed at a some eagles. So... you come along and do something illegal in the field below the nest/camera, but in the field of its view. I have video of it - are your rights violated? Probably, because there is no sign saying there is a camera there. On the other hand, the camera and its full view is on private property - nothing that belongs to someone other than the property owner is in view of the camera - and the property owner has given permission for the camera. On the gripping hand, the output of the camera is on the Internet and tens of thousands of people might have seen the event in real time - and captured the video! Now what is the problem? The problem is the veracity (look it up) of the evidence of any wrongdoing - it is irrefutable (look that up too) and in a reasonable society would it be evidence that would convict anyone who did something that was (via the evidence of the video) guilty of the crime - no matter what it was... trespass, murder, or anything in between. But along comes the privacy advocates - who (maybe rightly - that is up to the courts) point out that if a person were sitting where the camera was, there might or might not be a conviction - since the person brings their own prejudices and perceptions to the forray - and of course the lawyers for the defense can manipulate that in many ways. OK -- so let's set up the cameras in a similar fashion to the "unbiased" witness - give them some "forgettery" (less than perfect memory) and other hobbles that put them on par with the old 18th century bobbies (coppers, police, etc.)with their pencilled notebooks and imperfect memory. Let's first give them a "copper" badge - put an identifying badge on every single publicly-focused camera - a license plate if you will... one that identifies the camera uniquly and gives a bit of information about it. That way we can know if we are near some(one/thing) that might take note of our presence (i.e. we would not the presence of cops, so we should be given the opportunity to note the presence of cameras that can be used by cops.) The badge should identify if/where anyone can view the output of the camera - a web address. It should also let anyone with half a brain know how long the image is stored... for a day, week, month, forever, etc. If the camera's output is stored for a long time, the images stored should be forced to be degraded over time (somewhat like a person's memory). Except that... if a police incident occurs and the police request copies of the camera output at a particular time, the output can be captured as is and not devolve further - somewhat like taking a statement from a witness. This, and only this, will take away the potential for using archived, 100 year old video to prove that your mother could not have met/bedded your father and thereby deny your progeny of their heritage - or it might just keep your ass out of jail; same as the current questionability of recalled perceptions 20 years after the fact.
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
First, there are false confessions, in case your head has been buried in the sand. Second, perhaps you have done something. In that case, the advice not to be a fool and give yourself up is sound.
As long as they don't question you, it doesn't matter if they read you your rights or not. If they DO question you without Mirandizing you, then whatever you say is not admissible.
I think I remeber this from an ACLU video put on the internet. Very informative.
Why should a criminal have any expectation at all to not be harmed in the process of comitting a crime?
If I leave my floor slippery and wet at night to deter burglars, you would be among the crowd of scumbag lawyers trying to sue me for his broke leg and stiches.
If I keep a yard full of half-working cars but decide to only fix a few of them because I believe my yard would be a target for car thieves, why on earth should I be responsible for the thief who got killed when the axel fell apart while crusing 80 down the highway with my stolen car?
If you come onto my property with the intention of stealing something, I have the legal right to shoot you in my state. If you try to steal my fuel, then I am well within my rights to store crap in there that will wreck your car as a deterrent. I'm not telling you to take the fuel. Unless you get express permission, you have no expectation whatsoever, morally, ethically, or legally to touch those cans.
What if I decide to put in diesel fuel in those cans? Its a prefectly valid fuel for certian types of engines that can also ruin a normal engine. There is no difference.
It is amazing the sorts of minds out there who side with the common criminal and are against the rights of those to stop criminals. I will never side for a person who intentionally and willfully comitted a crime and got himself into trouble in the process and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.
They meant in the title. I put it's instead of its. I of course don't spell/grammar check my posts since it's just done in a web browser. For that matter I don't even look at the screen (I can't touch type). Actually, I find it funny since people attack you based on trivial things like that basically when they are too stupid to address your arguments.
Either way, I refuse to spend time checking over my posts. They are an infromal post on a random message board, not a paper submitted to a journal. My spelling sucks, my typing sucks, I'm mildly dyslexic and I just don't care. This was actually not a case of me not knowing the correct form of its/it's to use, simply an error. Of course it's habitual to do 's when you think possessive since that's how you do it on most words. So it happens sometimes. Goes the other way sometimes too, I'll do a contraction and not hit the ' key hard enough.
Such is life. However, in general I find it useful because any person who can find nothing better to criticise than the form of my message, without addressing the content, isn't really worth my time to read in the future so I just have slashcode mod them off my screen.
The police said that the "obscure little sticker" that Gannon had displayed was not enough notice of recording, so therefore his recording was technically illegal. Apparently, the police have never heard of something called "fine print". If fine print is legal, then it it is legal. If it is not legal, then it is not legal. In my state, the People's Republic of Kalifornia, fine print is just as legal at anything. Even if it is not legible, such as is almost always the case when it is diplayed in a TV advertisement, it is still legal. So, if Barney Fife didn't see the sticker on the front of Gannon's house, that is his problem. Judges need to define what is legal and what is not. People cannot "pick and mix" legality whenever they want. Again, if fine print is legal, and it is, then the police, or anybody else on his front porch who misses the obviously visible sticker, is just plain S.O.L..
-----
Sig Sauer
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Oh, but we are indeed talking about bullshit here. The law is bullshit. Enforcement of a bullshit law is bullshit. Indeed, enforcement of a non-bullshit law can also be bullshit, as can non-enforcement of a bullshit law. Just remember that there is not an inverse relationship between the validity of a law and its bullshit state. It is difficult to define bullshit, but easy to detect! This was indeed bullshit. Luckily, our justice system has many opportunities for bullshit detection, and in this case the DA served that function.
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
So as I understand it the law says you can not record a person without thier permission. Can anyone explain to me why the Nashua police don't charge the President of the United States for wiretapping without a warrant? Isn't that "taping without permission"? The United States isn't being turned into a police state, it is one. http://www.prisonplanet.com/
So a bank robbery on security video; A mugging at an ATM; A murder on national television?
Interesting law, if you happen to be a criminal cop.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Disorderly conduct is what they charge people with if they can't come up with any legitimate charges. It is the quintessential bullshit charge.
Your boss can't fire you for hating him. He can fire you for antisocial behaviour like putting your dick into the filing or being a sex pest, but not for your opinions about him. I'm sure when you were videotaped rubbing ether all over your nipples you weren't so quick to out "big brother" to all and sundry.
as I said - he said they DO tell them about the right to attourney, and in fact, have one at central booking to meet you there (Queens is a BIG place, and there are always lawyers there) - you come in, and an a Public Defender is right there - you are given your rights in front of him - aka the cops don't BOTHER until your back at the precinct or at central booking
If I said they don't read them to you at all - I stated it wrong - it's just NOT at the moment your arrested - it's when you get to the police station or central booking - and they are NOT going to worry about any statements you made in the car on the way there, as it would be almost impossible to use against you.
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
That's what a cop will tell you if you run a stop sign, or turn onto a road right after the posted speed limit then speed. You shouldn't go onto someone's property without expecting them to protect themselves. I don't see the you're-being-recorded stickers at most banks I go into, but I figure SOMEONE's watching out for their investment.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs here but the GP said the charges were bullshit. The charges aren't bullshit because they follow the law. I 100% agree the law is bullshit as it is written, but cops aren't supposed to ignore laws that they don't agree with and either are citizens.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
If you are arrested, you are entitled to a lawyer whether you can afford one or not.
The point is not so much that you're getting a lawyer or not - it's that you're asserting your right to have one. The cops, my friend says, will do whatever they do. This is all to protect you when you are in court. If you didn't assert your rights when dealing with the cops then it allows for more of their "illegal" activity to slide and for more evidence to be used against you.
If they can get you to "give yourself up" then you must be doing something wrong. I can't give anything up if I haven't done anything.
That's a pretty naive view of how the legal system works. There are plenty of people who are accused of things they did not do but the only practical choice is to plead guilty or no contest. Many people want to fight on the principle of "I'm innocent, and I'm not going to say otherwise". But then you are stuck for days in jail with "real" criminals. You have to keep taking days off work to be present for your defense - only to find they've postponed your trial yet again. You can't wear this system down, but it can grind you down until you give up.
A public defender wrote a very good book: http://www.davidfeige.com/
You should never consent to a search, even if there is nothing to find. The cops will still search you if they want and they may even find something. If they REALLY want to search you, and use the evidence, they'll get a warrant.
Be polite, yes. But be assertive about maintaining your rights. They are precious and one of the things many people have died to protect. Don't be so passive in simply giving them up.
It's not a naive view. I worked for a world class law firm for 8 years and while their clients were more white collar crime than blue collar, you never, ever, admit to something you didn't do in order to get out of jail or end their "grind". I am a patriot and a true American. I will not enable one of the negative sides of our legal system by copping a plea to something I didn't do. I'll use your own words, "But be assertive about maintaining your rights. They are precious and one of the things many people have died to protect. Don't be so passive in simply giving them up." I will maintain my rights. If the system fails me, so be it. At least I stood up for my rights, ideals and principles. As for consent to search... I think I can better serve our rights by allowing a search and then, after being let go because they didn't find anything, filing a complaint about the unecessary, and rights infringing implications of not allowing the search. I've got balls but 2:00 am by myself, with just some unknown (good or evil?) cop is not my best choice to show them. I'd rather show them downtown in the police station with a lawyer present while I file an official complaint. If the cop didn't have any just cause to ask for the search you can bet his supervisors won't be pleased about the compaint. The added benefit is that every time a bad cop gets a complaint, whether it is found to be with merit or not, it still goes in his record and sooner or later it will be his downfall. Defense attorney: "Mr. Ossifer, how come you have 30 citizen complaints in your file?" Prosecutor: "Only 2 of those complaints were found to have merit". Jury: "Bad cop with other bad cops' testimony saving his ass". Defendent found innocent.". You do have to stand up for your rights but put some thought into when is the right time. Just you and a cop by the side of the road in the middle of the night is not the right place to play lawyer. Much better to be cooperative and not get the crap beat out of you, or drugs put in your vehicle, or even get shot. There ARE some bad cops out there. I like to hope they are the minority. The best way to fight them is not on their turf in the middle of the night.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
Why should a criminal have any expectation at all to not be harmed in the process of comitting a crime?
If I leave my floor slippery and wet at night to deter burglars, you would be among the crowd of scumbag lawyers trying to sue me for his broke leg and stiches.
A wet floor is a normal occourance. Mopping in it self is not an act of sabotage.
If I keep a yard full of half-working cars but decide to only fix a few of them because I believe my yard would be a target for car thieves, why on earth should I be responsible for the thief who got killed when the axel fell apart while crusing 80 down the highway with my stolen car?
These cars are at least YOUR property. If a thief stole a car that was under repair, then it was their own damn fault. But if you went out of your way to loosen the lugs on your cars, knowing it would be stolen, this is a wanton act of sabotage. You would not just be putting the thief at risk, but others as well.
It's not acceptable to want someone to be dead for stealing your car, nor is it acceptable to put others in risk just becuse your car is stolen.
What if I decide to put in diesel fuel in those cans? Its a prefectly valid fuel for certian types of engines that can also ruin a normal engine. There is no difference.
Diesel fuel is a perfectly normal thing to have in a gas can. That's the difference. The only application of sugar in gas is to sabotage the fuel which at the very least would result in a fuel filter. If some jackass stole your gas cans, which had diesel, and put them in a car, that's clearly the fault of the jackass to stole the fuel for not checking if it was the correct type.
Let's say for example Sony decided to automaticly install software on everyone's computer to prevent unauthorized duplication. It was yelled by the users of slashdot that sony can't do this because it's not their property. Let's say for example the RIAA / MPAA went out of their way to sabotage music and video files which resulted in data loss? By your logic, because someone isn't shelling out the $12 to $25 bucks for the media they deserve whatever they get. But the truth is such an act of sabotage would make them no different than a common criminal.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
One cop even stuck his foot in the door. I don't know if that counts as breaking and entering in that particular city, but if so, the cop did it.
I'm not sure about New Hampshire, but in Michigan, if he merely stuck his foot in the door, and had no intent to commit a larceny or other felony therein, he was not Breaking and Entering.
Breaking and Entering requires some alteration of tjhe structure in question, this could be the classic smashing open a window, or just opening it -- Breaking. Then you must insert some part or all of your body inside -- Entering. MCL 750.110 & CJI2d 25.1
1pt for NH!
Please don't link to a pdf without saying so, I for one like to click links but don't like to have my machine halted for opening a document - though maybe this is only firefox that does that, all my tabs are frozen until the pfs decides its loaded... wich can take minutes with large files. Anyway, still thanks.
"Is that wrong? In what way?"
In the way that he fucked you over, perhaps?
It is true the arrest itself didn't harm you in any way, but that is really not the point. Say a friend of yours have a private phonenumber, and someday you're asked to give it because his poor old granmother wants to call him, hasn't got his phone, and is soon going to die and want some last words to say. Maybe, feeling compasionate, you give it...and it turns out she was a bitch, lying, no family at all and really only stalked the guy. Now, the fact that she phones your friend in the middle of the night again, now, may not not harm you, but it harms your friend, and it's being done by false information and deceiving. And yes, that is wrong.
Now, it doesn't matter whether it is legal or not; I mean, imgaine you (and your friend) being screwed over by that woman for some legit reason; for instance, to ask for her rightful alimentation-money. Then STILL she misused you and the trust you gave her (by accepting what she says and her appeal on your empathy), and that still IS wrong, whether she has legally the right to phone him or not.
You are so wrong. You should never let a cop search your property unless you know what's in his pocket. Because sometimes what's in his pocket has a way of finding its way into your property. Life is like that sometimes. Followed by your blabbering...
"That's not mine", "I never saw that before", "Where did that come from", "You must have put that there"
You, sir, are an insult to freedom and the ideals this country was born on. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington -- all would bitch-slap you for what you just said.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
How are things going with occulus.net? Do you figure to be online anytime soon?
On the other hand, had you refused the search, and the cop searched anyway, then your rights would have been violated, and you could attempt to pursue some type of remedy.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Wrong! There is no invitation...just a grudging submission. Allowing is a lot different than an invitation. Especially if I have nothing to worry about. I can pursue a remedy based on the fact the REQUEST to search was UNWARRANTED. In the meantime I haven't had my person violated with a face pushed into the hood of a car or my ass beat with a flashlight. I still get to go with "filing a complaint about the unnecessary, and rights infringing implications of not allowing the search" as I said. That's a whole lot better than trying to convince a judge or magistrate that I wasn't trying to "resist arrest" or "obstruct an investigation" which is just the kind of shit that bad cops pull after they beat your ass and take you in without any real justification but just because you decided to play ACLU attorney.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
"I will not physically resist you, but I do not consent to any search of my home, vehicle, or person."
GP had it right.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent