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."

Comments

Might have something to do with the cops lying...

[TheNoxx]

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.

Short attention span

[bidule]

Don't you kids remember that what is "illegal" is the voice recording?

This was said repeatedly in the previous /. article. If you want to keep your brain offline when yakking around, at least use it when moderating. Stupid brainless groupthink.

Re:As a side note...

[thatoneguy_jm]

In my experience, they DO ask. I was in a small traffic accident, and when the cop got out of his car, the first thing he asked was, "Is everyone ok?" Immediately following, he told us that we were being recorded by the camera in his car and a microphone, and that it was within our rights to request that it be turned off.

It was just a small accident, and it was resolved quickly, but I was surprised that A) he told us about the camera and B) told us we could request to have it turned off. Of course, this cop was extremely polite and helpful - so this just might be a "good cop/bad cop" sort of thing.

Re:gee, mod parent up maybe

[kimvette]

When a jury judges the law as unjust or unconstitutional, there can be no violation of the law. What "precedent" could be any more clear than a jury saying effectively "this law sucks ass and therefore we are striking it from the books. Have a nice day." When the law is removed, any DA would have a hard time proving guilt of breaking any such law.

Re:gee, mod parent up maybe

[Quadraginta]

Nooo, not legally they can't. "Jury nullification" has no legal standing at all. Judges, subsequent juries, and legislatures are not bound by it. It's nothing more than the common-sense observation that if juries routinely refuse to convict anyone charged with breaking a given law, then the law has de facto (but not de jure) no force.

As clarified above...

[TheNoxx]

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.

Re:Might have something to do with the cops lying.

[hazem]

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!

Really that much of a victory? No

[Degrees]

Gannon had to post $10,000 bail to get out of jail. So either he had $10,000 lying around, or he (his wife) paid a bail bondsman $1,000 to put up the $10,000.

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.

Re:Really that much of a victory? No

[mingot]

Or (if allowed in his jurisdiction) his wife could have went with a property bond. This usually places a lien against the property and raises the possibility of forclosure should the defendant skip bail. BUT, if the defendant does show you're not out of pocket any actual monies.

Re:gee, mod parent up maybe

[Quadraginta]

The result of the criminal trial doesn't affect the civil trial. The People v. Orenthal James Simpson was decided in favor of the latter, but in the civil suit that followed he was convicted.

Some folks think this skates dangerously close to double jeopardy, however, and think that acquittal in a criminal trial should be a presumptive defense against civil charges. They feel it's a tad unfair that if you're acquitted in a criminal trial, and your alleged victims are wealthy enough, they can take another shot at you in civil court (where the standard of proof is lower).

Re:gee, mod parent up maybe

[xigxag]

When a jury judges the law as unjust or unconstitutional, there can be no violation of the law.

In New Hampshire, the jury is the judge of the facts, not of the law. So the jury isn't authorized to decide whether a law is unjust or not, it is told to apply the law as instructed by the presiding judge. And even if a jury out of conscience refused to apply a law in a particular case ("nullification"), it wouldn't set a precedent, i.e. it wouldn't be binding in future cases.

Re:Might have something to do with the cops lying.

[rajafarian]

... 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.

Re:gee, mod parent up maybe

[srmalloy]

Doesn't work that way. The jury is only the "trier of fact." Their job is only to decide the facts of the case, e.g. "did so-and-so do the following things as the prosecution alleges." It's then up to the judge to decide what the law says should happen if those facts are true.

I refer you to the decision in U.S. vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969):

"We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence (emphasis mine). This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."

Re:Might have something to do with the cops lying.

[CharlieG]

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

Re:Really that much of a victory?

[Monster_Juice]

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

570-A-2

Re:Really that much of a victory?

[LWATCDR]

Yes he did report them. When nothing happened he left that force and moved to another state. The force he works for now is extremely strict and he loves working there.
Most of the issues each and every one here is talking about is manners. Notice that the man that video taped the officer complained about the officer being rude.
Of course the crap that most cops have to put up with day in and day out is just nuts. My brother in law was called because of a pinching incident. Yes two women where pinching each other in a mall!
And while everyone is screaming about the cops let's all remember. In this case the man's son was involved with the mugging! From the story, "Hefferan also commended detectives for their "tenacity and initiative" in investigating Gannon's 15-year-old son, who was later charged in connection with the mugging. Police also found a stolen handgun inside the house, they reported, but it's not clear who had possession of it, Hefferan said."
Okay so this guy's son was involved in a mugging and had a stolen handgun in the home.
As I said, there needs to be balance.