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."
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!
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.
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.
As I understand it, in my jurisidiction (Canada), the typical payout is around $1000 for every day you are unjustly incarcerated. People who are winning Miscarriage of Justice suits are in some cases getting millions. I personally think that's a bit on the low side, but at least it's some acknowledgement that they fucked up.
For clearly bullshit arrests, especially ones that are so public, I think you should be eligible for similar damages, but I do think $1000/hour is quite excessive. I believe the guy is entitled to some restitution, but let's also remember that we (fellow taxpayers) are the ones paying for it. It's in everyone's interests to come up with a reasonable figure.
This was outside in a place open to view by the public and within earshot of neighbors right? Yes -- it was on his front porch. The cops have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they're in plain site in the public view from a common vid-cam. Neither does anybody. Sure, caveats exist, e.g., upskirt wouldn't fit in "normal". What disturbs me is that people seem so willing to relinquish their rights. Comments such as yours bode poorly for the future -- a future where the state is free to do as it wishes and citizens must always be careful lest some simple harmless act lands them in jail.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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.
What you are referring to is the concept of "expectation of privacy." If a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, then privacy is their right. They must give up that right or the recording is illegal. For example, recording a person in a public park requires no authorization, because there is no expectation of privacy. Recording a person in the bathroom requires authorization, because they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
So the question then becomes, do the police have a reasonable expectation of privacy? First, do they ever have a reasonable expectation of privacy when executing the law? I think that we could probably come up with some reasonable situations in which regular police have that expectation during the execution of their duty, but I think generally it would not hold. The police are public servants with extraordinary powers. As such, it is vital to our form of government that they be accountable for their actions. Accountability hinges on public knowledge. While there are situations in which a person may be accountable without public knowledge, public knowledge is the only way to guarantee accountability.
Do they have a reasonable expectation of privacy when executing the law in a public place? How could they? It is a public place. The very concept of a public place is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Do they have a reasonable expectation of privacy when executing the law on someone's private property? Absolutely not. Does the local Circle K give up its right to use its cameras when a police officer walks into the store? It is an absurd notion.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
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.
Ask yourself this, what would happen to you if you did this to some cop cameras:
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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.
It seems that it is less that the little guy here won, so much as the DA simply thought he wouldn't win.
Well, you're correct, but with a qualification. In this case it's not lack of evidence that made the DA think he couldn't win. Obviously there's a frickin video tape that's undeniable evidence of what went on. The reason the DA didn't think he could win is that any jury would be hard pressed to believe that this guy has done anything wrong. If you ask me, that's a big win against this law in cases like this.
AccountKiller
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.
"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.
I'm with you to some extent, except SCREW this:
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.
That's just a recipe for every idiot to start screaming at cops to try and get arrested in order to win the "cop lottery". I don't want my tax dollars going to people like that. Let's keep in mind, that while I think it's BS that this guy was arrested, he was NOT a "good guy". He was an a-hole trying to protect his mugger son. The police are human; they responded in kind to his belligerent behavior.
On the whole, I'm glad the cops are aggressively pursuing the son.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The thing the "government" did not want to have happen is the judicial exception to their law (the New Hampshire law is ridiculous in that it only allows the government to use audio/video recording to capture criminals but does not allow regular people to do the same -- read it and see). By dropping the case, now there can be no judgment that regular people are indeed allowed to record wrongdoing by their government officials.
This means the police in the state of N.H. can go on arresting people whenever they want for recording their wrongdoing. There is no liability to an officer (or the local government) for an arrest unless you can convince some judges the arrest "shocks the conscious" (good luck) or show that there is legal precedent that the arrest is false (exactly what the dropping of the charges accomplishes removing from play).
This, btw, is the typical maneuver used when the government knows they have fucked up in a way that might create precedent adverse to their interest. And, they can always reinstate the charge later. So, don't try and get a judicial declaration that what they did was wrong -- those charges being reinstated hang over your head, now with added gravity.
On the job, they should have *zero* right to privacy. We have granted then extraordinary powers within the law in order so that can preserve order. It's our right and *duty* to keep a constant eye on them so that don't abuse those powers. If criminals are bad enough, criminals operating under protection of law are worse.
-b.
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.
A-fucking-men!
These days the mere process of being accused but not charged is itself an injustice that must be compensated for.
Apparently, you haven't been reading all of the comments people already posted in response to this story. Many people have already pointed out the fact that police officers, given the power we grant them in the line of duty, should NOT expect to have the same level of privacy that they'd be entitled to when they're off-duty. It's just like the laws governing the filming of celebrities without their permission. People "in the public eye" have a reduced expectation of privacy because their career choice involves a great deal of public exposure.
Furthermore, most states in the U.S. recognize the concept of "at will employment". If you accept a job in the private sector, your employment is a contract between you and your employer. *Either* one of you reserves the right to terminate the employment contract at any time, for any reason. (EG. Giving "2 weeks' notice" might be the courteous thing to do, but you're under no obligation to do so. You can, if you so choose, wait until the busiest day of the year for your employer, when they're absolutely counting on you to finish your portion of some critically important project, and say "I quit!" and walk out the door, costing them untold amounts of money and problems. By the same token, your employer can fire you "at will", without requirement of so much as giving a reason at all for doing so!)
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
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.
The police routinely film the public going about their business and are granted exemption from any laws prohibiting secret filming/recording. Then when they get an interesting film clip they sell it to a TV company for broadcasting.
A citizen who films and records visitors to his house and has a notice to that effect faces official harrassment and criminal charges.
2000 years ago the Romans were asking "quis custodiet custodiens" ("Who will guard the guardians"?). It seems that we have not found the answer.
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
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.
Why?
Should government records be kept to the same standards of... say medical records? No more open records requests. The government deserves privacy.. don't they?
Police officers have government granted authority to do things that ordinary citizens cannot. Why should they be treated the same? This isn't about saying Citizen A should have privacy but Citizen B shouldn't because the police, while on duty, are agents of the government.
I don't care what the cop is doing while he is off-duty, but while on-duty, his actions should be public record because he is no longer an ordinary citizen.
I think most people would be up in arms about someone getting fired for expressing their opinion. Bosses who have to fire people who don't like them are really, really ineffective.
There are other factors.
First there is a huge amount of press about this giving the Police and DA a huge black eye. They are pushing the border of making every citizen hate them with this issue.
Second even though the police and DA there are corrupt enough to believe that they can control the public in their own homes pushing this will make ALL security cameras illegal. Making life difficult for every store, station, cop that is trying to record what is going on.
Personally I feel that the man targetted by the police in this harassment should have went whole hog releasing the tape to all media outlets and finding the right reporters to damage the police and the DA as much as they can. Remember cops tried to pull the same crap during the Rodney King beating, they tried to arrest the people that taped the cops kicking the crap out of him. In fact cops always try to arrest anyone capturing their misdeeds on video tape... we cant have evidence that cops are corrupt and out of control out in the public!
It's a standard operation proceedure, your only recourse to save yourself is to make it very public and loud.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
releasing the tape to all media outlets and finding the right reporters to damage the police and the DA as much as they can
The ability to reporter-shop for a filter and aggregator who biases the truth in any particular direction for public consumption is much more dangerous than a small number of corrupt officers.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
But a better analogy would be if you went over to your boss's house without being invited, and proceeded to insult him, on his front porch, while he was standing in the doorway asking you, over and over again, to please take your foot out of his door and get off his property. And then, when he tried to fire you, you had him arrested.
No, the guy's no saint. Yes, it seems that the sticker could probably be bigger. (Incidentally, this guy isn't more than 15 miles from me--I ought to go check out the size of the sticker.) But when you're standing on someone else's front porch with the homeowner, I'm not sure you really have much of an expectation of privacy.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
I think you're missing my point.
I'd rather be mugged by Gannon Jr, than be incarcerated by the State for 27 years for protecting my home and exercising my basic civil rights.
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 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.
I think it might be better to just write in a public official exception to the 2-party rule; a public official, while carrying out his/her duties, is automatically assumed to have granted (by virtue of executing the public business) permission to be recorded. This would preserve your extremely insightful point about private sincerity, but still sticks it to the Man when the Man overreaches.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Actually, he was nice to the cops to a point, if you'd read the story.
They didn't have a warrant. They tried to push their way in, etc.
Doesn't matter if his kid was Jack The Ripper or Hannibal The Cannibal-
if they didn't see the perp in the act and see him go into my house with
the evidence for the act, they have to get a warrant to search my premises
or it's a violation of the Fourth Ammendment. Those cops broke the law.
It's that plain, that simple. He didn't do anything that honestly could
be claimed an actual violation of the wiretap law; the cops came up with
that BS to intimidate him and bury the proof that the cops DID break the
law investigating the case. (Unless that gun was found with a warrant,
it probably will get thrown out as evidence- going in with the BS charges
they went in with on Gannon won't count as probable cause if the lawyer's
worth his/her salt.)
You'll note I didn't say that Gannon, Jr. was innocent- I just said the
cops clean overstepped their bounds and left it open for a good lawyer
to get an acquittal for him. If they'd followed the rules properly
(Which meant being nice and leaving when Gannon said "Good Night" to
them and getting a search warrant from a judge...) they'd not have this
and would be looking at an airtight case now.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
If they destroy the tape - it would create a criminal offense on the part of the police. They will return the tape, and they will suffer a proper litigation for overreaching, and then compounding the overreaching with seizing the petition for redress, and in so many ways violating the individuals civil rights. If a minority is involved here - it could be elevated to a hate crime. Hopefully the police will be duly chastened, and the voters will respond to the million dollar cost by voting out the police chief.
AIK