Slashdot Mirror
Leave a Message, Go To Jail
Okian Warrior writes "A man in Weare, New Hampshire was charged with felony wiretapping for recording the police during a traffic stop — based on a cell phone call he made as an officer approached his vehicle. From the article: Police considered it wiretapping because the call was being recorded by a voice mail service without the officer's consent."
Makes me more and more glad I live in the UK.
gotta love NH.
If you believe that use of the wiretapping law in instances like this is abuse, make sure your district attorney knows that prosecuting these cases means you will do your best to get a different person into their office next election.
Hurry up and revolt.
Cue a dozen, "It's not as bad as under Honecker, so we don't need to do anything yet!" responses.
Unless they were on private property? Even if the car is considered private property, unless the officer was sitting in the passenger seat, anyone can record anything they want anywhere if it is in public. That is the premise for most all security cameras and recordings anywhere ever.
wiretapping without a warrant should be illegal for the government. citizens, on the other hand, should be free to do whatever they please.
Charge the police officer with Wiretapping for intercepting communications between the man and his cell phone.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
How can it be wiretapping if there was no wire tapped? When is recording a personal conversation illegal? New Hampshire sucks if they actually allow the police to prosecute this individual.
That's odd...because many (if not most) states have systems whereby the actions in front of the car are recorded on video, and audio is captured from a microphone on the officer. The basis for this not needing a warrant is common law precedent that during a traffic stop there is no expectation of privacy...so how is there an expectation of privacy if it's the person being stopped who does the recording?
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
It's odd that New Hampshire is almost militant about civil liberties but someone has managed to jigger things so that they are a two-party state.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Funny how every time I hear of a case like this it's a cop being recorded. Since they are public servants shouldn't it be legal to record them if they are on duty? This is strictly about them not wanting records when they do something wrong. With current technology I think they should have at least audio recording of on duty police officers. It would be valuable evidence that would help back up the cops testimony. I think it shows how often there is wrong doing by cops given how violently opposed they are to recordings. I still remember the video taping of a cop slamming a kid into the trunk of a car in LA. They made all sorts of excuses but it was inexcusable behavior. The kid was handcuffed and unconscious when he got slammed in the trunk. It actually woke him up when he hit the car after they beat him unconscious. His crime? He was filling up the car while his father sat inside. It was a case of mistaken identity but the cops consider everyone guilty until proven innocent. FYI I've got two family members that were cops but I also lived 25 years in LA and had some very bad experiences with them.
Atlanta's police are corrupt and brutal; it's for my own safety. They've beat me down before and left me, without any arrest, bleeding on the sidewalk. Every single time I interact with an officer where I'm suspected of committing a crime, I record the audio.
Wiretap, noun - an act or instance of tapping telephone or telegraph wires for evidence or other information. No wiretapping was involved. Recording in public is 100% legal in all jurisdictions if there is no reasonable expectation to privacy. Police officers do not have an expectation to privacy whenever they pull someone over in public. How the hell is this even a case? Oh, wait, gotta protect their own. Gotcha.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
What would happen if you start the phone call and when the police man comes up to you, you were to say to him before you talk I am required to tell you that this conversation may be recorded and can be reviewed in the future for due process. I'd imagine the police would then tell you to stop the recording and if you refused to do that you would be in breach of the order of an officer of the peace. But if you were to do that I'd imagine the legal system would be interested in the ramifications of the event. Also, what would happen if you were not in control of the recording device? The cop could tell you to turn if off and you could say you have no way of doing that. It would be trivial to make that the truth - make the recording only able to be turned off when the car has been turned off for at least 20 minutes or something.
Ummmm... if he actually is a bad cop - you know, the sort who is the whole point of getting such "wire taps" in the first place - then he sure as hell isn't gonna give his consent now, is he? You'll be lucky to walk away with the recording device intact. You yourself will be lucky to walk away intact, since he now knows you suspect him of being a bad cop.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.CON.RES.298:
This would prevent the prosecution of the recording of the police during their official duties.
Fight Spammers!
What if the citizen had asked for permission to record the conversation and the officer had declined? Would the officer then be able to /rightfully/ order that the recording be stopped, or would he just say, "Have a nice day!" and drive off?
Dear New Hampshire,
You can now shorten your slogan to just "Die."
Love,
The police (not the band)
This sentence no verb.
I think most people would freak out because of the camera's themselves, not because of an unknown citizen taking a wire-cutter to those things.
"Hi neighbour, what'cha doin'?"
"Taking down that camera"
"Right, need some help with that, I've got a very nice angle-grinder, let me get it."
" "
"Good night, neighbour!"
"Sleep tight, frriend"
Why is it that the police, aka public servants, are elevated to near untouchable status with these discriminatory laws ?
If you work for the government, be it federal, provincial/state or municipal, your actions are liable to be scrutinized by the public. Police should not be an exception. They get too many "magic rights" that allow them to dominate the public they were hired to serve. If cops weren't wrongly treated as superheroes in the law, they might start behaving a little less like spoiled bullies and more like human beings again. And I dare to dream that the career would attract a lower proportion of psychopaths (seriously, look it up if you don't believe me).
-Billco, Fnarg.com
The driver and the officer have no reason to believe that their actions on a public highway are not being recorded by a third party. The officer is taping the situation from a dashboard traffic camera, there's passer bys, and on major highways, traffic cams. I understand that in some states, law only one consenting party has to be aware (like yourself) that the conversation is being recorded while other states require you to tell the person on the other end.
As it's read, it's kind of baseless since the inherent design of a voicemail is to record messages and not eavesdrop or record conversations. People don't have an expectation to privacy if your voice somehow crops up on a voicemail someone is leaving ten feet away on your on a sidewalk.
I could understand this being a law violation if you "accidently" leave your iPhone on voicemail or in a voice memo app in your psychologist's office to hear in on the next patient or doing something malice towards the confidential privacy of others protected by law.
Where in NH was this? (Sorry I couldn't help my self....)
Clearly, they need to sue the cell phone / message service for wiretapping and recording the poor law-abiding citizen's call.
I bet that will solve the issue in a jiffy.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
I have a warning sign on my dashboard "in clear view" of anyone looking into the vehicle, that says:
"You may be recorded via audio or video if you are within 10 feet of this vehicle.
If you do not wish to be recorded, please leave the area immediately."
I only put the sign up when driving, not when parking (someone would tear the car apart looking for the video camera)
Is there anything else I could do to "warn" people that they may be recorded?
-- AC
It will bite them in the ass. They'll be in court over an excessive force suit or something and they'll claim that their equipment wasn't working that night. The jury will just think "Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhht."
If the cop is right then they'll have a video.
If the cop is lying then there won't be any recorded evidence.
That's what I'll do if I'm on a jury. No video records then everything out of the cops mouth is a lie.
Yep, vicious killers will walk because of the cops inability to keep the public's trust.
Here in NH we have this thing called the "NH Liberty Alliance" which is this psuedo-anarchist libertarian/teaparty group that tries to indirectly egg-on the police. .. I mean, let's face it, a dude with a gun and a camcorder standing on the street corner downtown -does- look a little out of place .. and when questioned they always retort with overly dramatic recitals from the bill of rights or the NH state constitution.
They pull stunts like carrying a pistol standing downtown at a crowded intersection (which is legal), and pull out the camcorder if a cop walks over to ask them if everything is ok
This has the fingerprints of that same group written all over it, they go out of their way to get into confrontations with the police (they brag about traffic stops), push the absolute limit of legal antagonism, then cry victim if the cop gets frustrated and brings them in on some usually-BS charge of disturbing the peace or whatever.
In short, while the details may indicate that the charge is bogus, it's important to understand we have a group of people here in NH who -actively try- to get charged with bogus crap by the police just to make a stink out of it.
Every time charges like this are filed, the District Attorney needs to face a recall effort. Every. Time. I will donate gladly to this effort.
It doesn't have to be successful for them to get the message.
When acting as a peace officer, or any member of the government inter-acting with the public for the societal welfare, you lose all personal rights. You are acting as an arm of the government and you should be held fully accountable for any and all actions you take in the effort for public welfare. What other real resource does the general public have to protect them from an imposing actions of those meant to serve our well-being besides recording their work?
That would require being an active citizen. It's much easier to just post on Slashdot talking about how elected officials are all corrupt and evil members of the Illuminati.
Certainly just as easy as making delusional posts like this. Care to tell us how the pitiful population of Slashdot is going to effect any real political change? Magic? I'm betting it's magic. No doubt, CowboyNeal will dress up in EGL and bring truth, justice and omgponies back to the United States.
What is difficult about this folks? Some states allow taping conversations if one party consents, others require two/all party consent. There is a nice summary here and on wiki for our nice international readers.
Just what do you think got Linda Tripp in trouble? She taped Monica Lewinski in Maryland. Had she taped in Virgina or DC, the muchly aggreived and egregiously vindictive authorities would have to look harder for charges to trump up. When you are piquing authorities, do not expose your flank!
What about if you're in a public place? In all 50 states an individual has no expectation of privacy if they are in a public place. TV cameras capture audio during live remotes from people all the time without getting consent.
Website Hosting
You don't have to guess. M = mega, m = milli. There is no ambiguity.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Precedent has been set. State of Maryland vs Plitt
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/09/motorcyclist_wins_taping_case.html
Freedom of the Press is guaranteed
As I've posted previously, there's no such thing as "government": It's a collection of people acting like assholes and everyone else letting them.
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
Far as I know, there is no assumption of privacy when interacting with an officer. They can record interaction with you and are not required to inform you of this happening. There are departments that have implemented systems that record the entire shift of each officer. This works both ways I would bet since they are a public safety employee and also have no assumption of privacy as well in their interactions with the public at large.
This also tells me that there was some form of conduct unbecoming on the part of the officer and this was an attempt to intimidate the person into doing nothing about it. Looks like this one may just blow up in face of the department and the officer/s.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice. Also, I think that recording on-duty cops should be legal.
The law he's being charged under is not just for wiretapping; it's also for eavesdropping (per the title) and for recording people unawares. Among other things, it prohibits intentionally recording oral communication (except as technically necessary, eg buffers) without consent from all parties of the communication, in circumstances where the communication is justifiably not expected to be recorded, and where the recording is not for detective / law enforcement purposes.
As such, it does not matter whether the cop had a justifiable expectation of privacy, but whether he had a justifiable expectation not to be recorded in such circumstances. Now, the cop had a dashcam/mic (which are explicitly allowed), so he should have expectation of being recorded in such circumstances (whether the dashcam/mic were working at the time may be irrelevant)... but the way dashcams are exempted is (if I'm reading correctly) that in addition to being legal, they are not counted as recording devices (even though they are). This would be a bug in the law if it were true. It could still make what the guy did technically illegal, but it might still be grounds for throwing out the case.
As for being recorded by a cell phone message, how he's being recorded doesn't matter either legally or ethically. If he's intentionally recording the cop by dialing up a libertarian hotline (says FTFA) and leaving a message, that's the same as if he has a tape recorder.
It seems from recent media reports that law enforcement officials are abusing wire-tap laws to prevent people from filming or recording them as they perform their official, public service duties. I believe this to be immoral and evil, and will be donating to help defeat this type of behavior anywhere, including in your state.
I would be delighted if you decided to help.
Sincerely,
xxx
Reference:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/05/1954216/Leave-a-Message-Go-To-Jail#comments
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
...what a load of horse dung indeed.
Since the cops bosses are citizens, then shouldn't their boss be able to record them on the job?
Call your lawyer's voicemail to leave a message and record the traffic stop. Should be okay since it's your lawyer. (At least this seems like something you could get away with on the Law and Order television show.)
A bill is currently being heard in the NH legsilature: HB145, Permitting the audio and video recording of any public official while in the course of his or her official duties
The bill is co-sponsored by at least one Free-Stater >:)
Part of the Second American Revolution!
And the police vehicles onboard video camera and the offiers lapel mic on the officers uniform isn't illegal wiretapping with the guy who got pulled over? Does the officer ask for his consent?
Wiretapping requires both parties in the conversation be unaware of the recording. From what it seems, only the officer was unaware, not the man being pulled over.
This is not wiretapping. A decent defense lawyer will get this thrown out in milliseconds.
Similar case to Anthony Graber, the motorcyclist who recorded his interaction with the Maryland State Police last year:
Facing 16 Years In Prison For Videotaping Police
Hopefully it'll end like this:
Motorcyclist Wins Taping Case Against State Police
I spit on this cop's future grave.
If a police had nothing to hide why would he care if someone was recording him on duty while serving the public... especially if it was unintentional, like it was in this case over a cell phone voice mail, I mean really? Wow thats just cracking up funnily stupid...
Here is a summary of NH law [rcfp.org]. It does seem pretty severe.
It is, and a favorite tool of abuse. We're working to get this fixed.
Here's my testimony before the NH House for a bill that would remove any possible wiretapping charges when it involves a public employee executing his duties ("On The Job, On The Record"). New Hampshire folk, please call your reps and ask them to support HB145.
Now, then, the interesting part. This video was shot by the man so accused - he's an accomplished videographer who spends a tremendous amount of volunteer time video recording NH Legislative hearings for those who cannot attend. He participated in the political process to get rid of this abusive loophole in the law just a handful of days before charges were brought. On an 8-month old 'incident', one that's likely to be dismissed on a simple reading of the law (a telecommunications device, e.g. a cell phone, is explicitly excepted). His video comments were critical (and rightly so) of those who abuse the system. To me, this is retribution for engaging in the political process.
The first bit of testimony in this video was from a woman who was targeted by the same police department (one that refuses to return her camera even after charges were dismissed). It's hoped that the chief is replaced in the election this coming Tuesday (and thus a house-cleaning can begin - these charges against the department are among the less severe).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Look at the Rodney King incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King
Any police force must be held to account and should not be allowed to suppress in any manner those who would hold it co account.
The knowledge that a person is recording an interaction with the police should have no bearing on them at all - they act in the knowledge that they are upholding the highest standards of law enforcement, because they are actively doing so.
That someone will record them doing their duty cannot and should not intimidate them.
If they feel intimidated, then they should seek training or consider another career.
I swear.. you JUST CANNOT make this stuff up...... *Some* cops/departments are absolutely bat-shit crazy... However, I had a interesting encounter with our local police here in Las Vegas the other morning at 6am. There was a loud knock at the door and I went and looked thru the peephole and two LV Metro PD officers were standing there.. They asked me if I and my wife were ok.. Turns out our landline phone had been showing off-hook for several days, and my sister-in-law got worried when she couldn't reach us, so she called the local police.. I didn't realize they still did the old-style checks that ALL police depts used to do in the good old days...
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
to their definition of "oral communication." http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-1.htm
Cop didn't have expectation of privacy on the public street, so whether Bill taped it / even on the by phone / doesn't make a difference. See: http://nhdcyf.info/taping.html
In NH though, that doesn't guarantee the judge won't send it to trial.. .
If merely recording an officer is grounds for a felony, what about instances where police officers are doing something wrong? Take for example, the Rodney King case. Is the person recording the officers beating a man getting a felony because they didn't get the consent of the officers? In this case, it is clear that the officers are doing something wrong. However, what about instances where their behavior might require a second look from a higher-up? In such a case, the recording might actually be useful to rectify misbehaving cops. In sum, who watches the watchers if it's not a felony to record anyone in a uniform?
It seems to me that this is complete BS. I have some real issues with corruption, negligence and the like that happens with public officials, both elected and civil "servants".
/. ers.
/. audience for some thoughts. There are a lot of intelligent, diverse and well informed people reading this blog. What I'm wondering is whether or not this sort of apathy is prevalent everywhere, or is it just in the circles I've been dealing with? Is there anyone reading this who thinks recording our elected officials, or civil servants would be a really good idea, something not just a nice intellectual concept, but something worth pursuing?
:-) I've really sort of given up my passion and idealism because it seems like no one cares.
So I have a question for
I've had this idea for a while that one way to attempt fixing the system would be to have mandatory recording of all activities of our elected officials (while they are performing their duties). My theory is that if you have complete audibility of everything they've said or done, and that you can dig into it retroactively, fewer nefarious things would happen. (Based on the simple psychological principle that we are all better people when we think we're being watched.) It also doesn't seem to be that outrageous a thing to ask from OUR representatives - who are supposed to be acting in OUR best interests. (This, btw, is similar logic to what we're being told when our civil liberties are being crumpled up and shoved up our asses. As in, if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide.)
This clipping hits a related note, and while reading it, I'm sitting here thinking that a public official, when performing their duties, should have no expectation of privacy. Their activities SHOULD be completely transparent to the general public.
Anyway, I've been a little depressed about politics lately (ok, ever since Bush was re-elected - I died a little bit each day. Finding out that people's political beliefs are really an emotional decision was a crushing blow. How do you reason with emotion?) and this is the kind of thing that just burns me up. But I talk to people and it never seems like other people are as upset by things like this. Or even remotely concerned. I read something like this and it's like white hot fire across the brain. I want to scream and say this is something we should fight for, it's a huge problem and these are the things that are making a great country (or at least what was original some ideas for greatness, and fairness, and high ideals) into a bastion of bureaucracy, greed, ineptitude and oppression.
So I'm asking the
I'm not looking to start up a group to pursue this right now (but frankly, if there was a group advocating something like this, I would totally support it), this is more of a request for confirmation that there is still some good in the world.
I'd also like to know what anyone outside of the states thinks. Are politics different in your countries? Do people care, do they participate, do things change as a result of this? (I'd like to believe it's different elsewhere, but maybe it isn't.)
It's oppressive to have any law that requires police consent to be recorded in public places. Preventing citizens from creating evidence that might contradict police statements is, in essence, allowing the police to do whatever they want. We have a Constitution in order to put checks on the authorities, not on the citizenry. If that's how NH law defines wiretaps, then that part of the law needs to be repealed.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
A better article is here.
Summary: Alleman was leaving a rally held to support another man, George Hodgdon, who the police didn't like very much. The cop, Brian Montplaisir, followed him, then pulled him over. Alleman called Porcupine411. Montplaisir says he crossed onto the shoulder; Alleman denies it.
Other activists claim to have been similarly harassed and arrested (with _police_ recordings of those arrests mysteriously not working), including for the "crime" of using a cell phone to record conversations in a police station (keeping in mind that telephone equipment is specifically exempted in NH law).
Obviously this is a biased account, but if this side of the story is true, all the Weare police need to be taken out to the back of the police station and shot.
(Trial? Why give them justice when they dish out injustice under the color of authority. Besides, we don't have the death penalty for bad cops. Unfortunately.)
Instead of a revolution that is not going to work out well I suggest all the useful people emigrate to our area of choice around Europe leaving the US to wither and die
For gods sake Mod this up
First, you'd be surprised how often the TV news gets consent. When they cannot, it probably qualifies as "news", for which they don't need consent. Second, a camera & mike stuffed in your face without objection might be construed as consent. A hidden mike could not be.
If the laws there support such charges then those laws are in urgent need of repair. More importantly, there needs to be heavy penalties for police officers who attempt to harass citizens in these kinds of ways up to and including jail time. Police can make mistakes like the rest of us and that's acceptable to a certain degree. Arresting someone for recording them while on the job is not an acceptable kind of mistake because it involves the officer abusing his extensive privileges for his own gain and it potentially allows him to hide other abuses of power. I would put it at the same level of seriousness as if an accused person goes to the judge's private home and attempts to physically intimidate him into dropping his case. Or rather it's more serious than that, because the police officer is in a position of trust while the accused is not.
I don't consent to having myself recorded on CCD cameras everywhere I go... Do I get to press charges against my local 7-11 for secretly recording my slurpee making activities??
This is rediculous and EVERYONE knows it. If the charges are not dropped there will be lots of outrage and public pressure to change the law and then LEA looses a punitive threat to cover their asses... You watch it will be dropped like all of the other ones before it.
Wasn't there a motorcycle rider who left his helmet cam on when he got pulled over, and they charged him for felony wiretap and it didn't stick?
Had she taped in Virgina
Given the reference at hand, this is an amusing typo. Even though Lewinski's never seemed to be directly involved.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
We can do that, you know that right? Lobby your state legislature. Failing that, start a direct initiate to get it on the ballot. At the state level people can vote on laws directly. The process for making it happen varies state to state but it can be done, and is done each election cycle (we always have a few propositions to vote on).
What's more, you operate with precedent with your change. Many states are one party states. What that means is one participant has to be aware of the recording. So you can record your phone, but not your neighbour's phone, your car but not your boss's car and so on. That is how it works in many places, all you'd be doing is trying to change your state's law to match.
So if your state is a two party state and this bothers you then start working on getting it changed. Don't just cry and whine, that does nothing. Work on changing the law. Laws can be changed, and are changed. The legislature may well change it if they are shown why it is bad. They probably have never even though about that there is a law for it, much less what it is or the problems. If that doesn't work, then you can do a grass roots measure to get it on the ballot. Don't say that won't work, Arizona just legalized medical marijuana. The Legislature didn't want it, but the people got it on the ballot and it was (very narrowly) passed and is law.
The more local a law is, the less sympathy I have for bitching about it because the more power you have to change it. As I said, it is much easier at a state level than national level and this is pure state law. Don't cry about it, work on fixing it. If you try and try and nothing can be done, ok I'll provide a shoulder to cry on. However if all you do is whine about how bad the government is online, and then make matters worse by not even understanding the issue enough and blaming the federal government, I've no sympathy for you.
My state does not have this law. In my state, it is explicitly legal to record things, so long as one party is aware of the recording. What's more, you are automatically a party to things your own, like your house. So if I put a camera in my niehgbour's house, that's illegal, if I put a camera in mine that's legal. If I tap his phone, that's illegal, if I record mine that's legal.
Oh what's that? You are ignorant of how the law works, you didn't take 5 minutes to research and just assumed this was a US wide thing? Well that is really your problem, not mine. If you are going to have a strong opinion on something, if you think people should "revolt" over something, maybe you should take the time to actually understand what you have the opinion on.
Also, were my state a two party state, I'd simply work to change the law. Turns out you can do that, particularly at the state level. You can lobby your elected representatives, of course, but you can also bypass that. States have processes to have propositions added to the ballot. When that happens, the people vote directly on the law. That is how medical marijuana was legalized in places like California and Arizona. The state government didn't want it, but the people voted directly on it, so it is law now. No revolt needed, just people to not be lazy and actually work for change.
To quote Ron White "Next time you have a thought... Let it go." Or at the very least, take the time to research your position. Find out the real situation before you form a strong opinion.
Spray paint? Really? There are easier paints to use for this illicit endeavor.
If you're going for a Rube Goldberg effect, you could at least include an umbrella and a live squirrel!
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
In MOST US states, recording conversations only requires the consent of ONE person. In this case, that would be the caller.
"MOST US states" doesn't seem to include New Hampshire this time. A quick Google search shows that it is a two-party-consent state.
Of course would could also argue the cop was ON A PUBLIC STREET and therefore has "no expectation of privacy" to quote the US Supreme Court. It sounds like this case is destined to be over-turned.
One would hope, but federal courts (including SCOTUS) are not always reasonable. Recording actions of active duty law enforcement personnel are strong deterrents to brutality, some corruption, and tyranny.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
You don't need to get the officer's permission to record them during a traffic stop because:
1) You are collecting evidence for your defense, and interfering with evidence collection by anybody, even law enforcement, is obstruction of justice,
2) You are in a public space, where there is no expectation of privacy,
3) You cannot leave the officer, and leaving the area would place you in violation of laws regarding obstruction of justice and evading arrest.
4) You were smart enough to put up a window sticker stating that all communications with the driver of the vehicle are under audio/visual recording.
This case will be dismissed, on the grounds that the officer was not the receiving party of the phone call - the answering machine was. Wiretapping laws apply to interfering or intercepting communications between a calling party and a receiving party. The officer was not the receiving party of the phone call - he was background noise - and therefore whatever he said could legally be overheard by anybody. The law provides no disclaimers or exemptions that restrict oral conversations, especially in public.
For example: You are walking down the street. Two people in front of you are discussing a bank robbery. You overhear them. Later, they commit the robbery, and are caught. You go to the police, and are able to positively identify the suspects, and provide Law Enforcement with details about what you heard the suspects discussing. Does this mean your testimony is inadmissible? Absolutely not. Suppose you were calling a friend, and were leaving a message on their machine where the suspects can be heard discussing the robbery. Is this evidence inadmissible? No. Did you commit wiretapping? No - the other discussion was background noise.
If you can be photographed or videotaped in public without your consent because there is no expectation of privacy, then the same goes for other mediums such as audio.
If he gets a remotely competent lawyer, this is slam dunk in his favor.
If you get stopped, simply:
1) Immediately when the officer gets to the window, ask him if you can record him for evidence purposes. You are required to have proof of consent, so you CAN record this part.
2) If he says "No", politely acknowledge his statement, state that you have his decline of consent on tape, visibly turn off the recorder, and then silently stare straight ahead.
3)If they give you a ticket, you can sign it if you want and bring it up in court later. However, if you are gutsy enough to refuse, you can use the fact that the officer refused to allow you to collect evidence for your defense, and try to use that as justification, but I DO NOT recommend it because you WILL BE arrested.
4) If you want to confuse the hell out of them, ask to speak with an attorney before you speak to the officer. If they say "No", state that you are being placed in unlawful legal jeopardy by being forced to communicate with the officer while being denied counsel. If he says that you can call one to visit you, call one, and tell them that your counsel will arrive at your location in 9 hours.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
This event didn't just happen in the US, it happened in New Hampshire, the state whose slogan is "Live Free or Die!".
(And as some comic pointed out, where do they make the license plates with that slogan on them? In prison....)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
For what definition of "wrong"?
One of the major problems we're facing with the extra-litigious society we're evolving into is a confusion of "legal" with "right". Something can be legal, but also be wrong. On rare occasion, something can be illegal but also be right (morally or ethically).
We can't allow lawyers and politicians to put blinders on us. The further down this rabbit hole we allow them to take us, the fewer freedoms we will have in the long run.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
If this pisses you off, please consider throwing a fiver to the man's legal defense fund. With enough resources, it may help establish case law to prevent further such abuses. Certainly the State does not need to raise such a fund, so the odds are asymmetrically stacked against the furtherance of liberty.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Awesome. Thank you.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
A first party recording in public of a public servant could not possible have had any expectation of privacy.
This is my hometown- I know the people here. Its a 40 minute drive to anything open past 8pm. The police in this town are subject to news stories all the time but I remember a few years back when I was in high school how rampant drug use was in my tiny town. I've had dealings with the police here and in every case I treated them with RESPECT and always got the same in return. Calling a politically motivated hotline for people in trouble with the police and not telling the officer what you're doing seems like you're looking for a fight in my opinion. this probably wouldn't have even been an arrest had he not done this as there was no citation mentioned for the stop. Like I said before, if you stir something up (especially since this happened before with people from the activist party he was working with) he probably knew exactly what was going to happen.
States have their own laws. In some states it is not wiretapping if you are one party of the conversation. In other states, you have to inform all parties that the conversation is being recorded. Thats why you hear those messages that say "this conversation may be recorded for quality assurance". They are not assuring quality, they are assuring they are legal in all jurisdictions.
I live in Weare, and this is certainly not how I wanted to see my town end up on the front page of Slashdot.
The Town Selectmen are having an Q&A session tomorrow, and I'll be attending to ask questions. I do have to say that this surprises me; Weare is a particularly independent town in NH, which is a particularly Libertarian leaning state to begin with. I've met the police chief on a number of occasions, and he's always struck me as community minded, and relatively benign.
-matt
I'm not surprised they don't know the law. I looked up New Hampshire laws. It's only felony wiretapping if neither party has given consent. In the case of only one party giving consent, it is a misdemeanor. --snip--- It is a felony to intercept or disclose the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2-I. It is punishable by imprisonment of one to seven years. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann 625:9. However, it is only a misdemeanor if a party to a communication, or anyone who has the consent of only one of the parties, intercepts a telecommunication or oral communication. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann 570-A:2-I. Misdemeanors are punishable by imprisonment up to one year. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann 625:9. --snip---
Just because he's had more than one run-in with Atlanta police, doesn't mean he's a criminal.
For all you know, he could have been hassled for "driving while black".
For everyone's sake, we MUST hold the police to a high standard of conduct. They are given extraordinary power over ordinary citizens, and we need checks and balances to make sure they don't abuse that power too much. I think it should be legal for everyone to record all interactions with public officials including police officers (even if releasing the recordings publically was not legal, making them should be, and then they could be used as evidence in trials etc.)
"Don't you fucking look at me!"
But the president can warrantlessly wiretap, why can't we? Oh I see, he wants different rules for himself.
It is funny that they use the opposite argument of when they themselves do illegal wiretapping, if you have nothing to hide... When someone records an officer, however obvious, they go all aggressive, you should think they have something to hide?!
It's seems the police need the consent of the citizens when using their dashboard cams as well. How do these reconcile?
No, the quote very clearly states that the device can be seized for "containing such evidence." It does not say anything about it being "used to commit terrorism" or "used by a terrorist."
While, legally, the public has the right to sue for harassment (and I think the police have a further right to sue for bringing a frivolous lawsuit), the courts are the WORST way to resolve this kind of thing. We wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if people would just be responsible about who they vote into office, and stand up AS A COMMUNITY for freedom. People are sheep.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there's a big difference.
Don't forget about libel laws. Violating a red light is a misdemeanor.
There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between "being arrested" and "being tried" ... and a further difference in "being convicted." Charges were DROPPED in the first case mentioned in the article, and will likely be dropped in the cell phone case. The article MIGHT be giving slanted information, but everything there points to harassment ... which is best accomplished by making people afraid via rumors about being arrested, and likely to lose its potency if a judge gets ahold of it.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there's a big difference.
Another example of the new United States- Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or is it 'some are more equal then others'....?
Public Officials should not be protected by such policies while acting in an official capacity. Having dealt with enough police who were stoned on drugs. I think every citizen has a right to record their actions in their defense.
Furthermore, the police record the events without your consent. Therefore you have an argument to be made. If they say that such recordings is part of their job, I think one can strongly argue that being recorded by the public is likewise just part of their job.