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."

Comments

Re:America, land of the "free".

[Zapotek]

Good one mate! That's what I call British humour!
PS. I live in the UK too and I have to keep my blinds shut due to the traffic camera firmly pointed towards my bedroom window.

Only seems to apply to police

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Make it clear to your DA

[cob666]

It's not abuse, it's almost certain to be the natural extension of the law. The laws on wiretapping don't generally specify the methods that are used to do the actual recording, so an audio recording of any sort is equal to any other. If you're in a 2 party consent state, then this sort of prosecution is to be expected, if the person did the recording, which it sounds like he did, then he'll end up being charged and likely convicted.

By your logic, if I am in line at Dunkin Donuts and the person in front of me (Joe) is on the phone leaving a message while I'm talking to my friend then Joe is guilty of illegal wiretapping.

Police abuse, business as usual

[billcopc]

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).

Re:Really?

[TheABomb]

If the common man that that healthy a level of disrespect for tyranny, the cameras never would have made it up in the first place.

More likely he'd be the one to call the authorities on you.

Re:America, land of the "free".

[russotto]

Because when I climb 5 meter tall poles with wire-cutters in my teeth people tend to freak out.

Wear a tool belt (keep the wire cutters there), work clothes, and a hard hat... nobody will look twice.

Re:Make it clear to your DA

[russotto]

It's not abuse, it's almost certain to be the natural extension of the law. The laws on wiretapping don't generally specify the methods that are used to do the actual recording, so an audio recording of any sort is equal to any other. If you're in a 2 party consent state, then this sort of prosecution is to be expected, if the person did the recording, which it sounds like he did, then he'll end up being charged and likely convicted.

Actually, these laws having been around for a while, nuances like this HAVE been worked out. Both the question of whether communication during a traffic stop is a communication subject to the law, and whether or not an incidental interception like this is covered. Even if they've been worked out in a way which is not to the cops favor, however, the cops will keep arresting based on them, because there's no cost to them to do so. Thus, the cops make their own law regardless of what legislators or judges actually say. Until cops start getting serious penalties, meaning dismissal AND jail time, for doing this sort of thing, they'll keep doing it. Without looking at the case law (which I don't have access to), there's a few problems with the cop's point of view. The second-biggest is this:

II. "Oral communication'' means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. III. "Intercept'' means the aural or other acquisition of, or the recording of, the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

If you're talking to someone who is openly using a cell phone, you cannot reasonably justify an expectation that what you say will not reach the other party in the conversation. Since it's an interception whether or not the other party is recording, it doesn't matter that he had voice mail on the other end. The biggest, however, is this one:

IV. "Electronic, mechanical, or other device'' means any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication other than: (a) Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, facility or any component thereof: (1) Furnished to the subscriber or user by a communication carrier in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of its business in accordance with applicable provisions of telephone and telegraph company rules and regulations, as approved by the public utilities commission;

That's right: telephone equipment is specifically excluded. Assuming his voicemail was provided by his carrier, that's excluded too. He's innocent by black-letter law, and the cops are committing a clear abuse by arresting him under the circumstances.