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.
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
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.
Unfortunately corporations count as citizens in this country. If we make an exception for citizens then the government can just pay AT&T to wiretap everyone.
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?
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!
Dear New Hampshire,
You can now shorten your slogan to just "Die."
Love,
The police (not the band)
This sentence no verb.
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
Let me get off the pole before you take the angle grinder to it. Thanks.
I further find it deeply disturbing that some citizens have been fighting tooth and nail to preserve the right to carry concealed firearms, yet seemingly no one has been fighting to preserve the right of citizens to protect themselves by carrying concealed recording devices. That SHOULD be a right. Instead we've had these so-called wiretapping laws in place for decades that prohibit it.
Which would you rather have: a concealed weapon to shoot the bad cop, only to face accusations you can't refute in the aftermath, or a concealed recording device to catch the bastard red-handed in the act? You might need both, but we only have laws that protect ONE (in some places) and not the other .
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.
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
As long as recordings are authentic and complete, I am more willing to take my chances with someone recording me, than to be in a he say she say situation without evidence. Sometimes recording someone without them realising it is the only way to get an honest answer out of them. 2 party consent basically makes it impossible to obtain a recording without involving the law, and this is probably only possible if there is a crime suspected, or some sort of criminal investigation going on with a warrant. And only the police, i.e. the government, are allowed this.
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.
The officer is taping the situation from a dashboard traffic camera,
This is an important point. If it is the case that this is true, then how can this not be thrown out of court. Surely, actively recording an event implies consent to the recording of that event...
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Actually, for traffic cameras its usually a case of having those driving through neighbourhood slowing down and driving at a sensible speed. From personal experience a yellow box beats having to walk past a blood splattered street.
Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
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.
Precedent has been set. State of Maryland vs Plitt
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/09/motorcyclist_wins_taping_case.html
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!
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)
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.)
I further find it deeply disturbing that some citizens have been fighting tooth and nail to preserve the right to carry concealed firearms, yet seemingly no one has been fighting to preserve the right of citizens to protect themselves by carrying concealed recording devices. That SHOULD be a right. Instead we've had these so-called wiretapping laws in place for decades that prohibit it.
Wiretapping laws, almost without exception, are meant to cover recording phone conversations, NOT public interactions. They were put on the books long before recorders small enough to hide on your person were commonplace enough for regular citizens to have them. What's happening here (and in many other cases) are police that don't want to be recorded are using laws for reasons they were never intended, and realistically don't support, to harass people who had the "nerve" to record the police when interacting with them.
Basically, there are no laws against concealed recording in public. There are laws about recording phone conversations without at least one party knowing (both parties in some states), but NOT about recording face-to-face conversations. They're called "wire" tapping laws for a reason, they were meant to cover conversations that went over actual wires -- the phone system.
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
Hagbard, is that you?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Perhaps, but we in the U.S. have learned that anything bad that European governments are doing to their citizens will be adopted by the U.S. government in a few years.
Let's face it, we are both, Americans and Europeans, suffocating under increasingly bloated nanny states that are quickly bankrupting themselves. The European countries, at least some of them, just have a bit of a head start.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
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.
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!
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....
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)