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

America, land of the "free".

[Gordonjcp]

Makes me more and more glad I live in the UK.

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.

Re:America, land of the "free".

[Richard_at_work]

Uhm, not in the UK it isn't - there are no laws forbidding you from photographing or videoing the police while on duty....

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

Source: The police themselves! http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Re:America, land of the "free".

[Zapotek]

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

Re:America, land of the "free".

[darkpixel2k]

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

In rural America, we just make paper mache eggs and dress up as the easter bunny. C'mon UK--exercise your right to dissent.

Re:America, land of the "free".

[Anonymous Coward]

This article describes three activists being arrested (it's not mentioned in the article, but they were all later acquitted); it's not clear if they were arrested for photographing police offices or for simply asking police officers to give their badge numbers (neither are illegal in the UK, and police officers are required by law to give their badge numbers when requested by a member of the public).

The problem is that the police frequently seem to be unaware of what the law says.

FitWatch is a great resource for seeing how the police photographers act, and how they expect civilian photographers to act.

Posting anonymously because I live in what is rapidly becoming a very unpleasant place to live.

Re:America, land of the "free".

[Anonymous Coward]

just buy a 200mw laser pointer, and point it to the camera for a minute or so.

Re:America, land of the "free".

[MidoriKid]

That link says they have the power to confiscate anything they think might be evidence of terrorism. "This includes any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence."

So basically, you can photograph and video tape the police if you want your camera seized.

Re:America, land of the "free".

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

On behalf of all net denizens, I'd like to thank you - please continue keeping those blinds closed.

Re:America, land of the "free".

[Totenglocke]

Yes, you have the right to be spied on and have your every movement and action monitored. You have the right to have your children arrested for climbing a tree (if you don't recall, it was on slashdot a year or two ago, where three 12 year olds were arrested for climbing a tree and inadvertently damaging the bark in the process). You have the right to be forced to be financially responsible for other people. The list goes on.

I'm completely with you on the whole "The US is crap with a psychotic government" issue. The problem is, the rest of the world is worse. If there were a better country to move to, I'd gladly let the TSA fondle my balls before I say "Fuck off America, I'm free!" as I board the plane.

Re:America, land of the "free".

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the insane surveillance of the UK, given the equivalent in the US, it would equal catastrophe. The police state in the UK may be , excessive, advanced and sophisticated, but it's a bit more passive in direct application than in the US. Also, I suspect the prison industry is a less vital part of the UK economy. In the US, the prison industry booming, and aggressively supported. Citizens are virtually hunted to fill the prison cells in the US. In the UK, you'd not serve ten years for possession.

Re:America, land of the "free".

[Intron]

The giveaway is the Altair up on blocks in the yard.

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:America, land of the "free".

[commodore6502]

In MOST US states, recording conversations only requires the consent of ONE person. In this case, that would be the caller.

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.

Re:America, land of the "free".

[harrytuttle777]

Funny thing you mention that. I was trying to do this EXACT thing. I had a one way ticket to what is considered a '3rd world' country. The nice ticketing agent at United Airlines asked me if I had a return ticket. I said no. She asked me if I was visiting family or friends. I said no. She asked when I would be returning. I said I was just going to play things by ear, and maybe do some sheep farming. She looked at me kind of funny. The really funny thing is that she 'determined' that my passport which has gotten me in and out of 4 different counties (in pretty much the same condition it is in now) no longer meets the TSA standards of legibility. I can read all the numbers just fine, but apparently just the presence of my passport in it's 'mutilated' condition is likely to bring the plane down. She also told me that i did not have a visa for the country in question, so I would not be able to travel. I checked on the counties website. You do not need a visa if traveling from the USA for vacation for periods of up to 3 months. But the United Airlines ticketing agents said that her records said this was not the case. She did not know which continent the country was on, but she was apparently an expert on the nations visa policies. I just hope the country updates their embassy website to make it consistent with the experts at United Airlines ticketing. (hasn't happened yet, but I am sure they will get on that right away)

So in essence the United Airlines ticketing agents denied me the right to travel without having even gotten to the TSA agency.

Re:America, land of the "free".

[Jane Q. Public]

That depends. Many states have decided that places like shopping malls, etc., while technically private property, constitute "public places" when it comes to the matter of free speech. So for example in my state, people can stand outside of a grocery store -- on private property -- and protest or picket, as long as they do not harass the customers.

But it seems to me that the Westboro people were there to intentionally disturb and harass the attendees. I think there is grounds for a suit on that alone.

Re:America, land of the "free".

[cavebison]

If there were a better country to move to

God forbid there's a "better county" out there than the US. Oh no, not possible. There can't possibly be over 30 countries with greater life expectancy than the US. Oh no. Nor can the US possibly be 12th in the quality of life index, or not top of the human development index or.. fuck it, pick your index, the only one the US is on top of is the Blind Arrogance Index. But hey you're free to do that too.

Make it clear to your DA

[Zaphod-AVA]

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.

Re:Make it clear to your DA

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:Make it clear to your DA

[hedwards]

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.

There isn't anything inherently abusive about it, the statutes are there for everybody to read and if you're going to record somebody without their consent then you need to be really careful that you don't violate the law.

Now, whether the statute itself is reasonable or in this instance is within the protection of the constitution is a different matter all together. This seems a bit overly strict and probably not what the people writing the law really had in mind.

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.

Re:Make it clear to your DA

[morari]

No, that would require a working government.

Re:Make it clear to your DA

[Chibi Merrow]

A public official has no expectation of privacy while going about their official duties... Believing anything else is insanity.

Re:Make it clear to your DA

[joebagodonuts]

1 The charge itself is effectively a punishment.

2 The Wiretap statute doesn't apply.

Abuse.

Cops like to do this to scare people from recording them. Many of the instances I've read about, this ends up being thrown out. They want to cover their ass, rather than serve and protect. This type of "scope creep" should be strongly discouraged.

When you use the phrase "natural extension" of a law; I can't help thinking that makes it whimsical. "The law is what I SAY it is!"

Re:Make it clear to your DA

[cdrguru]

For the most part the police recording statues and the enforcement of them is rooted in the idea that the person "in conference" with the police or being arrested is actually deserving of some kind of privacy. If it is legal to photograph and record the police when they are talking to you, then it is equally legal to photograph and record the police when they are arresting your neighbor - at least that is my understanding of how these laws came to be and how they are being enforced.

Of course, the corrallary is also true then, that you can be photographed and recorded when you are being stopped for a red light violation. And in the US there are few restrictions on what you can do with a photograph once has been taken. This means that having it appear in the local 10-page newspaper with the caption "Dangerous Criminal Arrested" when it was a traffic stop is perfectly OK. Of course, you might get the newpaper to print a retraction on page 8, but why would anyone look at that?

Further, today with Internet your picture and recording can end up in the hands of people worldwide.

So, think about exactly what you want. Is photographing the police and recording them something that is OK? Fine, then get the laws changed. But you don't get to decide that it is OK for you to do it but not anyone else. I don't think you get to say it is OK for the person the police are focusing their attention on right then to do it but not anyone else that happens by. This would effectively mean that any interaction with the police is public, which today it is not.

Re:Make it clear to your DA

[Gutboy]

It's a lot harder for them to 'lose' the recording if they do something wrong when you do the recording.

Re:Make it clear to your DA

[jamesh]

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.

Even worse in that case because there are almost certainly police officers present.

Re:Make it clear to your DA

[morari]

I'm pretty sure that the 60s and 70s prove your point. Revolution was budding up everywhere in the wake of the counter-culture movement. What did the government do? They sent spies in, partook in character assassination (if not unproven physical assassination), and allowed the National Guard to murder innocent protesters and bystanders.

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.

Re:Make it clear to your DA

[Chibi Merrow]

Where does the Constitution give the government the right to stop me?

Re:Make it clear to your DA

[Jane Q. Public]

"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."

Just plain wrong.

In nearly every state -- including those with "all party" (not "2 party") consent laws -- it is only illegal to record if the other party has not given permission, AND that party has a reasonable expectation of privacy!!!

When events occur in public, nobody has "a reasonable expectation of privacy". That is not just my opinion, that has been the consistent court ruling. There have probably been a few redneck judges who have deviated from this precedent, but if so they are in the minority.

Further, if the policeman has a dashboard camera that is running (most of the time these days during a traffic stop), then even if it did not take place on the public streets, the officer still has no reasonable expectation of privacy, because he knows the events are being recorded (usually with sound via the officer's radio).

So, in almost all parts of the United States, it is legal to record the police while they are on duty, at least in public. And not just video, but sound as well. And that has also been the consistent ruling by judges when cases like this have gone to court. Municipalities all around the United States have been having to pay heavy damages for false prosecution and rights violations when people have gotten charged with crimes for recording.

Just as an aside: collection agencies and other such entities also do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they begin a conversation with a live or recorded statement that "this conversation may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" or the like. Record away on your end. And then use it in court against them if the situation arises.

hurry up and revolt

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:hurry up and revolt

[SimonTS]

They're Americans. They're already revolting ;-P

Re:hurry up and revolt

[Opportunist]

Great idea, I just never know whether the douche or the turd sammich is the better choice. So far, I only noticed that I'm invariably wrong, so maybe it's better I abstain from voting.

Re:hurry up and revolt

[phantomfive]

I'm not convinced that 'more talking' is going to get the sides to see each other's views.

Uh, and you somehow think that revolution is going to get the sides to see each other's views?

distrust is at a maximum. separation of classes continues and the gap widens. government gets more powerful and invasive and controlled more and more by our christian taliban.

Oh, you speak the lingo of a daily-kos reader. Well, when you're done reading the propaganda, when you stop listening to those who are trying to divide us, go out and really talk to normal people on both sides. You'll see that Americans in general have FAR more in common than separates us.

Furthermore, the non-political class on all sides have a strong love of liberty, democracy, and freedom. Left and right are both willing to revolt to protect that freedom, if it comes to it.

There was one scene during the Wisconsin uproar that epitomizes this. The union protesters were on one side, and the tea-partiers on the other side, both yelling at each other. Then someone started saying the pledge of allegiance, and both sides started saying it together, in unison. We disagree on details, but agree on major issues.

America is founded on ideals of freedom, democracy, and that all men are created equal. Americans aren't unified by respect/fear for a king, like Syria, or a dictatorship, like the Soviet Union was, or love of Empire, like Great Britain was. We are unified by great ideals. And as long as we remember them, we'll be ok. It's only when we get off those, and start acting like an empire, or in fear, or dominion, that we run into trouble.

How could it be wiretapping?

[v(*_*)vvvv]

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.

Re:How could it be wiretapping?

[b4upoo]

It is not recording video that gives the law entry into most situations. It is recording voice. Security systems are usually video only. This is probably frightened, corrupt, public officials fearing it is too easy to catch them in their corruption if voice recording is allowed. All people should have the right to covertly record voice and video anywhere at anytime. Anything outside the walls of their home is public by definition.

Re:How could it be wiretapping?

[quickOnTheUptake]

Here is a summary of NH law. It does seem pretty severe. According to this article only two states don't allow recording without consent when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. From link one, it looks like NH may be one of them.

Re:How could it be wiretapping?

[quickOnTheUptake]

relevant law

Double standard?

[Shoten]

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?

Re:Double standard?

[grapeape]

Because if its the police doing the recording its easier for the recording to go missing or accidentally glitch than it would be if the person being pulled over did the recording.

Re:Double standard?

[FlatEric521]

Because if its the police doing the recording its easier for the recording to go missing or accidentally glitch than it would be if the person being pulled over did the recording.

And the article mentions that claim:

Police also claim dashboard camera videos of her arrest aren't available because the equipment wasn't working that night. Hipple said police don't have maintenance records to prove the cameras weren't working.

That was from an earlier arrest of a different person, so it might be no surprise that the man the article focused on didn't trust the police to have records of his traffic stop.

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.

I've done this on several occasions.

[Riot.ATL]

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.

Re:I've done this on several occasions.

[Strange Ranger]

"Every single time I interact with an officer where I'm suspected of committing a crime, I record the audio"
 
Something about that sentence...

How stupid.

[Renraku]

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.

There is a bill to prevent this abuse.

[www.sorehands.com]

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.

Well, that answers that

[Posting=!Working]

Dear New Hampshire,
You can now shorten your slogan to just "Die."

Love,
The police (not the band)

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:Consent

[macraig]

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 .

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.

I live in NH, this happens a lot.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.
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 .. 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.

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.

Re:I live in NH, this happens a lot.

[Plugh]

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. 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

As a former Director of Research for the NH Liberty Alliance, I can say fairly categorically that you're damn confused about what the NHLA is, and does.

The NHLA is a non-partisan, libertarian-leaning political organization. The organization's goals are "to increase individual freedom in New Hampshire. We do this by monitoring bills in the legislative sessions and encouraging private charity, a civil society, and citizen involvement."

I suspect you are confusing the NHLA with other "liberty-oriented" groups in NH, just as the apolitical civil-disobedience crowd over at Free Keene or NH Underground. Personally, while I agree with the philosophy and sentiment of many of those people, I despise those groups and their frankly stupid, counterproductive antics.

Re:I live in NH, this happens a lot.

[hsmith]

Egg-on the police now includes doing legal things, like standing around openly carrying a firearm? Sorry, exercising your rights and impacting no one is not a reason to be stopped or questioned by police.

Re:I live in NH, this happens a lot.

[Attila Dimedici]

To be perfectly honest, I think this is perfectly legitimate. The police should approach someone who is standing on the street corner downtown carrying a firearm and a camcorder and question him. If he turns out to be a crackpot retorting with overly dramatic recitals of anything, the officer should politely inform him of any legal limits to his behavior and move on. When the police know they are interacting with such individuals they should go out of their way to be polite. These individuals should be viewed as obnoxious twits who, on those occasions when the police catch them doing something that they can be legitimately charged, as people who got what was coming to them. On those occasions when the police have no legitimate basis to charge these twits, they should be viewed (by both the general public and the police) as good training for police officers to treat innocent civilians with respect, even when those innocent civilians are annoying twits. Too often, the police view the general public as criminals they have yet to catch.

Fix in Process, Politically Motivated

[bill_mcgonigle]

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).

Re:live free or die, eh?

[LordKronos]

they have no state income tax.

Try to get at least one simple fact right.

It seems he already did