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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Source: The police themselves! http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
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.
Because when I climb 5 meter tall poles with wire-cutters in my teeth people tend to freak out.
Dear New Hampshire,
You can now shorten your slogan to just "Die."
Love,
The police (not the band)
This sentence no verb.
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.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
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
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.
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.
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.
A public official has no expectation of privacy while going about their official duties... Believing anything else is insanity.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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!"
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
#DeleteChrome
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.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
It's a lot harder for them to 'lose' the recording if they do something wrong when you do the recording.
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.
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.
The giveaway is the Altair up on blocks in the yard.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Wear a tool belt (keep the wire cutters there), work clothes, and a hard hat... nobody will look twice.
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:
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:
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.
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.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each 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."
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.
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.
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)