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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
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.
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)
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.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison