Wiretapping Charges Dropped 333
Ada_Rules writes "I realize that the end of a story is not nearly as sexy as the beginning, but police in Nashua have dropped the wiretapping charges against a man that had recorded both video and audio from on his home security system. The man had brought a videotape to the police station to back up a claim that a detective was rude to him while on his property as part of an investigation. In addition, the police have determined that the man's complaint about the detective was justified."
Really that much of a victory? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that it is less that the little guy here won, so much as the DA simply thought he wouldn't win. The decision is less based on the merit of the claim so it doesn't seem like anything is really gained by this happening.
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that it is less that the little guy here won, so much as the DA simply thought he wouldn't win.
Well, you're correct, but with a qualification. In this case it's not lack of evidence that made the DA think he couldn't win. Obviously there's a frickin video tape that's undeniable evidence of what went on. The reason the DA didn't think he could win is that any jury would be hard pressed to believe that this guy has done anything wrong. If you ask me, that's a big win against this law in cases like this.
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:5, Insightful)
First there is a huge amount of press about this giving the Police and DA a huge black eye. They are pushing the border of making every citizen hate them with this issue.
Second even though the police and DA there are corrupt enough to believe that they can control the public in their own homes pushing this will make ALL security cameras illegal. Making life difficult for every store, station, cop that is trying to record what is going on.
Personally I feel that the man targetted by the police in this harassment should have went whole hog releasing the tape to all media outlets and finding the right reporters to damage the police and the DA as much as they can. Remember cops tried to pull the same crap during the Rodney King beating, they tried to arrest the people that taped the cops kicking the crap out of him. In fact cops always try to arrest anyone capturing their misdeeds on video tape... we cant have evidence that cops are corrupt and out of control out in the public!
It's a standard operation proceedure, your only recourse to save yourself is to make it very public and loud.
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:3, Insightful)
The ability to reporter-shop for a filter and aggregator who biases the truth in any particular direction for public consumption is much more dangerous than a small number of corrupt officers.
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:5, Interesting)
They aren't off the hook yet! (Score:5, Interesting)
They still haven't returned the cameras (or the tape, I think) and they still maintain that he broke the law (maybe they're right, but if so, that law is despicable and just wrong).
They say he was disrespectful to them. That may be, but they still owe him a public apology for what they did.
Re:They aren't off the hook yet! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:5, Interesting)
The law says it is illegal if it is covert. He did have signs on his home but the police claim that they where not large enough.
This comes down to one question. Should the police have any right to privacy while acting in the line of duty?
Should any public official have a right to privacy when acting in the line of duty?
I honestly would have to say that I don't think so.
If an employer has the right to monitor employees performance than the public has the right to monitor public officials performance.
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's good to hear. When he sees a bad cop violate the law, does he arrest them? (Poor second choice: Does he report them to Internal Affairs?) An acquaintance of mine who is married to a cop once said, "I've never seen anyone break as many laws as cops". Of course, I took that to mean mostly "trivial" laws, the sort that a cop will overlook unless he's looking to hassle you.
If your brother in law looks the other way, then he is part of the problem.
Personally, I don't think a cop should be monitored on the job any more than say, a casino dealer. Even though a cop is dealing with life, death, and the public good, and a dealer is just dealing with money. I've heard that dealers are watched every minute, but I don't know if that's true.
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the issues each and every one here is talking about is manners. Notice that the man that video taped the officer complained about the officer being rude.
Of course the crap that most cops have to put up with day in and day out is just nuts. My brother in law was called because of a pinching incident. Yes two women where pinching each ot
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:5, Insightful)
This means the police in the state of N.H. can go on arresting people whenever they want for recording their wrongdoing. There is no liability to an officer (or the local government) for an arrest unless you can convince some judges the arrest "shocks the conscious" (good luck) or show that there is legal precedent that the arrest is false (exactly what the dropping of the charges accomplishes removing from play).
This, btw, is the typical maneuver used when the government knows they have fucked up in a way that might create precedent adverse to their interest. And, they can always reinstate the charge later. So, don't try and get a judicial declaration that what they did was wrong -- those charges being reinstated hang over your head, now with added gravity.
gee, mod parent up maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
If a jury refuses to convict, all they are saying, technically, is that they are not convinced the prosecutor has proved the facts of the case. It says nothing about the law. Indeed, juries have no power to alter or comment on the law.
But what if the judge makes some rulings about the law? He can do anything from flatly declaring the law unconstitutional to putting a particular interpretation on its language. For example, the chief of police admits recording devices are legal if you post "notices" that warn people about it, and then says that the "notice" the guy had posted was insufficient -- not really a "notice" at all. Oh yeah? Sez who? What if a judge were to make a ruling about what size "notice" is really a notice? It could happen. Almost certainly would happen if this were an important element of the trial. Then the police are stuck with that ruling. They can never make the argument later that a certain notice wasn't really a notice because it wasn't floodlit, was printed in soft purple instead of bold red, et cetera. Whatever the previous judge said constituted a notice is it.
Any rulings a judge makes become precedential, or at least citeable, in other court actions. As you say, this could easily constrain the powers of the government in similar cases later. Better by far to drop the case and avoid the danger.
The bullshit about "not being able to convince a jury" is just a way to save face, of course.
Re:gee, mod parent up maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
No given powers, but they have a de facto one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification [wikipedia.org]. Learn it, love it.
Re:gee, mod parent up maybe (Score:2)
Re:gee, mod parent up maybe (Score:3, Informative)
Re:gee, mod parent up maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
It's true the jury can refuse to convict if they don't like the law, or for any other random reason. But since the legal system can't ever inquire why a jury didn't convict, it always regards a jury acquittal as implying nothing more than that the facts the prosecution alleged were not proven.
If citizens want a law off the books, their only real recourse is to the legislature. It can't really be done by sitting on juries unless you can get everyone who ever sits on a jury to agree not to convict. Difficult.
Re:gee, mod parent up maybe (Score:3, Informative)
I refer you to the decision in U.S. vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969):
Re:gee, mod parent up maybe (Score:3, Informative)
Some folks think this skates dangerously close to double jeopardy, however, and think that acquittal in a criminal trial should be a presumptive defense against civil charges. They feel it's a tad unfair that if you're acquitted in a criminal trial, and your alleged victims are wealthy enough, they can take another sh
Re:gee, mod parent up maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
Juries don't have the legal knowledge of everyone else in the courtroom and therefore can't act with respect to legal precedent unless instructed to do so by the judge. However, the judge can't instruct the jury to act in accordance with the previous jury's actions, because juries don't write rulings or legal opinions, so nobody else involved can proveably discern what a jury used in its decision.
A jury certainly can nullify, and the end result is the same, but only for that particular case. (And, as an aside, that's why precedent is tricky - no two cases are exactly alike, and opposing sides have different interpretations of precedent. That's why we have judges, not databases of rulings.) There's nothing stopping a prosecutor from filing a very similar case in another jurisdiction, nor should there be until a judge is more assertive and strikes the law down as unconsitutional - thank God for pre-trial motions. Judges nullify laws. Juries nullify charges.
Re:gee, mod parent up maybe (Score:3, Informative)
In New Hampshire, the jury is the judge of the facts, not of the law. So the jury isn't authorized to decide whether a law is unjust or not, it is told to apply the law as instructed by the presiding judge. And even if a jury out of conscience refused to apply a law in a particular case ("nullification"), it wouldn't set a precedent, i.e. it wouldn't be binding in future cases.
Re:gee, mod parent up maybe (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like New Hampshire needs to change it's law (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember: This isn't a US thing, this is state by state. Some states, like New Hampshire are rea 2-party, and bitchy at that. All parties involved in being recorded have to consent beforehand. Of course, police get an exemption from this for their cameras in the cars.
Well that's not how it has to be. Other states are 1-party states, meaning only 1-party has to be informaed of the recording. So you can't go and tap your neighbours phone, but you can tap your own and not tell anyone. So long as one person knows, it's fine. Further some places, like Arizona, have a law such that if you own something, you are implicitly a party present or not. So you can record your own property, phoneline, whatever, and even if others are conversing without your presence you are still a party because it's your stuff.
So that's what it comes down to here. The NH voters just need to get this on the next ballot and change it. Now I'm guessing, for all the outrage, they are just going to let it drop and forget about it. Kinda sad, but really nothing you can do.
just classify police with movie stars (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we know better. Turns out to be very useful to watch the police, as useful as it is to keep an eye on any public servant entrusted with the peoples' power. So I'd say the right thing to do is classify the police -- or any government agent -- in the same way as we classify public personages, like candidates or actors in public. These people by their choice of profession and action implicitly give consent to be recorded. It's not a felony to record John Kerry making a public speech (should you have sufficient stamina or caffeine), or film Mel Gibson getting arrested on Highway 1, even if neither gives his prior consent. These people have chosen to be "public personages" and are in public, and that means they no longer have the same rights to privacy as Joe Citizen.
If the police are out in uniform doing the public's work, it seems to me there should be a clear presumption that they're just as much public personages as a candidate for the state legislature giving public speeches, and that they have implicitly given permission to anyone to film or record them. (An obvious and sensible exception would be when they're undercover, not in uniform.)
I just find 1-party a better system (Score:5, Interesting)
I see the privacy arguments of a 2-party system, I just think they are invalid. It is basically saying "I should have privacy, even when I do things that break privacy." As the saying goes, if two people know it, it's not a secret. So if you tell me, you should assume I can tell others, if I wish, regardless of if it's jsut me telling them from memory, or having a recording of it.
To me it's similar to photography laws (which are fairly uniform). You can photograph my house from public property, there's nothing I can do to stop you. You can't come on my property, of course, or circumvent barriers I have, but you can stand on the street and take pictures (or video) to your hearts content. Thus, if I want to have privacy, I need to keep my blinds closed. If I am standing on my porch naked, I can't get pissed that you took a picture of me. I have no expectation of privacy, because I'm publicly visible, even if I'm on my property.
Re:I just find 1-party a better system (Score:4, Interesting)
I suggest the main reason we care about our privacy in conversation is that we know we are intrinsically much more guarded in what we say when we know every last detail of what we say will be recorded and can be quoted, often out of context, later, to anyone at all. And that means we're a lot less likely to be as honest and forthright in any conversation that's being recorded, or which we suspect might be recorded. That hurts everyone.
Let me put it this way. Say you own a small business, and an irate customer calls because one of your salesmen did something bogus -- sold him a widget without mentioning a peculiarity that made him drop it and hurt his toe. Now, if you and he are talking privately -- no recording, no one listening in -- then the conversation will be pretty informal. It might get heated, but it will probably be as honest as it can be. You might be willing to agree your salesmen fscked up, apologize, and offer to make some minor restitution. The guy might be mollified, agree he's a little at fault too, and accept. Problem solved.
But suppose you know the conversation is being recorded, and a jury might hear it later and nail you for $10,000 of damages plus costs? Or it might be played on YouTube and cause you endless PR problems? You're going to be a lot cagier, you're going to admit nothing, argue aggressively that caveat emptor and it's not your salesman's fault, et cetera. And the guy at the other end, he's not going to be willing to admit he might have been a little inattentive, a little at fault, too. So the conversation is less likely to come to a mutually-acceptable end, and much more likely to be a stiff, pointless exchange of talking points. That's not good. Means what could have been a small conflict can become a much bigger and harder to solve conflict.
Basically having a two-party law says conversations are generally "off the record" unless everyone agrees otherwise, and I suggest a big purpose of this is to encourage the greater honesty in conversation that happens when things are off the record.
Sure, it's true people can take notes of a conversation, or memorize parts of it. But these are both very limited ways of recording the conversation, and are bound to generally capture only the high points. It's much harder to take some little tidbit out of context and use it to damn you. Furthermore, you have a plausible defense in that you can argue the fallibility of memory, or the illegibility of the notes, whatever. So it's definitely harder to use the conversation to attack you than if it were recorded in perfect fidelity.
I'm not saying this argument need be convincing. Your argument is sound. It's a tough call which argument should prevail, and probably people feel one way and then the other, depending on what's happened to them lately. Sure, sometimes I wish I could've recorded things the ex-wife said to me over the phone. But then again, there are times I'm right glad she couldn't record what I said. It cuts both ways for most people, sooner or later. That's probably why there's no national consensus on this issue, and different states have substantially different laws.
Re:I just find 1-party a better system (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:2)
Guerillas — we are told daily — win by not losing...
Really that much of a victory? No (Score:3, Informative)
OK, for $1,000, he gets to show up at work the next day (instead of remaining behind bars, and risk getting fired for failure to show up to work) (Or if he owns his own business, leaving the doors closed, or paying someone else to fill his position).
He's still out the $1,000 to the bail bondsman.
Re:Really that much of a victory? No (Score:5, Informative)
Might have something to do with the cops lying... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, as I have many, many friends that are amateur and professional photographers, they were stunned when they heard this; some have been in similar situations with police and/or security. Luckily, there's this nifty little document [krages.com] I found from an attorney explaining the rights of photographers.
Re:Might have something to do with the cops lying. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Might have something to do with the cops lying. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake up.
Re:Might have something to do with the cops lying. (Score:2)
Re:Might have something to do with the cops lying. (Score:2)
Re:Might have something to do with the cops lying. (Score:5, Insightful)
As clarified above... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Might have something to do with the cops lying. (Score:5, Informative)
*** _I_ am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Always get your legal advice from a lawyer. ***
When approached by a cop, you only have to identify yourself. You really don't have to answer any other questions.
Anything you say before you are arrested can be used against you. Don't admit to anything. If he asks "have you been drinking/fucking/...", she recommends answering with something like "isn't it a nice day, officer", or "can I help you with anything, officer".
If they ask you if they can search your purse, car, pants, etc. You should always answer, "I'm sorry officer, I do not consent to this search." They will probably do the search - illegally probabably. But if you have not given consent, any evidence most likely cannot be used against you. The trick is that they want to find something and get you to talk. They might not be able to use the evidence they found, but if you then confess about that evidence, you're fucked.
But more importantly, say very early in the dialogue:
"Am I under arrest?" This forces the cop's hand... at this point he either has to arrest you or not. Once you are arrested, he is required to read you your miranda rights.
This should be followed by (if you're not under arrest):
"Am I free to go."
If you ARE under arrest, the next thing you need to say is:
"I want my lawyer NOW".
It's very important to state it in no uncertain terms. Saying things like "I think I should have a lawyer", or "maybe I should have a lawyer", or "can I have a lawyer" are not good enough and don't invoke your protections.
After this, SHUT YOUR TRAP!
REMEMBER... THE COPS ARE ***NOT*** ON YOUR SIDE. THEY ARE ***NOT*** YOUR FRIEND. They will LIE, CHEAT, and do anything they can to get you to give yourself up. Don't fall for it. They do this all day, every-day. You probably never have. Would you play one-on-one with a pro ball player in a wager for your life? It's the same thing here... the cops and DAs are well practiced pro-level players. They will grind you up and dispose of you before you know what hit you.
And the best way to keep from being rail-roaded by the "justice" system is to avoid getting into it in the first place. Know your rights and exercise them.
So remember:
I do not consent to this search.
Am I under arrest?
Am I free to go?
I want my lawyer NOW.
then SHUT UP!
Re:Might have something to do with the cops lying. (Score:3, Informative)
I know here in Queens County, I asked the DA about this (I was on Grand Jury) - he said that they often don't bother - bring the guy in, offer the one call, and a lawyer, and never bother with the "statements can and will" - because they have so much evidence, that the persons statements make NO difference in the case.
Re:Might have something to do with the cops lying. (Score:3, Informative)
No kidding. I was arrested once many years ago and when I told the copper at the station (in a joking, not pissing manner), "Hey, you didn't read us our rights!" He said, "Shit, that's only in the movies."
Whether that had anything to do with the fact that I was charged with disorderly conduct instead of whatever it was that they had arrested me for in the first place, I can't say.
Thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks (Score:2)
Re:Thanks (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, But... (Score:5, Interesting)
In a fair society:
1: He is entitled to compensation, say $1000 per hour for every hour between the time he was charged and the time he knew for sure that the charges were dropped.
2: The police involved should be sent back for a minimum of 40 hours of updated training in the laws they are supposed to be enforcing.
3: The city attorney, who didn't immediately drop these bogus charges (he, at least, has no excuse at all for not knowing the law) should be immediately fired, suspended, or recalled as appropriate.
4: If there were any judges involved who didn't immediately drop the case, they should be impeached.
Then there'd have been some true justice here.
Re:Yeah, But... (Score:5, Insightful)
As I understand it, in my jurisidiction (Canada), the typical payout is around $1000 for every day you are unjustly incarcerated. People who are winning Miscarriage of Justice suits are in some cases getting millions. I personally think that's a bit on the low side, but at least it's some acknowledgement that they fucked up.
For clearly bullshit arrests, especially ones that are so public, I think you should be eligible for similar damages, but I do think $1000/hour is quite excessive. I believe the guy is entitled to some restitution, but let's also remember that we (fellow taxpayers) are the ones paying for it. It's in everyone's interests to come up with a reasonable figure.
Garnish the cop's wages. (Score:2)
So, instead, why not just garnish the cop's wages to pay any fines?
Why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill for a bad cop's stupidity?
Re:Yeah, But... (Score:3, Funny)
So in the US, we should get $666?
BBH
Re:Yeah, But... (Score:2)
We d
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, let's not forget the police officers' side. They were after the homeowner's son, in an investigation connected with a mugging. They found in that house a stolen handgun. They found enough evidence to charge the boy on that mugging.
All this means the police did have a valid reason to investigate the case. The officers may have behaved improperly, but the fact that they were investigating a crime and had a legitimate reason to be there still stands. According to the state law, the homeowner did commit a felony if he recorded the officers' conversation without their knowledge and consent.
I do not think he's entitled to any compensation at all, what he did was to try to obstruct the investigation of his son's crimes. If I understood TFA well (and I *did* read it) the only reason why the wiretapping charges were dropped was because the city attorney thought that, given the public uproar on the case, a jury would be unlikely to find the homeowner guilty.
Well, I hope that, if the son is really guilty of that mugging, the jury gives him his due punishment.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The officers had no warrant when they showed up at the door the first time and there was no probable cause to believe a crime was being committed right there on the property.
2) They were asked to leave - repeatedly. They did not.
Since they had no warrant or probable cause, they had no more rights to be on that man's private property than I would have. Since they did not leave when asked, they were guilty of trespassing. One cop even stuck his foot in the door. I don't know if that counts as breaking and entering in that particular city, but if so, the cop did it.
The only laws broken in that incident were broken by the police. Their supervisor evidently agrees.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, then state law should be changed. Cops on duty should not have any right to privacy. If they know that they're working in a fishbowl, the potential for police abuse goes way down.
-b.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if they're visibly acting to arrest someone rather than just gathering information undercover, they aren't under very much cover anymore, are they?
-b.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
The law is NOT about the search for truth.
If it were, there would be no laws governing search and siezure, chain of evidence, entrapment, or a number of other long-standing and well-established laws that we respect, if not revere.
These laws are necesary to ensure that the government does not run roughshod over the civil liberties of its citizens.
Re:Yeah, But... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm with you to some extent, except SCREW this:
He is entitled to compensation, say $1000 per hour for every hour between the time he was charged and the time he knew for sure that the charges were dropped.
That's just a recipe for every idiot to start screaming at cops to try and get arrested in order to win the "cop lottery". I don't want my tax dollars going to people like that. Let's keep in mind, that while I think it's BS that this guy was arrested, he was NOT a "good guy". He was an a-hole trying
Re:Yeah, But... (Score:2)
I'd rather it went to them than people like Detective Karlis and Chief Hefferan.
Re:Yeah, But... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather be mugged by Gannon Jr, than be incarcerated by the State for 27 years for protecting my home and exercising my basic civil rights.
Re:Yeah, But... (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, But... (Score:2, Insightful)
These days the mere process of being accused but not charged is itself an injustice that must be compensated for.
One down...one (at least) to go (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One down...one (at least) to go (Score:2)
The present administration has been re-evaluating this and is favoring the the latter of the two options for its subj^H^H^H^Hcitizens.
Re:One down...one (at least) to go (Score:2, Insightful)
A citizen who films and records visitors to his house and has a notice to that effect faces official harrassment and criminal charges.
2000 years ago the Romans were asking "quis custodiet custodiens" ("Who will guard the guardians"?). It seems that we have not found the
Re:One down...one (at least) to go (Score:2)
That happening in Philadelphia doesn't surprise me as much as NH, which has a reputation of being a bit more libertarian.
As far as mooching off of Taxachucettes goes, there is nothing new there. Why do you think Florida has no income tax? They tax the tourists to death. The same goes for Alabama/Tennessee fireworks being one exit north of Georgia. And Georgia's border with Florida being littered with ci
Frist Prost? (Score:2)
I think I have to agree with the police on that. Sure, the guy had a sticker that says he's recording things, and normally, if the police were on his property after seeing the sticker, that would count as consent to be recorded. But apparently, the sticker was too small to be reasonably noticable. Given that, I'd say the police did not implicitly agree to be recorded, and as they did not explicitly agree to be recorde
Re:Frist Prost? (Score:2)
Wire tapping is to prevent the COPS from doing illegal stuff on a phone line, it's not there to prevent someone from recording what is happening on their property locally. By that standard, every goddamn person at any live concert anywhere oh or any newscast or any kid taped at a baseball game by someone else's parents could have the camera person charged as a criminal that should be thrown in jail. (Even a stupid ass that posts "first pro
Re:Frist Prost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Frist Prost? (Score:5, Insightful)
What you are referring to is the concept of "expectation of privacy." If a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, then privacy is their right. They must give up that right or the recording is illegal. For example, recording a person in a public park requires no authorization, because there is no expectation of privacy. Recording a person in the bathroom requires authorization, because they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
So the question then becomes, do the police have a reasonable expectation of privacy? First, do they ever have a reasonable expectation of privacy when executing the law? I think that we could probably come up with some reasonable situations in which regular police have that expectation during the execution of their duty, but I think generally it would not hold. The police are public servants with extraordinary powers. As such, it is vital to our form of government that they be accountable for their actions. Accountability hinges on public knowledge. While there are situations in which a person may be accountable without public knowledge, public knowledge is the only way to guarantee accountability.
Do they have a reasonable expectation of privacy when executing the law in a public place? How could they? It is a public place. The very concept of a public place is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Do they have a reasonable expectation of privacy when executing the law on someone's private property? Absolutely not. Does the local Circle K give up its right to use its cameras when a police officer walks into the store? It is an absurd notion.
It's about credibility (Score:3, Insightful)
They can't admit that they're wrong. That'd destroy their credibility. They're supposed to be "experts" on the law and it's interpretation. If they came out and said "Whups, we screwed up," there'd be formal inquiries and all sorts of hell to pay.
The case is a loser. If they continue down that road, they make it more public and the damage is worse. The DA recognized that there'
They are lucky they kept the tape... (Score:5, Interesting)
Charges Dropped != Justice (Score:2)
Justice would be more along the lines of;
- lots of financial compensation taken from the paychecks of the entire police force (thin blue line my ass, more like gang of thugs they started the "us vs. them" attitude, they can live with it when "them" strike back)
- the cops involved, fired. _ALL_ of them. Within 50 yards and able to speak up (still posessing vocal cords) and not stopping it. Fired.
- DA, bullet in the head for not being a voice of reason INSTANTLY. He
Watching the watchers (Score:4, Insightful)
The technology exists and can become ubiquitous.
There have been many examples where the fortuitous presence of a video camera, has revealed extremes of behavior in security personnel.
There's too much "Us", and "Them", in the security agency mindset. Lets make "evidence" (That which is seen) work both ways, its not "us" and "them", its "we the people".
The people must watch the watchers.
IANAL - civil suit (Score:5, Insightful)
The state wiretap law notwithstanding, [police chief] Hefferan said citizens and businesses have the right to set up security systems that include audio recording, but they must post clear, obvious notice to warn anyone within range. The "obscure little sticker" Gannon had posted on the side of his house wasn't enough, Hefferan said.
While police are never good sources for a fair interpretation of the law, the police chief's assertion that the problem was the size of the sticker denoting the video/audio recording indicates that the police don't have much to stand on.
Re:IANAL - civil suit (Score:3, Insightful)
Local school?
Local mall?
Is there a billboard sized sign on the outside edge of every property line of every gas station in the united states saying there is recording? No? (It's a tiny little sign you have to get right up to the pump to notice.)
"Size of sign" is a weak ass excuse.
I hope the entire police department there goes bankrupt due to this. They diserve it. No new body armor for you this year punk!
Short attention span (Score:2, Informative)
Don't you kids remember that what is "illegal" is the voice recording?
This was said repeatedly in the previous
Are we living in a police state? (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't see why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they're assholes and bullies, plain and simple. And please don't ANYONE tell me hoe it's "just a small percentage of bad cops that ruin it for all the good cops." Any time a cop thinks the "thin blue line" is more important than the public, they've gone over to the dark side. Any time a cop looks the other way when fellow cops violate the law in ANY way, they're equally complicit. And if you think this is an exaggeration, look at how highly respected Internal Affairs or civilian oversight groups are held in esteem by every cop on the force in any given city, and how willing those cops are to cooperate with lawful investigations. Look how much they kick and scream about having video or audio recordings of their dealings with the public.
These people are supposed to be trained professionals who are paid to do their jobs as such. And before you whine to me about how hard their job is, A: they have the badges, guns, big sticks, and the ability to put people in a cage, and B: they knew the job was dangerous when they took it. In fact, for many, that's WHY they took it. We have a right to hold them to a MUCH higher standard, and to come down on them EXTREMELY hard when they don't measure up to that standard. And if they don't like those conditions, they're welcome to find another job. Of course, in that other job, they wouldn't be able to be thugs and bullies, right?
Remember, kids, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Police power is no different than any other.
Re:Are we living in a police state? (Score:2)
Maybe they were a bit more worried about enforcing the liberties of the victim of this guy's son. It's easy to forget that their son is a petty criminal who was being investigated.
What if they're wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's also the point that it's often the criminals who need the most legal protection.
Ignorance of how the justice system was designed among the majority of Americans is what is going to turn this country into a police state.
Melissa
Re:Are we living in a police state? (Score:3, Interesting)
I first noticed this way before 9/11 in our town. The police department uniforms were dark brown shirts and khaki pants with dark brown single stripes running up the sides of the legs. They actually looked sharp and professional. Then it was
As a side note... (Score:2)
I don't recall ever seeing a cop informing a suspect of the existance of their cameras or requesting permission to film them.
Re:As a side note... (Score:2, Informative)
It was just a small accident, and it was resolved quickly, but I was surprised that A) he told us about the camera and B) told us we could request to have it turned off. Of course, this co
Gannon is free? (Score:4, Funny)
Great... Now back to work (Score:3)
Why was the recording supposedly illegal anyways? (Score:4, Insightful)
It was on private property... and it's not like they couldn't have known about the recording device, as the article mentions there was a sign on his property indicating that recording equipment to monitor the area was present.
If this guy could be charged with wiretapping, why couldn't banks be charged for the same thing for having video cameras on their premises?
Boneheads (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is different from a business doing the samething and the police asking for their video tape? How exactly? That's what I thought it is not. It's the guys private property... end of story. The police department should be sued for false arrest and harassment at the least.
But here is the real kicker -
Police had charged that Gannon violated state wiretap laws by recording officers without their knowledge while they were standing on his front porch
I think they do not even want to go down that road of reasoning.
This might be redundant... (Score:2)
Cops get funny notions (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is why I don't watch Jerry Springer (Score:5, Insightful)
It is always funny to hear this phrase trotted out. In my opinion, this phrase was created to absolve the CRIMINAL of any blame or guilt and to place the blame on the person who would otherwise be the innocent party. If you're an adult (or nearly so) you should know better than to muck with other people's belongings and deserve hatever you might get if you do.
Further, I believe calling something an "attractive nuisance" should only apply when it is attractive in the eyes of a young child who doesn't know any better. (Example: your backyard pool) In this case the CRIMINAL was a teenager capable of riding a four wheeler and should have known better than to STEAL gasoline.
declarative judgement (Score:3, Insightful)
It might be possible for the accused in this case to ask for the court to make a judgement even though the DA didn't press charges. That could set a precedent that will make it clear that the NH law cannot apply in these cases. I hope the ACLU or some other organization will support such an effort. Right now, the police can continue to use this law to hassle people.
Re:Well, Dammit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask yourself this, what would happen to you if you did this to some cop cameras:
Re:so this means? (Score:2)
Here's to idiocy, indeed. (Score:2)
Re:Here's to idiocy, indeed. (Score:2)
Re:You can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
On the job, they should have *zero* right to privacy. We have granted then extraordinary powers within the law in order so that can preserve order. It's our right and *duty* to keep a constant eye on them so that don't abuse those powers. If criminals are bad enough, criminals operating under protection of law are worse.
-b.
Re:You can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, most states in the U.S. recognize the concept of "at will employment". If you accept a job in the private sector, your employment is a contract between you and your employer. *Either* one of you reserves the right to terminate the employment contract at any time, for any reason. (EG. Giving "2 weeks' notice" might be the courteous thing to do, but you're under no obligation to do so. You can, if you so choose, wait until the busiest day of the year for your employer, when they're absolutely counting on you to finish your portion of some critically important project, and say "I quit!" and walk out the door, costing them untold amounts of money and problems. By the same token, your employer can fire you "at will", without requirement of so much as giving a reason at all for doing so!)
Re:You can't have it both ways (Score:2, Insightful)
Should government records be kept to the same standards of... say medical records? No more open records requests. The government deserves privacy.. don't they?
Police officers have government granted authority to do things that ordinary citizens cannot. Why should they be treated the same? This isn't about saying Citizen A should have privacy but Citizen B shouldn't because the police, while on duty, are agents of the government.
I don't care what the cop is doing while he is off-duty, but while on-duty,
Re:You can't have it both ways (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the guy's no saint. Yes, it seems that the sticker could probably be bigger. (Incidentally, this guy isn't more than 15 miles from me--I ought to go check out the size of th
A secure home (Score:2, Insightful)
But what makes his home really insecure isn't the absence of cameras. What makes his and every other citizen's home insecure is the existence of people like his own son, who stole a hadgun and committed armed robbery with it. The guy appears to be a total jerk to have raised such a son and go to such efforts to keep him from getting caught.
If the law says privacy must be protected, then that's that. One should not try to invent exceptions to the law; make an
Re:A secure home (Score:4, Interesting)
The guy appears to be a total jerk to have raised such a son and go to such efforts to keep him from getting caught.
Well, can you blame him? Maybe he didn't even know his son had a gun. Even if he knew, he probably didn't know, and surely couldn't believe, his son was a mugger. Also, don't blame all the kid's problems on the parents; you're just as aware as I am of the fact that after a certain age, friends contribute more to one's upbringing than parents. Furthermore, his son being a criminal doesn't mean he's a jerk. Think a little before you go randomly insulting people with misinformed knee-jerk statements.
However, I for one would be very careful about creating exceptions to a law that protects privacy, who knows what other exceptions they may invent against me?
Exceptions for the cops are already in place: they can film you, but you can't film them. That doesn't mean you can break the law though, but from what I read in the previous article there's an exception if both parties know they're being filmed. The sign clearly stated such, so the cops would have known if they bothered to read it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it, and ignorance of the wording on the sign you just passed is no excuse for suing someone who's done nothing wrong.
The police didn't break any laws
They refused to leave after being asked several times to do so. One cop even stuck his foot in the door, so even assuming the front yard was not private property, the house clearly is (just clarifying, 'coz the street I live in, everything between the street and the outer wall of our house is property of the town I live in, not private property). As far as I know, remaining on someone's private property after being asked to leave, is illegal.
What is the proper etiquette to talk to the family of a man who commits muggings at gunpoint?
Why would you treat him any other than you would treat any other random civilian? Being family of someone who at the time the actions took place was suspected of committing muggery does not mean you're in on the deal, so there's no justification for being treated as such. However, this gets abused fairly often; I know a girl whose whole family is on some government black list here in Belgium, barring her and her family from ever holding public office, simply because her grandfather or something was a collaborator in the second world war.
This means they had every reason to investigate.
Sure, "investigate" being the keyword here. Not "harrass". Maybe in your world all verbs have the same meaning, but there's roughly 6 billion of us who'd happily trade with your world if we'd only knew for certain that "trade" doesn't mean "make war" in your language...
Re:going public (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't have a warrant. They tried to push their way in, etc.
Doesn't matter if his kid was Jack The Ripper or Hannibal The Cannibal-
if they didn't see the perp in the act and see him go into my house with
the evidence for the act, they have to get a warrant to search my premises
or it's a violation of the Fourth Ammendment. Those cops broke the law.
It's that plain, that simple. He didn't do anything that honestly could
be claimed an a