Man complains to Nashua PD about behavior of two officers in his home. Presents taped video and audio as evidence. Winds up being charged with two felonies, facing up to 14 years in prison.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Nashua+dad+turns+in+tape%2c+gets+arrested&articleId=d98cb83f-8365-4ff1-84a9-c2dfab341c46
Nashua dad turns in tape, gets arrested
By RUSS CHOMA
Union Leader Correspondent
Nashua ? A Nashua man is facing two felony charges for allegedly using secret video cameras to tape police who had come to his home to investigate his son?s possible role in a robbery.
Nashua Police arrested Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., on Tuesday and charged him with two felony counts of interception and disclosure of telecommunication or oral communications. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison.
Gannon is accused of making several audio and video recordings of at least two Nashua police officers who had come to his home to interview him about the whereabouts of his 15-year-old son, who was a suspect in a June 21 robbery.
According to court filings, Gannon and his wife, Janet, had videocameras set up at both the front and rear entrances of their home. During an interview with police, Janet Gannon told investigators that the couple bought the cameras from Wal-Mart because there had been some criminal mischief in the parking lot in front of their home.
Michael Gannon came to the police station Tuesday with a videotape that he said showed the officers being ?discourteous.? The tape included a recording of a conversation Gannon had with officers and a second conversation the police had when they were alone. While Gannon waited in the lobby of the station, police reviewed the tape. When they discovered the officers did not know they were being recorded, they arrested Gannon.
Yesterday, Nashua Police Sgt. Detective Jeff Maher said that although the cameras were not hidden and police officers were on Gannon?s property when the recording allegedly occurred, Gannon never told the police officers that he was recording their actions and conversations. That makes it a crime, he said.
?Just the fact this recording occurred, a crime was committed,? Maher said.
According to court documents, police had visited Gannon?s house several times inquiring about his son, but the only indication Gannon ever gave the officers that he was recording them was when he told one of them to smile because he was on camera.
Maher said that security cameras on private property are not illegal, but the person being videotaped needs to be notified. Maher noted the Nashua Police Department uses cameras in its booking area, but has a large sign informing people they are being recorded.
Maher also explained that Gannon?s alleged taping is different from when television crews or members of the media might record police investigating a crime scene, because there is an expectation that might happen.
?There certainly is a kind of awareness in a public place that you are being recorded,? he said. ?This was not the case.?
Quote from: KBCraig on June 29, 2006, 09:08 AM NHFT
By RUSS CHOMA
[. . .]
Maher said that security cameras on private property are not illegal, but the person being videotaped needs to be notified.
What a stupid law. It seems like this should be the focus of the outrage; that the "victims" were police officers should not distract us (i.e., the outrage isn't that someone tried to complain about the cops and is now facing 14 years in prison, as your summary emphasized, but rather that property rights are infringed by this law).
That sucks. There's no reason why anything the police do should be private.
Hey, we can't have police being video-taped without permission on private property. The tapes might show them being rude, discourteous, or doing something illegal. Cops are special, don't you know? They are the enforcement arm of the vast state monolith. Citizens have no right to video-tape cops, but cops have the right to video-tape us unawares.
What a crock! Did someone say this is a free country? Yeh, right.
Quote from: KBCraig on June 29, 2006, 09:08 AM NHFT
Maher said that security cameras on private property are not illegal, but the person being videotaped needs to be notified. Maher noted the Nashua Police Department uses cameras in its booking area, but has a large sign informing people they are being recorded.
From my reading of the law, notification is not good enough. You need
consent to make a recording....
The Nashua PD is going to have a lot of arresting to do....
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm
Quote
570-A:2 Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited. ?
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person:
(a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication;
(b) Wilfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:
(1) Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in telecommunication, or
(2) Such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication, or
(3) Such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on premises of any business or other commercial establishment, or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment; or
(c) Wilfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph; or
(d) Willfully uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph.
I-a. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without consent of all parties to the communication, the person knowingly intercepts a telecommunication or oral communication when the person is a party to the communication or with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication, but without the approval required by RSA 570-A:2, II(d).
II. It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for:
(a) Any operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of any communication common carrier whose facilities are used in the transmission of a telecommunication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of such communication; provided, however, that said communication common carriers shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.
(b) An officer, employee, or agent of any communication common carrier to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to an investigative or law enforcement officer who, pursuant to this chapter, is authorized to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication.
(c) Any law enforcement officer, when conducting investigations of or making arrests for offenses enumerated in this chapter, to carry on the person an electronic, mechanical or other device which intercepts oral communications and transmits such communications by radio.
(d) An investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of the officer's duties pertaining to the conducting of investigations of organized crime, offenses enumerated in this chapter, solid waste violations under RSA 149-M:9, I and II, or harassing or obscene telephone calls to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication, when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception; provided, however, that no such interception shall be made unless the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, or an assistant attorney general designated by the attorney general determines that there exists a reasonable suspicion that evidence of criminal conduct will be derived from such interception. Oral authorization for the interception may be given and a written memorandum of said determination and its basis shall be made within 72 hours thereafter. The memorandum shall be kept on file in the office of the attorney general.
(e) Where the offense under investigation is defined in RSA 318-B, the attorney general to delegate authority under RSA 570-A:2, II(d) to a county attorney. The county attorney may exercise this authority only in the county where the county attorney serves. The attorney general shall, prior to the effective date of this subparagraph, adopt specific guidelines under which the county attorney may give authorization for such interceptions. Any county attorney may further delegate authority under this section to any assistant county attorney in the county attorney's office.
(f) An officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the commission in the enforcement of chapter 5 of title 47 of the United States Code, to intercept a telecommunication, or oral communication transmitted by radio, or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.
(g) Any law enforcement officer, when conducting investigations of or making arrests for offenses enumerated in this chapter, to carry on the person an electronic, mechanical or other device which intercepts oral communications and transmits such communications by radio.
(h) Any municipal, county, or state fire or police department, the division of emergency services, communications, and management as created by RSA 21-P:36, including the bureau of emergency communications as defined by RSA 106-H, or any independently owned emergency service, and their employees in the course of their employment, when receiving or responding to emergency calls, to intercept, record, disclose or use a telecommunication, while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or the protection of life or property.
(i) Any public utility regulated by the public utilities commission, and its employees in the course of employment, when receiving central dispatch calls or calls for emergency service, or when responding to central dispatch calls or calls for emergency service, to intercept, record, disclose or use a telecommunication, while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of service, or the protection of life and property. Any public utility recording calls pursuant to this subparagraph shall provide an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the conversation. The public utilities commission may adopt rules relative to the recording of emergency calls under RSA 541-A.
(j) A uniformed law enforcement officer to make an audio recording in conjunction with a video recording of a routine stop performed in the ordinary course of patrol duties on any way as defined by RSA 259:125, provided that the officer shall first give notification of such recording to the party to the communication.
Source. 1969, 403:1. 1975, 385:2. 1977, 588:16. 1979, 282:1. 1985, 263:2. 1988, 25:3. 1990, 96:1; 191:2. 1992, 174:2. 1995, 195:1; 280:10, I, II, III. 1996, 251:24, eff. Aug. 9, 1996; 274:1-5, eff. Jan. 1, 1997. 2002, 257:11, eff. July 1, 2002. 2003, 319:129, eff. Sept. 4, 2003. 2004, 171:21, eff. July 24, 2004.
Quote from: Money Dollars on June 29, 2006, 09:32 AM NHFT
From my reading of the law, notification is not good enough. You need consent to make a recording....
I'm not sure, but if I tell Bob he could be recorded if he comes on to my property (through saying it to him or posting a sign), and Bob comes on to my property, hasn't he consented to being recorded?
I also found it predictable that the law provides all those sovereign immunity clauses to which we have become accustomed.. ::)
It would all depend on the wording of the sign, or what you told Bob.
Simply saying "you are being recorded" is no good, but "by entering this property you consent to being recorded" would be consent....
But some one in the police station booking area does not choose to go there, and cannot leave if they do not consent to the recording. They only inform people they are being recorded, they don't ask for consent.
I need to make a shirt that says:
"By talking to me, or being in my presence, you consent to being recorded"
Convenience stores, banks, etc. all have cameras recording what goes on on the property. They have signs that say cameras are being used on the premises. That is all you need to do. Post the signs.
Do those cameras record audio? Images don't seem to be the problem in that law.
Many don't. Many only take a few low quality b+w frames a second.
Quote from: AlanM on June 29, 2006, 10:11 AM NHFT
Convenience stores, banks, etc. all have cameras recording what goes on on the property. They have signs that say cameras are being used on the premises. That is all you need to do. Post the signs.
Wouldn't the camera in plain view be enough if you just need to inform?
Are these places breaking the law if they record a blind person that can't see the sign, or an illiterate person that can't read the sign?
How many languages does the sign need to be in?
I also don't see what point of the sign is if it doesn't somehow talk about consent.
Money D call the NPD and ask them.. This is a great point.
Maybe we can have them start arresting owners of gas stations, convenience stores and banks.
Quote from: Dreepa on June 29, 2006, 10:33 AM NHFT
Money D call the NPD and ask them..
I think I will, but I need to record it :P
Anyone with a video camera want to go the the NPD later this afternoon around 5-6 PM?
more:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121/-1/news
Quote
Man charged after videotaping police
By ANDREW WOLFE, Telegraph Staff
awolfe@nashuatelegraph.com
Published: Thursday, Jun. 29, 2006
Michael Gannon stands outside his house on Morgan Street where he videotaped a detective who had come to his house investigating his 15-year-old son Tuesday in Nashua. Gannon said the detective was rude, and brought a surveillance tape to the Nashua Police Station to file a complaint. Instead, police arrested him, telling him he had violated New Hampshire?s eavesdropping and wiretap laws.
(http://nsimg.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=NS&Date=20060629&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=106290121&Ref=AR&border=0&MaxW=250)
Staff Photo by COREY PERRINE
Michael Gannon stands outside his house on Morgan Street where he videotaped a detective who had come to his house investigating his 15-year-old son Tuesday in Nashua. Gannon said the detective was rude, and brought a surveillance tape to the Nashua Police Station to file a complaint. Instead, police arrested him, telling him he had violated New Hampshire?s eavesdropping and wiretap laws.
Order this photo
NASHUA ? A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man?s sons.
Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon?s wife, Janet Gannon, and police reports filed in Nashua District Court.
Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective?s consent.
The Gannons? son, Shawn Gannon, 18, is charged with resisting detention and disorderly conduct, and his wife also was cited for disorderly conduct, she said.
Janet Gannon said the family plans to hire a lawyer, and expects to sue the police department.
The couple?s 15-year-old son also was arrested, charged as a juvenile in an unrelated robbery case, according to police reports and Janet Gannon.
The Gannons installed a video and audio recording system at their home, a four-unit building at 22-28 Morgan St., to monitor the front door and parking areas, family members told police. They installed the cameras about two years ago, buying the system at Wal-Mart, Janet Gannon told the police, according to reports filed in court. The Gannons have owned the property, which is assessed at $382,700, for the past three years, city records show.
Janet Gannon spoke with The Telegraph by phone Wednesday afternoon, before going to bail out her husband. She said they installed the system in response to crime in the neighborhood, and at their house.
?We?ve had two break-ins. One guy came right up our stairs and started beating on my husband, and we called the cops,? she said. Another time, after someone broke into a camper on their property, Janet Gannon said an officer suggested they were ?too rich? for the neighborhood, and should move.
The security cameras record sound and audio directly to a videocassette recorder inside the house, and the Gannons posted warnings about the system, Janet Gannon said.
On Tuesday night, Michael Gannon brought a videocassette to the police department, and asked to speak with someone in ?public relations,? his wife said and police reported.
Gannon wanted to lodge a complaint against Karlis, who had come to the family?s house while investigating their sons, Janet Gannon said. She said Karlis showed up late at night, was rude, and refused to leave when they asked him.
?He was just very smart-mouthed. He put his foot in the door, and my husband said, ?Excuse me, I did not invite you in, please leave,? and he wouldn?t,? Janet Gannon said. ?We did not invite him in, we asked him to leave, and he wouldn?t.?
After the police arrested the Gannons? sons, Janet Gannon said, they ?secured? the house, and told her and her sister-in-law they had to stay out of it from around 8:45 p.m. Tuesday until about 4 a.m. Wednesday.
Police said they were waiting to get a warrant to search the house, Janet Gannon said.
?They were waiting for a warrant to seize the cameras and the tapes in my house . . . because they said having these cameras was against the law. They?re security cameras,? she said, adding, ?They said they could do that. They could seize my apartment.?
Karlis went to the Gannons? home at about 11:30 p.m. Friday night and again at about 7 p.m. Tuesday, police reported. Karlis was investigating the Gannons? 15-year-old son in connection with a June 21 mugging outside Margaritas restaurant, for which two other teens already have been charged, according to police reports. The boy also is charged with possessing a handgun stolen three years ago in Vermont, and resisting detention, police said.
The boy wasn?t home when Karlis went there, and the Gannons were ?uncooperative? regarding his whereabouts, police reported.
The Gannons felt police were harassing the family, Janet Gannon said.
?There were six cops in my yard,? the first time police came, she said. ?My husband was very upset. How many cops does it take to talk to a 15-year-old.?
Karlis didn?t know about the security camera until his second visit, when Michael Gannon told him to ?smile? for the camera, police reported.
Janet Gannon said her husband explicitly warned officers of the camera, later adding ?smile,? as a joke.
?I heard him say it,? she said. ?He said, ?Gentlemen, there?s a camera right there.??
According to police, however, Janet Gannon told officers she didn?t remember her husband warning police about the security camera.
Police reported that Gannon ?has a history of being verbally abusive? toward police, and that after his arrest, he remarked that the officers ?were a bunch of corrupt (expletives).?
Andrew Wolfe can be reached at 594-6410 or awolfe@nashuatelegraph.com.
police report pdf:
http://media.nashuatelegraph.com/assets/gannon_synopsis.pdf
He called the cops a "bunch of corrupt fucking assholes" right after he got arrested ;D
Its right at the end of the PDF
Did he ever get to file his complaint?
I hope you guys are getting in touch with Mr. Gannon. Sounds like we could be of assistance. Russell? Feature story for the KFP?
Michael J Gannon - (603) 598-4044 - 26 Morgan St, Nashua, NH 03064
Quote from: Money Dollars on June 29, 2006, 10:53 AM NHFT
more:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121/-1/news
Quote
Man charged after videotaping police
By ANDREW WOLFE, Telegraph Staff
awolfe@nashuatelegraph.com
Published: Thursday, Jun. 29, 2006
Michael Gannon stands outside his house on Morgan Street where he videotaped a detective who had come to his house investigating his 15-year-old son Tuesday in Nashua. Gannon said the detective was rude, and brought a surveillance tape to the Nashua Police Station to file a complaint. Instead, police arrested him, telling him he had violated New Hampshire?s eavesdropping and wiretap laws.
Remember when eavesdropping and wiretap laws were used against the government for spying on its own citizens,
instead of on citizens keeping track of what is happening on their own property?
My stomach hurts when I read this story.
Hey, I have a video camera. :plotting:
...
My stomach is feeling better. ;D
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on June 29, 2006, 12:42 PM NHFT
Remember when eavesdropping and wiretap laws were used against the government for spying on its own citizens,
instead of on citizens keeping track of what is happening on their own property?
It is legal for the gov to spy on you... I mean who would mind if they aren't doing anything wrong... don't we hear that all the time?
Wait.. so shouldn't the cops also not mind? I mean they aren't doing anything wrong right?
This story made it to Slashdot:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/29/188221
Anyone know the history of this RSA? I wonder what happened that caused the bureaucrats to add it...
Quote from: FTL_Ian on June 29, 2006, 11:21 AM NHFT
I hope you guys are getting in touch with Mr. Gannon. Sounds like we could be of assistance.
I tried to call, but got a message.
Do you care if I give him the FTL number and ask him to call in?
Quote from: Money Dollars on June 29, 2006, 03:04 PM NHFT
Do you care if I give him the FTL number and ask him to call in?
For the record, MD, you are being so cool and helpful here, I formally retract calling you the T-word in the past.
Karma for you.
Quote from: Money Dollars on June 29, 2006, 09:32 AM NHFT
From my reading of the law, notification is not good enough. You need consent to make a recording....
oh no!!!! There are a lot of women out there who might be after me if that's the case!!! (kidding of course... all my lady friends know about the cameras in advance ;) )
Ian - you should ask Michael J Gannon to be on your show.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 29, 2006, 03:14 PM NHFT
Ian - you should ask Michael J Gannon to be on your show.
Ian doesn't do that.
Hell with it.
MD, please, call Mr. Gannon (you're nominated since you brought it up) and tell him you know of a nationwide talk show where he can tell his story. I personally would not wait for Ian's approval -- not like there's any call screening on FTL anyway (which is a good thing!)
I'm not waiting for Ian. I called and left a message. I invited him to call in..... Talk radio where I am in control, right?
But I may just swing his house in a bit, and maybe the NPD....I wish I had my video camera with me....
I swear, if I did not have long-standing commitments this afternoon, I'd come along for the ride (as long as you promise not to go all sniper and leave my body somewhere :P )
Unfortunately though I need to log out in like 5 minutes.
Let's keep the pressure up on this one... I smell an LSR coming on... maybe to expressly allow recording in one's on home home... or better yet, to always allow recording of any interaction with police.
The former has a better chance of getting through, since I am sure the AG and friends will oppose the latter.
I recently moved to NH (Merrimack), and I've haven't had a reason to write the state legislators here yet... but this story pisses me off so much, I sure as hell will be writing them now. Thanks for posting the link to nhfree.com on slashdot. I think I might like it here.
Quote from: d_goddard on June 29, 2006, 02:40 PM NHFT
This story made it to Slashdot:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/29/188221
Quote from: Punt3r on June 29, 2006, 04:19 PM NHFT
I recently moved to NH (Merrimack), and I've haven't had a reason to write the state legislators here yet... but this story pisses me off so much, I sure as hell will be writing them now. Thanks for posting the link to nhfree.com on slashdot. I think I might like it here.
Quote from: d_goddard on June 29, 2006, 02:40 PM NHFT
This story made it to Slashdot:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/29/188221
Woo-hoooo!
Thank you for proving my "let's get the word out on Slashdot" strategy is a good one!
Please, hang out here. Browse around. We are pissed off about the government having waaay to much power -- and we're
doing stuff, not just complaining! We can use your help!
Quote from: Punt3r on June 29, 2006, 04:19 PM NHFT
I recently moved to NH (Merrimack), and I've haven't had a reason to write the state legislators here yet... but this story pisses me off so much, I sure as hell will be writing them now. Thanks for posting the link to nhfree.com on slashdot. I think I might like it here.
Quote from: d_goddard on June 29, 2006, 02:40 PM NHFT
This story made it to Slashdot:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/29/188221
Welcome to the forum!
Welcome to NH.
Have you moved since Oct 2003?
www.pledgebank.com/first1000
Quote from: Dreepa on June 29, 2006, 04:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: Punt3r on June 29, 2006, 04:19 PM NHFT
I recently moved to NH (Merrimack), and I've haven't had a reason to write the state legislators here yet... but this story pisses me off so much, I sure as hell will be writing them now. Thanks for posting the link to nhfree.com on slashdot. I think I might like it here.
Quote from: d_goddard on June 29, 2006, 02:40 PM NHFT
This story made it to Slashdot:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/29/188221
Welcome to the forum!
Welcome to NH.
Have you moved since Oct 2003?
www.pledgebank.com/first1000
Yup. Just moved in on May 1 of this year.
Here's my letter. I want to sound reasonable, and it really doesn't reflect just how pissed off this sort of thing makes me (~trying to control anger~need to hit buttons that even republicans will respond to~).
Stole some of the points from another slashdotter's comments. I don't really know how far to push for allowing individuals to willy-nilly record everything in sight; need to search my feelings there a bit more. But I definitely want to get across the point that recording the POLICE performing their duty IN PUBLIC should NEVER be a crime, and that the law (at least as the police are trying to apply it), sucks.
I'm using http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/whosmyleg/default.asp to identify names/addresses my legislators (man, there's quite a number of em aren't there?). Is the state's website generally considered accurate/up-to-date?
---
Dear Senator Roberge,
I was very upset by a recent incident in Nashua, in which a man was charged with violating state wiretap laws when he used the evidence from a security camera on his own doorstep to complain about the behavior of the local police force. (The individual in question is Michael Gannon of Nashua; the date of the incident was Tuesday, June 27, 2006).
1. The police are public servants. Not only should it be legal to videotape them, it should be encouraged as part of citizen oversight.
2. These public servants are representatives of the state while performing their duties. And the state should always consent to being recorded, while performing their duties in public. Citizens should be able to count on that consent. The police routinely record their own activities, the citizenry should be given the opportunity to do the same.
3. The police do not appear to have behaved in a reasonable manner. Their behavior makes the public question their trustworthiness, which makes it even more important that citizen oversight of their activities be protected.
4. The police department has complained that Mr Gannon was rude to them. While I believe that is probably true, the officers' behavior does not seem appropriate either. While neither party may be in the right morally, Mr. Gannon has a constitutional right to free speech; while the police should restrain their behavior while they are on duty because they are representatives of the State.
5. Security cameras are a daily part of our lives. While it's important for the state to have a wiretap law, and protect against unauthorized images and sounds from being recorded in "private places" (especially bathrooms, bedrooms, changing rooms, etc), both the citizens and the state need to be able to protect themselves. Recording devices are clearly a common type of protection widely used today, and the laws need to reflect that. At the very least, the police should never try to hide their activities using this law.
Thank you for your time in considering these comments.
Sincerely,
yada-yada-yada
Way to go, Pun3r! You've just taken your first step into making NH more Free :)
Yes, the info on the State "whoismyleg" webpage is kept up-to-date.
You're lucky -- Roberge is usually on the pro-Freedom side. Be nice to her.
You might want to go ahead and just call her up (as long as it's before 9:00 PM)
You may be interested to know, however, that Roberge is one of the Senators that used underhanded, slimy tactics to try and track all us NH residents like sheep or cattle. Use this against her!
http://freestateblogs.net/realdeceit
Mr. Gannon is on the line right now, hope he holds through the news break.
Thank you Money Dollars, you are the man.
I wonder if the state of NH would arrest the NSA for taping NH residents?
Whoa!
Mr Gannon said the police seized his house and didn't let his family in for hours while they waited for a warrant!
Grrrrr!
My slashdot post has been moderated to +5, the maximum rating!!!
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=189918&cid=15630515
Thousands of people are probably hitting NHFree.com right now.
Gosh, I hope we can stand up to all the traffic! :D
Someone on slashdot is asking for the video.... MD..... can you get that video? Or did the police take it?
That is the main reason I went.
The police took it.
Mr Gannon took his only copy to the police station? :-\
No. The police went to his house and "seized" it by forcing everyone out, and would not let them return until the police got a search warrant at 2am, and took the other video and the cameras.....
Quote
After the police arrested the Gannons? sons, Janet Gannon said, they ?secured? the house, and told her and her sister-in-law they had to stay out of it from around 8:45 p.m. Tuesday until about 4 a.m. Wednesday.
Police said they were waiting to get a warrant to search the house, Janet Gannon said.
?They were waiting for a warrant to seize the cameras and the tapes in my house . . . because they said having these cameras was against the law. They?re security cameras,? she said, adding, ?They said they could do that. They could seize my apartment.?
He should have released it to the media instead.
Tracy
The police also did not take his complaint.
I went to the NPD after I talked to Mr. Gannon and did some research on filing a complaint and guns :D
Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about the cops, don't it? >:(
(http://nsimg.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=NS&Date=20060629&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=106290121&Ref=AR&border=0&MaxW=250)
see the little blue and white sticker on that grey box?
That warns of a security system with cameras......
Quote from: Punt3r on June 29, 2006, 05:24 PM NHFT
Here's my letter.
I sent this to the AG
kelly.ayotte@doj.nh.gov
And the Gov.
http://www.egov.nh.gov/governor/goveforms/comments.asp
The police in NH have yet to really experience NHFree.com. This case has a lot of potential for advancing freedom!
I'll be sure to bring this up on Against the Grain today. 8)
Quote from: Dreepa on June 29, 2006, 12:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: TackleTheWorld on June 29, 2006, 12:42 PM NHFT
Remember when eavesdropping and wiretap laws were used against the government for spying on its own citizens,
instead of on citizens keeping track of what is happening on their own property?
It is legal for the gov to spy on you... I mean who would mind if they aren't doing anything wrong... don't we hear that all the time?
Wait.. so shouldn't the cops also not mind? I mean they aren't doing anything wrong right?
Gov always exempts itself from it's own laws.
This ticks me off.
Tracy
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Family+says+it+plans+to+sue+Nashua+police+over+arrest&articleId=f594a86a-8840-4460-ba30-5f4b144109a0
Quote Family says it plans to sue Nashua police over arrest
By NICHOLAS COATES
Union Leader Correspondent
Nashua ? The wife of a man charged with breaking state wiretapping laws after recording a police detective on a home security camera said the family plans to hire a lawyer to sue the police department for ?unprofessional? behavior.
Nashua police arrested Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., Tuesday night and charged him with two felony counts for violating the state wiretap law after he used electronic devices to record Detective Andrew Karlis without the detective?s consent. The detective had been at the couple?s home investigating their teen sons? roles in a June 21 robbery.
Janet Gannon said Karlis showed up late at night on several occasions, was rude to family members and refused to leave after he was asked to.
?He (Karlis) made several rude remarks about Mike being a disabled vet and about the taxes we pay on the house,? Janet Gannon said. ?He (Karlis) had also put his foot in the door as Mike tried to close it and we asked him to leave, but he wouldn?t.?
Karlis didn?t know about the camera until his second visit to the home, when Michael Gannon told him to ?smile? for the camera, according to police reports. But Janet Gannon said that her husband was joking when he told Karlis to smile because he had already clearly warned them that there was a video camera.
?The first thing he said, and he said it very clearly, ?Gentlemen, there?s a camera right there,?? Janet Gannon said. ?And there are signs posted on the side of the house and on the shed that say, ?Warning: homeland security system. Audio and video in use.?
According to police reports, though, Janet Gannon said to officers that she didn?t remember her husband warning them of the security camera.
Michael Gannon also ?has a history of being verbally abusive? toward Nashua police, according to police reports. And after he was arrested, Gannon said the police officers ?were a bunch of corrupt (expletives).?
Police also cited Janet Gannon for disorderly conduct Tuesday night. She said they had sealed off her home for hours as they waited for a warrant to search the house for additional cameras and tapes.
Ian, can you extract the interview with Mr. Gannon from last nights .mp3 and host on freetalklive.com so I can send a link to the AG?
No. The police went to his house and "seized" it by forcing everyone out, and would not let them return until the police got a search warrant at 2am, and took the other video and the cameras.....
Quote
After the police arrested the Gannons? sons, Janet Gannon said, they ?secured? the house, and told her and her sister-in-law they had to stay out of it from around 8:45 p.m. Tuesday until about 4 a.m. Wednesday.
Police said they were waiting to get a warrant to search the house, Janet Gannon said.
?They were waiting for a warrant to seize the cameras and the tapes in my house . . . because they said having these cameras was against the law. They?re security cameras,? she said, adding, ?They said they could do that. They could seize my apartment.?
Let this be a leson to all.......make copies, hide them some where else beside the place you are staying.
and never ever assume the cops are on "your side"/
Quote from: Otosan on June 30, 2006, 08:27 AM NHFT
Let this be a leson to all.......make copies, hide them some where else beside the place you are staying.
I say distribute far and wide......
To e-mail NPD head to:
http://www.gonashua.com/content/1121/default.aspx
Looking for their phone number.
Dear folks at NPD:
I wanted first to thank you for the rapid and courteous response by one of your officers last month when I had a question about the break-in history of a local business. I'm sorry I didn't get his name but his return call was very helpful.
However I also have a concern to express. I was saddened to hear about your arrest of Nashua resident Michael Gannon for the "crime" of videotaping your officers on his own property.
It is not your fault that there is a bad law on the books, but your officers have some discretion as to whether and how to enforce the law. You are not automatons. When a person does something constructive and peaceful on his own property, which holds authorities accountable for their behavior, that is not wrong no matter what the law may say. Laws are those things that they used to keep Martin Luther King's supporters from voting, remember?
This was a golden opportunity for you to exercise that discretion and LET IT GO. Instead I understand you squandered it by temporarily seizing the man's house.
You have a conflict of interest here as your "enforcement of the law" shields official police actions from legitimate public scrutiny.
Over the next few weeks, public opposition to what you are doing is likely to build. Drop by
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=4251.0
...if you don't believe me. The last time I saw half this amount of displeasure with a police department (Manchester) it ended with 25 demonstrators outside the courthouse on trial day and an embarrassed city soliciter.
I appreciate what you legitimately do to protect people from force and fraud, and do not begrudge the portion of my tax dollars which wind up used by your department for that purpose. But unless I am missing something, that is not what you were doing by arresting Mr. Gannon.
Respectfully, but angrily, yours:
(sig)
NPD phone: 603-594-3500
Quote from: Money Dollars on June 30, 2006, 07:24 AM NHFT
Ian, can you extract the interview with Mr. Gannon from last nights .mp3 and host on freetalklive.com so I can send a link to the AG?
Ask and ye shall receive: http://freetalklive.com/files/gannon.mp3
Quote from: DadaOrwell on June 30, 2006, 09:29 AM NHFT
To e-mail NPD head to:
http://www.gonashua.com/content/1121/default.aspx
I tried that link, but it does no good without the actual e-mail address of the person you are trying to contact. I found contact info on the NPD officials, but no e-mail addresses. I tried their website, and it comes up "page not available."
As I read the law, it's the audio portion that is the problem. The law restricts intercepting "communications".
Most security surveillance systems are video only, but more and more convenience stores are adding audio recording. I've noticed, because they really go out of their way to post bigger notices about audio recording.
In Mr. Gannon's case, it's clear that he did post notice about audio and video recording. The doctrine of informed consent makes it clear that anyone entering or remaining on those posted premises has given effective consent to be recorded.
Kevin
I wonder if this was the law that was written as a result of that whole issue that came up in Merrimack.
We had two guys that lived next door to each other. The first guy for whatever reason set up a video camera in his garage in a window facing the neighbors house. The other guy flipped out over his video taping him so he called the police. There was no law against pointing a camera from your own property toward someone elses even if it looks into their homes so the police did nothing. So the guy took boards, planks and whatever else and built up his fence so it blocks the garage window. These guys have also ended up getting themselves arrested for beating each other up and things like that so it?s a long twisted story.
Anyway the point is after it made the papers that there weren?t any laws against video taping your next door neighbors or even pointing a camera into other people?s homes, Bob L?Heureux I believe, authored a bill to prevent someone from doing this in the future.
By the way, if you want to see the fence between the house just drive down route 3 in Merrimack. If you head south it will be on your right.
Quote from: srqrebel on June 30, 2006, 01:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on June 30, 2006, 09:29 AM NHFT
To e-mail NPD head to:
http://www.gonashua.com/content/1121/default.aspx
I tried that link, but it does no good without the actual e-mail address of the person you are trying to contact. I found contact info on the NPD officials, but no e-mail addresses. I tried their website, and it comes up "page not available."
The email addresses for the Nashua PD are in this format:
Lastname and first initial @pd.ci.nashua.nh.us
vince curtis:
curtisv@pd.ci.nashua.nh.us
I tried to send an email to Cheif Timothy Hefferan:
HefferanT@pd.ci.nashua.nh.us
It didn't bounce yet.......
Quote from: FTL_Ian on June 30, 2006, 12:10 PM NHFT
Quote from: Money Dollars on June 30, 2006, 07:24 AM NHFT
Ian, can you extract the interview with Mr. Gannon from last nights .mp3 and host on freetalklive.com so I can send a link to the AG?
Ask and ye shall receive: http://freetalklive.com/files/gannon.mp3
Now you da man!
I got a reply from the AG....
Quote
On 6/30/06, Ayotte, Kelly <Kelly.Ayotte@doj.nh.gov> wrote:
Thank you for your email. I am out of the office this week and will respond in more detail when I return next week. Sincerely. Kelly Ayotte
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
And I responded by sending the link to the .mp3, and wishing her a great independence day.
<< For the record, MD, you are being so cool and helpful here, I formally retract calling you the T-word in the past.
Karma for you.>>
Heh heh with trolls like fisher/MD, who needs friends and activists?
Hey MD, you coming to the liberty dinner tonight? I'll buy ya a beer!
sent to MaherJ@pd.ci.nashua.nh.us
QuoteHello Sergeant Maher,
In a recent new article, I read the following:
"But Nashua Police Sergeant Jeff Maher said the recording is a crime, even though the cameras are not hidden and officers were on the Gannons' property at the time."
I have security cameras in and around my house, and had no idea that I may be committing a felony by doing so. From my perception of the Nashua PDs understanding of the law, if a couple of burglars break into my house while I am not home, and my security cameras record them in the act and talking, I am committing a felony and could face up to 7 years in jail?
Is this correct?
Is there anything I can do to legally use my video cameras?
If I disable the audio, would that make the camera legal?
I do not wish to break the law, and would like to know how to comply.
Thank you for your time,
......................
Money Dollars is not a troll around here. He just has some fundamental disagreements with decisions the FSP has made in the past, as I understand it.
I consider him an asset to NHFree.com.
Quote from: Money Dollars on June 30, 2006, 03:10 PM NHFT
sent to MaherJ@pd.ci.nashua.nh.us
QuoteHello Sergeant Maher,
In a recent new article, I read the following:
"But Nashua Police Sergeant Jeff Maher said the recording is a crime, even though the cameras are not hidden and officers were on the Gannons' property at the time."
I have security cameras in and around my house, and had no idea that I may be committing a felony by doing so. From my perception of the Nashua PDs understanding of the law, if a couple of burglars break into my house while I am not home, and my security cameras record them in the act and talking, I am committing a felony and could face up to 7 years in jail?
Is this correct?
Is there anything I can do to legally use my video cameras?
If I disable the audio, would that make the camera legal?
I do not wish to break the law, and would like to know how to comply.
Thank you for your time,
......................
This letter is goooooood!!
This is stupid.
The government doesn't notify you when they spy on you, yet you must notify them? I think this Nashua man was keeping his camera secret in the interest of home security.
Ian -
Thanks for bringing this case up to Gardner today. I started listening just before you called, and I had assumed that he was all over it. Gardner's still the man, but I'm glad you reminded him of that one :).
Everyone -
Is there any sort of police watch in NH? I've always lived on the NH border, and I'm moving over next month. I had planned to look for a police watch group in my area (of Ossipee), but after discovering this law, I'm wondering if a watch would even be legal. If it is NOT legal, perhaps we should do it anyway. Would this be productive or counter-productive? Porcs can't do much good in jail :).
Well, this is not in NH yet:
http://copwatch.com
http://copwatch.net
Someone posted a pic of a car in Nashua with corruptcopwatch.com printed on it in big letters, but the site has nothing on it and the domain is registered privately. Details:
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=3490.0
The cops should be watched. They need to know we will not put up with this abuse anymore.
Quote from: Money Dollars on June 30, 2006, 03:10 PM NHFT
sent to MaherJ@pd.ci.nashua.nh.us
QuoteHello Sergeant Maher,
In a recent new article, I read the following:
"But Nashua Police Sergeant Jeff Maher said the recording is a crime, even though the cameras are not hidden and officers were on the Gannons' property at the time."
I have security cameras in and around my house, and had no idea that I may be committing a felony by doing so. From my perception of the Nashua PDs understanding of the law, if a couple of burglars break into my house while I am not home, and my security cameras record them in the act and talking, I am committing a felony and could face up to 7 years in jail?
Is this correct?
Is there anything I can do to legally use my video cameras?
If I disable the audio, would that make the camera legal?
I do not wish to break the law, and would like to know how to comply.
Thank you for your time,
......................
reply:
Quote
Please refer to New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated 570-A regarding state law on this issue. This law can be viewed over such websites as Findlaw.com and the State of NH website (Judicial Branch). Thank you.
and my response, and I cc'd the cheif:
Quote
Hello Sergeant Maher
Thank you for pointing out the RSA, but I reviewed the law before I asked the questions of you. I am still unclear, and that is why I am asking you.
From the news article:
"Maher said that security cameras on private property are not illegal, but the person being videotaped needs to be notified. Maher noted the Nashua Police Department uses cameras in its booking area, but has a large sign informing people they are being recorded."
From my reading of the law, the person being recorded not only needs to be informed, they need to consent.
" 570-A:2 Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited. ?
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication,"
This would seem to make the camera in the booking room illegal, as simply posting a sign does not give consent, and the people being booked cannot leave if they do not consent. Also, what about the case of a blind person who cannot see the sign?
I would like to know the Nashua PD's interpretation of the law, as they are the enforcers of the law. My interpretation of the law does not matter. From the statement I read from you in the news article, it appears the NPD believes it is a felony for me to have security cameras with audio on my property if I record any oral communication without obtaining consent.
My questions again:
If burglars break into my house while I am not home, and my security cameras record them in the act and talking, I am committing a class B felony?
Is there anything I can do to legally use my video cameras?
Is a sign saying "by being on this property you consent to video and audio recording" good enough?
What about the case of a blind person, or someone who cannot read English?
If I disable the audio, would that make the camera legal?
If you cannot answer these question for me, would you please direct me to someone in the NPD that can. I would like to comply with the law.
Thanks for you time,
..........
Quote from: Jared on June 30, 2006, 04:25 PM NHFT
I've always lived on the NH border, and I'm moving over next month.
So you don't live in NH yet?
Welcome to the forums.
Take the pledge
www.pledgebank.com/first1000
I thought Alex Jones might be interested in this so I sent a link to this thread and a quick explanation to infowars.com. All publicity is good publicity right ;D
Quote from: Dreepa on June 30, 2006, 05:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jared on June 30, 2006, 04:25 PM NHFT
I've always lived on the NH border, and I'm moving over next month.
So you don't live in NH yet?
Welcome to the forums.
Take the pledge
www.pledgebank.com/first1000
No, I spent most of my life 15 minutes from the NH border in South Berwick, and have spent the last couple of years in Kittery (right over the bridge from Portsmouth, NH). I'm moving to ossipee next month for awhile, maybe a long while. My wife and I have made the decision to stay in NH as part of the FSP. I feel like kind of a poser since I'm not really moving that far :). Anyway, we'll probably come back to the Portsmouth area after awhile. If you're into music, film, theatre, etc, Portsmouth is definately the place to be. I'm a musician, and I would have to say that the Portsmouth/Dover area is the best place for that kind of thing. It is, however, in desperate need of some porcs. I see at least one person wearing a Che shirt just about every time I go downtown :P. A local Portsmouth publication called "The Wire" actually did a big cover story on the FSP awhile back. It's probably still in the site's archives somewhere (http://www.wirenh.com). Thanks for the welcome!
Quote from: Jared on June 30, 2006, 08:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: Dreepa on June 30, 2006, 05:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jared on June 30, 2006, 04:25 PM NHFT
I've always lived on the NH border, and I'm moving over next month.
So you don't live in NH yet?
Welcome to the forums.
Take the pledge
www.pledgebank.com/first1000
No, I spent most of my life 15 minutes from the NH border in South Berwick, and have spent the last couple of years in Kittery (right over the bridge from Portsmouth, NH). I'm moving to ossipee next month for awhile, maybe a long while. My wife and I have made the decision to stay in NH as part of the FSP. I feel like kind of a poser since I'm not really moving that far :). Anyway, we'll probably come back to the Portsmouth area after awhile. If you're into music, film, theatre, etc, Portsmouth is definately the place to be. I'm a musician, and I would have to say that the Portsmouth/Dover area is the best place for that kind of thing. It is, however, in desperate need of some porcs. I see at least one person wearing a Che shirt just about every time I go downtown :P. A local Portsmouth publication called "The Wire" actually did a big cover story on the FSP awhile back. It's probably still in the site's archives somewhere (http://www.wirenh.com). Thanks for the welcome!
Then you should definately sign the pledge (people moving to NH).
I think I did see that wire article.
I moved here last Sept and I love it here.
Quote from: Jared on June 30, 2006, 04:25 PM NHFT
Is there any sort of police watch in NH? I've always lived on the NH border, and I'm moving over next month. I had planned to look for a police watch group in my area (of Ossipee), but after discovering this law, I'm wondering if a watch would even be legal. If it is NOT legal, perhaps we should do it anyway. Would this be productive or counter-productive? Porcs can't do much good in jail :).
New Cop Watch Poll! (http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=4265.msg75768#msg75768)
By the way, Porcs in jail can influence police, fellow prisoners, guards, judges, nurses, prison bureaucrats and newspaper readers, if they are lucky. ;)
It looks like we have a winner:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-mrg.htm
Quote570-A:1 Definitions. ? As used in this chapter:
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.
Burglars have no expectation of privacy while in my house, and no one esle should.....and if a sign is posted, and the camera is in veiw....
Quote from: d_goddard on June 29, 2006, 03:09 PM NHFT
For the record, MD, you are being so cool and helpful here, I formally retract calling you the T-word in the past.
Karma for you.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on June 30, 2006, 02:53 PM NHFT
Heh heh with trolls like fisher/MD, who needs friends and activists?
Quote from: Jon Maltz on June 30, 2006, 03:06 PM NHFT
I'll buy ya a beer!
Quote from: FTL_Ian on June 30, 2006, 03:18 PM NHFT
Money Dollars is not a troll around here. He just has some fundamental disagreements with decisions the FSP has made in the past, as I understand it.
I consider him an asset to NHFree.com.
This is the fastest way to get me to leave.
If you keep this crap up I am going to delete my account.
We ain't buddies, we ain't partners, and we dam sure ain't friends. Remember that.
A few of your friends have threatend to sue me, have done illegal background checks on me.... Fuck, don't get me started......I'm getting mad.
And you guys never fucking listen.....
Keep up the great activism MD. Oh, and BTW, chill out. Go smoke a dube.
;D
Well, on second thought, you might want to consider smoking a blunt instead to curb your anxiety.
Quote from: Money Dollars on June 30, 2006, 10:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on June 30, 2006, 03:18 PM NHFT
I consider him an asset to NHFree.com.
This is the fastest way to get me to leave.
If you keep this crap up I am going to delete my account.
We ain't buddies, we ain't partners, and we dam sure ain't friends. Remember that.
I never said anyone here was a friend. Ever. Friendship by it's nature, to me, is very exclusive. I echo your sentiments, just a little more tactfully. :P
QuoteA few of your friends have threatend to sue me, have done illegal background checks on me.... Fuck, don't get me started......I'm getting mad.
Again, you're not speaking of friends of mine. I don't have any friends in NH. The person I talk to most in NH is Gardner Goldsmith, and he's more of a friendly radio associate at this point. I only have a handful of friends at any given time.
Quote from: FSP-RebelKeep up the great activism MD. Oh, and BTW, chill out. Go smoke a dube.
Good idea. I think MD prefers the bong though. 8)
Got a response at 11:00PM
QuoteOn 6/30/06, Maher, Jeffrey <MaherJ@pd.ci.nashua.nh.us> wrote:
Sir-
When dealing with issues of consent, the appropriate inquiry is whether or not the individual recognizes that he is subject to having the conversation recorded or electronically intercepted. That is to say, with proper posting and notification the issue of consent can be nullified. For instance, by speaking into an answering machine (clearly a recording device under the statute), the caller is deemed to know and consent to the recoding of his voice.
The issues that you bring to bear are simply to great to respond to in an e-mail. As with any rule of law, there are numerous exceptions. State case law may also modify the issues in each specific case.
I would encourage you to conspicuously post that video recording is being conducted. I would also advise that any audio recording capability be disabled. It's often the "oral communication" aspect of the statute that creates the issues.
Feel free to contact me at 594-3582 with any additional questions or stop by the station some time.
Sgt. J. Maher
And my reply:
Quote
Sgt. Maher,
Thank you for your prompt response. While looking into the statue I also saw the definition of "oral communication" as used in the statue:
570-A:1 Definitions. ? As used in this chapter:
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.
To me this would mean if someone is aware of the recording device, when they talk it is not considered "oral communication" as defined by the statute, and no consent is needed.
A burglar should have no expectation of privacy in my house, and no one should have that expectation if a sign is posted, and the camera is in plain view. The same would apply in the booking room.
Are you familiar with any state case law I can look into on this matter?
I may take you up on the offer and stop by next week, but I need to do some more research, as I only recently became aware of this law, or to be more exact, that it applied to security cameras on my property.
Thanks again,
...............
I also noticed this on the bottom of the email:
Quote
****DISCLAIMER****
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you believe you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the Nashua Police Department at (603)589-1650
The first sentence says the email is intended soley for my use. So I can do whatever I want with it.
The third sentence says that if you are not the intended recipient you cannot "use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying" the email.
Quote from: FSP-Rebel on June 30, 2006, 10:27 PM NHFT
Keep up the great activism MD.
Like I said, you guys never fucking listen.
ba-bye.
Quote from: president on June 30, 2006, 11:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: FSP-Rebel on June 30, 2006, 10:27 PM NHFT
Keep up the great activism MD.
Like I said, you guys never fucking listen.
ba-bye.
LMAO... I worried that we were being too friendly to him.
Other than his first few weeks here, I never considered him a troll. An antagonist, yes. An asshole, frequently. An asset, usually. But never a troll.
I hope he gets over his "issues". We really do share common goals. No matter how bad he hates that.
Kevin
LOL indeed, Kevin. He's certainly still reading the board, and I expect we'll hear from him again. :icon_pirat:
Quote from: KBCraig on June 30, 2006, 11:50 PM NHFT
LMAO... I worried that we were being too friendly to him.
Other than his first few weeks here, I never considered him a troll. An antagonist, yes. An asshole, frequently. An asset, usually. But never a troll.
I hope he gets over his "issues". We really do share common goals. No matter how bad he hates that.
I believe he has left and comeback many times before under different screen names and avatars both on the NH Free forum and on the Free Talk Live forum. It's part of his act.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Officers+being+investigated+after+complaint&articleId=ef3d4b0d-300a-4a93-81cc-f706ae1056d3
Officers being investigated after complaint
By NICHOLAS COATES
Union Leader Correspondent
Nashua ? Following a complaint that two officers were ?rude and discourteous? to family members during a robbery investigation, two police detectives are the subjects of an internal investigation and an inquiry by the County Attorney?s Office, Nashua police Chief Timothy Hefferan said yesterday.
Police Capt. Scott Howe was put in charge of the internal investigation, and Assistant County Attorney Rusty Chadwick is the point for the external investigation, Hefferan said.
Hefferan confirmed that one of the detectives is Andrew Karlis, but Hefferan declined to identify the second.
The Gannon family, of 26 Morgan St., alleged the detectives? behavior occurred during a two-week period and came to a head with a June 23 incident on the family?s front porch.
According to police affidavits filed in Nashua District Court in connection with the arrest of family patriarch Michael Gannon, Karlis and Detective Thomas Bergeron visited the home at 11:20 that night to question a member of the family, a 15-year-old boy, about the robbery the boy was allegedly involved in.
That night, Shawn Gannon, the family?s 18-year-old son, said his family watched and listened to the tape recording of the security system that monitors the front porch and back parking lot. He said they heard the detectives having a disconcerting conversation about how they would mistreat Michael Gannon.
"We heard them pull up, and when they (Karlis and Bergeron) came up to the porch, they were talking about how my dad was a disabled veteran. Then we heard how they wanted to make him more disabled," said Shawn Gannon. "Detective Karlis said that my dad has been giving him a hard time for the past couple of days (with the investigation). And the other detective standing next to him said, 'Well, why don?t you pull him out of the house and I?ll give you my billy club.'"
Hefferan said he had not reviewed all of the initial evidence as of yesterday, but did say he believes the allegation lacks merit.
"I?ve had superiors review the tapes, and they have not reported back to me that there is anything like that on there," Hefferan said. "I think that something that significant of a statement ? a threat of physical violence ? would have been something noteworthy that would have brought to my attention."
Michael Gannon, 49, was arrested Tuesday night and charged with two felony counts of violating state wiretap laws for not making the police aware of the audio recording of police visits on June 23 and 26.
Gannon went to the police station that night to find out the status of his 15-year-old son, who had been arrested earlier in connection with a June 21 mugging outside of Margaritas restaurant in Nashua, according to police affidavits.
According to the Michael Gannon arrest documents, once in the lobby, Gannon became ?agitated and somewhat aggressive? when speaking about how Karlis and fellow detectives treated family members during the investigation into their son.
Gannon then said he wanted to log a complaint about the incident and provided a videotape with the alleged rude and discourteous police behavior on it.
Sgt. Francis Bourgeois, the officer in charge that Tuesday night, Detective Jonathan Lehto and Karlis watched the tape, according to the affidavits. Bourgeois has three to five years? experience working with the law (that Gannon allegedly violated), having worked with the narcotics division here (the Nashua Police Department) and with the Attorney General?s office, according to Hefferan.
After viewing the tape, Bourgeois made the determination that Gannon broke the law and had Detective Daniel Archambault arrest Gannon at the station, according to the affidavits.
Police then went to the Gannon house and seized all of the video and audio surveillance equipment the family had set up in their home, including cameras, microphones and videocassette recorders, according to affidavits.
The Gannon family has argued that the recording was legal and done to protect their house from the various crimes in the French Hill neighborhood of Nashua.
According to the state statute that the police allege Michael Gannon violated, the party being taped must be made aware of the recording and consent to the recording, Nashua attorney Eric Wilson said.
There are two signs posted on the front and side of the house a little larger than the size of a hand that warn people about the recording. ?Warning: homeland security system. Audio and video in use,? the signs say.
?If, in fact, the man (Gannon) has posted on his property informing those who enter onto the property that they are being video- and audio-taped, that satisfies the two-party consent requirement in the state,? said Claire Ebel, executive director of the state American Civil Liberties Union.
Janet Gannon said that besides the signs, her husband told visiting detectives in the past, ?the first thing he said, and he said it very clearly, ?Gentlemen, there?s a camera right there.? ?
"The question to ask is: 'How do you know in the affirmative that someone has seen those signs or seen those warnings,' " Hefferan asked. "To assume that someone has given consent because there are some stickers up . . . it?s a quantum leap to suggest they must have given consent because they must have seen the signs. If there?s a small sign somewhere. The detectives would have been focused on the family so much they would not have noticed that there were stickers or placards up."
Quote from: KBCraig on July 01, 2006, 10:23 AM NHFT
The detectives would have been focused on the family so much they would not have noticed that there were stickers or placards up.
So now the chief does not expect his detectives to be aware of their surroundings, nor consider it their responsibility to read posted warnings???! Gee, this gets better all the time!
Here's my first rough draft of an LSR (Legislative Service Request, 1st step in making a NH law)
Quote
AN ACT relative to permitting audio and video recording for personal security.
1 New Subparagraph; Capture of Audio with Uniformed Law Enforcement Officers Allowed. Amend RSA 570-A:2, II by inserting after subparagraph (k) the following new subparagraph:
l) A person having an interaction with a uniformed law enforcement officer, to make an audio and or video recording of such interaction, provided that such officer shall be notified of said recording
1 New Subparagraph; Capture of Audio within Personal Domicile Allowed. Amend RSA 570-A:2, II by inserting after subparagraph (l) the following new subparagraph:
m) Within a person's domicile, as defined in RSA 259:23, to make audio and or video recording for security purposes, where such recording shall not include areas outside the person's own property, and provided that there is a sign informing visitors of such recording prominently displayed outside the domicile.
Why not: It shall be lawfull to record police officers, both audio and video, while in the performance of their duties.
Why must they be informed each time? They are hired by the state/city/town for a particular job, let them know once that they are subject to be recorded at any time while performing their duties.
Quote from: AlanM on July 01, 2006, 11:12 AM NHFT
Why not: It shall be lawfull to record police officers, both audio and video, while in the performance of their duties.
Why must they be informed each time? They are hired by the state/city/town for a particular job, let them know once that they are subject to be recorded at any time while performing their duties.
Right on. A police officer on duty should be subject to certain conditions and restraints not imposed upon the general citizenry. i.e Law enforcement officers are generally expected to conduct themselves with greater professionalism than members of the general public, and have no legitimate expectation of privacy while acting as a public servant. There is no legitimate reason that I can think of for a police officer to wish to be warned before being recorded doing his job, especially given the propensity for corruption and abuse of power.
Quote from: Roycerson on June 30, 2006, 08:23 PM NHFT
I thought Alex Jones might be interested in this so I sent a link to this thread and a quick explanation to infowars.com. All publicity is good publicity right ;D
This story is on the front page of infowars.com along with what appears to be the same picture that's on this thread.
Infowars is the shit!
Quote from: AlanM on July 01, 2006, 11:12 AM NHFT
Why not: It shall be lawfull to record police officers, both audio and video, while in the performance of their duties.
Why must they be informed each time? They are hired by the state/city/town for a particular job, let them know once that they are subject to be recorded at any time while performing their duties.
Definitely, why go making concessions before you even get started?
Quote from: FSP-Rebel on July 01, 2006, 04:07 PM NHFT
Infowars is the shit!
It serves my purpose. Do you know if this made the radio show? I've never listened but I would if I knew this was on it. I got an automated email saying they "might not" get back to me personally but this story is in the most prominent spot on the site. You'd think if they get back to anyone it would the person who showed them their lead story. They did a nice job with the graphics.
The law needs to be repealed entirely. People should always expect they are being recorded unless they are in an area they control and know there are no recording devices around.
Especially bureaucrats.
Quote from: Roycerson on July 01, 2006, 04:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: AlanM on July 01, 2006, 11:12 AM NHFT
Why not: It shall be lawfull to record police officers, both audio and video, while in the performance of their duties.
Why must they be informed each time? They are hired by the state/city/town for a particular job, let them know once that they are subject to be recorded at any time while performing their duties.
Definitely, why go making concessions before you even get started?
Because I want to get the law
actually changed, not just complain about how crappy it currently is.
The opponents to this law will almost certainly be the Attorney General and the Police themselves that sit on the Criminal Justice Committee of the House. They will of course argue that this makes their task of protecting the innocent much harder, and they will find some wierd case to make their point.
If the entire rest of the committee has something to point to that convinces them that the law is fair and equitable, even when viewed from the cops' point of view, then there is a much better chance it will get to the Governor's desk.
If you look at the above newspaper report, the ACLU lawyer thinks that just posting signs on one's property is enough. The key is to change the law covering this case so the the operative word is "inform", rather than the current law, which requires "consent".
This bill, if passed, would give complete legal immunity to the NH Copwatch, as long as they yell "You are being recorded!" as they rush onto the scene, no matter what the circumstances.
8)
Quote from: d_goddard on July 01, 2006, 06:09 PM NHFT
Because I want to get the law actually changed, not just complain about how crappy it currently is.
The opponents to this law will almost certainly be the Attorney General and the Police themselves that sit on the Criminal Justice Committee of the House. They will of course argue that this makes their task of protecting the innocent much harder, and they will find some wierd case to make their point.
I anticipated this point. Which is also why I like AlanM's suggestion. Give them something easy to object to so that a middle ground can be reached with the wording as you proposed it. Just an idea. Obviously you have a better understanding of the landscape up there.
QuoteOther than his first few weeks here, I never considered him a troll. An antagonist, yes. An asshole, frequently. An asset, usually. But never a troll.
I hate his guts. ;) Good-bye is too good a word, so I'll just say fare thee well.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 01, 2006, 06:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: Roycerson on July 01, 2006, 04:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: AlanM on July 01, 2006, 11:12 AM NHFT
Why not: It shall be lawfull to record police officers, both audio and video, while in the performance of their duties.
Why must they be informed each time? They are hired by the state/city/town for a particular job, let them know once that they are subject to be recorded at any time while performing their duties.
Definitely, why go making concessions before you even get started?
Because I want to get the law actually changed, not just complain about how crappy it currently is.
The opponents to this law will almost certainly be the Attorney General and the Police themselves that sit on the Criminal Justice Committee of the House. They will of course argue that this makes their task of protecting the innocent much harder, and they will find some wierd case to make their point.
If the entire rest of the committee has something to point to that convinces them that the law is fair and equitable, even when viewed from the cops' point of view, then there is a much better chance it will get to the Governor's desk.
If you look at the above newspaper report, the ACLU lawyer thinks that just posting signs on one's property is enough. The key is to change the law covering this case so the the operative word is "inform", rather than the current law, which requires "consent".
This bill, if passed, would give complete legal immunity to the NH Copwatch, as long as they yell "You are being recorded!" as they rush onto the scene, no matter what the circumstances.
8)
Denis, your bill will be objected to and attempts will be made to water it down further, making it essentially worthless. You concede the important point, that being the right to record police actions, from the beginning by placing so many conditions on it. It then becomes a dispute over which conditions are acceptable. The publics right to record a public servants actions should be absolute. Period.
Quote from: Dietrich Bonhoeffer on July 01, 2006, 08:47 PM NHFT
QuoteOther than his first few weeks here, I never considered him a troll. An antagonist, yes. An asshole, frequently. An asset, usually. But never a troll.
I hate his guts. ;)
Now you're just trying to sweet talk him to get him back. ;)
Kevin
This dead president fellow.
It sound quite curious. He doesn't like people to like him.
So. . .
If they choose to hate him because that's what he wants? Then that's sweet talking right?
So really if we say we love him for the sole purpose of pissing him off, he should like that because he should know that the only reason we like him is because we hate him -- and so because we hate him he'll like us. . . .Right?
Is this individual some real life manifestation of Bizaro?
(http://www.batman-superman.com/superman/img/bizzaro.gif)
TRacy
Quote from: Roycerson on July 01, 2006, 07:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on July 01, 2006, 06:09 PM NHFT
Because I want to get the law actually changed, not just complain about how crappy it currently is.
The opponents to this law will almost certainly be the Attorney General and the Police themselves that sit on the Criminal Justice Committee of the House. They will of course argue that this makes their task of protecting the innocent much harder, and they will find some wierd case to make their point.
I anticipated this point. Which is also why I like AlanM's suggestion. Give them something easy to object to so that a middle ground can be reached with the wording as you proposed it. Just an idea. Obviously you have a better understanding of the landscape up there.
Thanks for the input. I need to confer more with people more familiar with the process (ie, a few reps and folks in the NHLA) before I submit the LSR.
The final date for submitting LSRs is months away; I prefer to to this the right way, based on input from very experienced folks, than to do it half-cocked.
Stay tuned....
dennis how about just proposing a repeal of all the text that was added to the law, the text that made possible this nasty situation ?
Quote from: DadaOrwell on July 03, 2006, 08:56 AM NHFT
dennis how about just proposing a repeal of all the text that was added to the law, the text that made possible this nasty situation ?
I agree, that is the simplest approach. Less laws is always better, even dead_president would agree with that ;)
Quote from: DadaOrwell on July 03, 2006, 08:56 AM NHFT
dennis how about just proposing a repeal of all the text that was added to the law, the text that made possible this nasty situation ?
Because it makes sense to me to have privacy protection enshrined in the law.
Does it make sense to allow you to use a zoom lens and a hyperbolic mike to capture me walking naked out of my own shower and having an argument with my wife, for you to broadcast that over the internet -- without my even knowing the recording exists?
I see it as a major strategic win for us, if we can record all law enforcement interactions with impunity. We can then really hold their actions up to the withering gaze up public scrutiny, a-la "NH Copwatch".
Hmmm... what if Roger Grant were to be the key "NH Copwatch" videographer? What if the show got syndicated nationally, making him and an (as-yet unidentified) director and marketing guy fantastically wealthy? By god, I would love that.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 09:35 AM NHFT
Does it make sense to allow you to use a zoom lens and a hyperbolic mike to capture me walking naked out of my own shower and having an argument with my wife, for you to broadcast that over the internet -- without my even knowing the recording exists?
There are several things you can do:
1. Don't have floor to ceiling windows in your bathroom.
2. Use blinds.
3. Get one way windows, so you can see out but not in. I believe these windows let sun in as well.
It's better to protect yourself than to rely on the government to do. If someone wants to video tape your wife naked taking a shower and you think that having a law preventing it is going to stop someone from doing it, then think again. You have to take privacy into your own hands, that is the surest way to keep it. Besides, you are more likely to be videotaped/monitored by the government than by some pervert and this law would not prevent them from watching you, your blinds and one way windows will.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 09:35 AM NHFT
Does it make sense to allow you to use a zoom lens and a hyperbolic mike to capture me walking naked out of my own shower and having an argument with my wife, for you to broadcast that over the internet -- without my even knowing the recording exists?
Should I add that video to the other underground videos on the wiki?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 03, 2006, 09:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 09:35 AM NHFT
Does it make sense to allow you to use a zoom lens and a hyperbolic mike to capture me walking naked out of my own shower and having an argument with my wife, for you to broadcast that over the internet -- without my even knowing the recording exists?
There are several things you can do:
1. Don't have floor to ceiling windows in your bathroom.
2. Use blinds.
3. Get one way windows, so you can see out but not in. I believe these windows let sun in as well.
It's better to protect yourself than to rely on the government to do. If someone wants to video tape your wife naked taking a shower and you think that having a law preventing it is going to stop someone from doing it, then think again. You have to take privacy into your own hands, that is the surest way to keep it. Besides, you are more likely to be videotaped/monitored by the government than by some pervert and this law would not prevent them from watching you, your blinds and one way windows will.
The fundamental issue here is whether there exists a right to privacy, in the same sense as a right to life, liberty, keeping and bearing arms, yadda yadda.
I believe there is a right to privacy; we need laws (possibly even a constitutional amendment) to define what the limits on that right are. Yes, this is my minarchist self coming out (it must be an odd-numbered Monday ;) )
If there is no natural right to some kind of privacy, then the onus is indeed on me to make my house un-video-tapable and un-audio-recordable. It also means that, all things being equal, video cameras on every street corner are perfectly acceptable.
If there is a right to privacy, then it makes no sense to talk about me needing to make my home impossible to videotape any more than it makes sense for me to wear full body armor at all times (since I have a right to my own life). After all, people are going to shoot people no matter what the law says....
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 10:31 AM NHFT
Yes, this is my minarchist self coming out (it must be an odd-numbered Monday ;) )
Alright, lets wait until tomorrow then, maybe the minarchist will go back inside.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 03, 2006, 11:02 AM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 10:31 AM NHFT
Yes, this is my minarchist self coming out (it must be an odd-numbered Monday ;) )
Alright, lets wait until tomorrow then, maybe the minarchist will go back inside.
Seriously -- do you want to repeal the wiretapping RSA entirely?
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm
Please read it carefully, understand that it basically does protect your privacy, and simply needs to not protect police as much as it does. Also understand that repealing the whole thing will likely face large resistance from some of our best pro-privacy, anti-Real-ID friends, like Neal Kurk and Peter Burling.
Again: with a lot of work on our part, we can realistically get legal protection any time we surveil our own homes and record any police action. Is that not a good, worthy thing? Are the proposed alternatives likely to both improve our freedom and actually get implemented?
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 11:20 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 03, 2006, 11:02 AM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 10:31 AM NHFT
Yes, this is my minarchist self coming out (it must be an odd-numbered Monday ;) )
Alright, lets wait until tomorrow then, maybe the minarchist will go back inside.
Seriously -- do you want to repeal the wiretapping RSA entirely?
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm
Please read it carefully, understand that it basically does protect your privacy, and simply needs to not protect police as much as it does. Also understand that repealing the whole thing will likely face large resistance from some of our best pro-privacy, anti-Real-ID friends, like Neal Kurk and Peter Burling.
Again: with a lot of work on our part, we can realistically get legal protection any time we surveil our own homes and record any police action. Is that not a good, worthy thing? Are the proposed alternatives likely to both improve our freedom and actually get implemented?
I don't want to have signs all over my house warning of cameras. That would be ugly as hell.
Maybe I misunderstood what was ment by "repeal of all the text that was added to the law". I'm thinking we should just remove the video recording portion. Let people record whatever they want in their own homes and in public. I don't see what the big deal of that is. I mean the government already records us in many public places and most stores and restaurants have cameras as well, so by repealing that section of the law we're just allowing ourselves the same privilages as the government.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 03, 2006, 11:40 AM NHFT
Let people record whatever they want in their own homes and in public.
That's exactly what subparagraph (m) of my proposed LSR does. Did you read it?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 03, 2006, 11:40 AM NHFT
the government already records us in many public places and most stores and restaurants have cameras as well, so by repealing that section of the law we're just allowing ourselves the same privilages as the government.
Repealing which specific section of which specific law?
Also, note that the proposed legislation allows you to video
and audio record both the police and your home. The current legislation makes a distinction between video and audio.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 01, 2006, 10:52 AM NHFT
m) Within a person's domicile, as defined in RSA 259:23, to make audio and or video recording for security purposes, where such recording shall not include areas outside the person's own property, and provided that there is a sign informing visitors of such recording prominently displayed outside the domicile.
Why do I have to put a sign telling people I have cameras in my house? It's none of their business. And if someone decides to go into my house then they are on private property and can't possible expect to maintain their privacy.
Also, having signs all over my house would be UGLY!
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 03, 2006, 02:37 PM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on July 01, 2006, 10:52 AM NHFT
m) Within a person's domicile, as defined in RSA 259:23, to make audio and or video recording for security purposes, where such recording shall not include areas outside the person's own property, and provided that there is a sign informing visitors of such recording prominently displayed outside the domicile.
Why do I have to put a sign telling people I have cameras in my house? It's none of their business.
I agree it's none of their business, but why not just strike that clause later? That should be easier in 2-3 years when the police administrator-crats fail to show it's had any impact on their work. In the interim, we'd be a hell of a lot better of
now, by having neutralized the arguments of most likely detractors.
I guess you could say my strategy on this particular issue is "Freedom-Now!", as opposed to "get incarcerated-Now!"
Sorry Denis, your right to privacy is only to be respected by the government. Any privacy you want from other individuals you must work for, as Lex outlined. (Put up fences, walls, encode conversations, etc, until you feel private.)
For instance, if there are radio waves coming out of your house, why is it okay to use the guns of government to stop me from converting those electromagnetic waves into audio and doing as I please with them?
If you are out naked in your backyard with no fence, do you have a "right" to prevent your neighbor from photographing you? Nope. You have to put up a fence.
What if the neighbor has access to a powerful satellite, and continues to photograph you naked? Sorry, still no right to privacy, you have to work at this! If you don't want to be photographed naked, STAY INSIDE or don't get naked outside.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on July 03, 2006, 05:22 PM NHFT
Sorry Denis, your right to privacy is only to be respected by the government. Any privacy you want from other individuals you must work for, as Lex outlined.
So... some degree of protection from active, possibly malicious snooping is not a right in the same way that life, liberty, and the right to bear arms are rights?
I understand the position (though I do not agree with it); I'm just stating it as plainly as possible.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on July 03, 2006, 05:22 PM NHFT
For instance, if there are radio waves coming out of your house, why is it okay to use the guns of government to stop me from converting those electromagnetic waves into audio and doing as I please with them?
The light coming from your house is an elecromagnatic wave too, Ian. The particular wavelength is not central to the discussion ;)
I don't have the reference in front of me, but I recall SCOTUS considers the work the observer applies in determining whether there was a transgression: eg, if your windows and blinds are open, you're broadcasting; if your blinds are closed, you're ostensibly protected-private, so yes, the infared gun and the hyperbolic mike with the 24x7 internet stream and "thermal-hot mammas going pee" website are indeed a violation, to be stopped, by force if necessary.
At any rate, I'm interested to see your prosposed change to the law.
I mean, proposed language that you can go with in front of the legislature, not to bullshit about on a forum.
Or... do laws not matter, so it's not worth your while getting them changed?
I'm asking in earnest... if there's something better I can rally behind, I'm eager to see it!
"thermal-hot mammas going pee" website
Got a link? ;D
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 02:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 03, 2006, 02:37 PM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on July 01, 2006, 10:52 AM NHFT
m) Within a person's domicile, as defined in RSA 259:23, to make audio and or video recording for security purposes, where such recording shall not include areas outside the person's own property, and provided that there is a sign informing visitors of such recording prominently displayed outside the domicile.
Why do I have to put a sign telling people I have cameras in my house? It's none of their business.
I agree it's none of their business, but why not just strike that clause later? That should be easier in 2-3 years when the police administrator-crats fail to show it's had any impact on their work. In the interim, we'd be a hell of a lot better of now, by having neutralized the arguments of most likely detractors.
I guess you could say my strategy on this particular issue is "Freedom-Now!", as opposed to "get incarcerated-Now!"
If the incrementalist approach gets the job done, then by all means let's do it! The idea is certainly to move forward, not spin our wheels. But we also need to make
sure we don't get stuck in a comfort zone and take our eyes off the end goal: Full recognition of private property rights. To me that means nobody but me has any legitimate expectation of privacy on my property (except for
guests while in the bathroom or bedroom, in which case social ostracization of violators is a free market deterrent that works infinitely better than government force).
I just realized two things:
1) I open my trap and "amchair-quarterback" Ian's show way more than I decently should; turnabout is fair play, after all ;)
2) Where the hell is Ian's moderating voice-of-sanity co-host, Mark?!?? How come he's not posting here?
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 07:32 PM NHFT
2) Where the hell is Ian's moderating voice-of-sanity co-host, Mark?!?? How come he's not posting here?
I think we're too extreme for him >:D
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 05:52 PM NHFT
So... some degree of protection from active, possibly malicious snooping is not a right in the same way that life, liberty, and the right to bear arms are rights?
I understand the position (though I do not agree with it); I'm just stating it as plainly as possible.
Hell no it's not. You must take RESPONSIBILITY for your privacy if you want it protected. Writing laws and using the force of the state to impose your privacy preferences is unacceptable.
Quote
The light coming from your house is an elecromagnatic wave too, Ian. The particular wavelength is not central to the discussion ;)
You dodged the question. ;)
QuoteI don't have the reference in front of me, but I recall SCOTUS considers the work the observer applies in determining whether there was a transgression: eg, if your windows and blinds are open, you're broadcasting; if your blinds are closed, you're ostensibly protected-private, so yes, the infared gun and the hyperbolic mike with the 24x7 internet stream and "thermal-hot mammas going pee" website are indeed a violation, to be stopped, by force if necessary.
This paragraph shows how unreasonable your position is. You make the typical minarchist move of taking the issue to an extreme. You know my answer, if you don't want thermal images of you showing up online, install thermal sheilding in your home. Paranoia!
QuoteAt any rate, I'm interested to see your prosposed change to the law.
I mean, proposed language that you can go with in front of the legislature, not to bullshit about on a forum.
Or... do laws not matter, so it's not worth your while getting them changed?
No, I've said I'd play politics for a while in NH to give it a shot. Laws don't matter much to me, but they do to others, so that's why they are worth working on.
Though my proposed change is to strike it all, so that means we'd meet in the middle, which would probably be something like what you proposed. Just like I want to strike the laws against drugs, property taxes, and more.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 05:52 PM NHFT
I recall SCOTUS considers the work the observer applies in determining whether there was a transgression
SCOTUS may not be the best source for determining right from wrong . . . .
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 05:52 PM NHFT
so yes, the infared gun and the hyperbolic mike with the 24x7 internet stream and "thermal-hot mammas going pee" website are indeed a violation, to be stopped, by force if necessary.
Oh boy, I was in the act of swallowing a cookie when I read this and about spit it all over the screen. (Fudge stripe, Denis, nothing special). ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
My proposed legislation, if I happen to try my hand at legislation drafting (not tonight), would be more radical than Denis's and less radical than whatever Ian's suggesting. I do think we can afford to be pretty aggressive with this one since even an extreme position on this issue isn't likely to hurt our credibility much. Even something like "Whereas police are employed in the service of New Hampshire citizens, New Hampshire citizens shall have the right to record police acting in the line of duty, with or without consent" is not the PR nightmare equivalent of "All drugs shall be legalized." Is it?
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 09:35 AM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on July 03, 2006, 08:56 AM NHFT
dennis how about just proposing a repeal of all the text that was added to the law, the text that made possible this nasty situation ?
Because it makes sense to me to have privacy protection enshrined in the law.
Does it make sense to allow you to use a zoom lens and a hyperbolic mike to capture me walking naked out of my own shower and having an argument with my wife, for you to broadcast that over the internet -- without my even knowing the recording exists?
I see it as a major strategic win for us, if we can record all law enforcement interactions with impunity. We can then really hold their actions up to the withering gaze up public scrutiny, a-la "NH Copwatch".
Hmmm... what if Roger Grant were to be the key "NH Copwatch" videographer? What if the show got syndicated nationally, making him and an (as-yet unidentified) director and marketing guy fantastically wealthy? By god, I would love that.
I guess it seems to me like it's each individuals personal responsibility to secure themselves. If somebody wants to play peeping Tom, let them. If it bothers me, I'll hang up curtains.
Now if somebody actually violates my property by tresspassing and installing cameras in my house and mikes on my windows -- well, basic property right laws already deal with that. You don't need more laws.
TRacy
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 10:31 AM NHFT
is whether there exists a right to privacy,
There is no right to privacy. There's also no "right" to bare arms. All rights stem from basic private property rights. You have a right to own a gun and keep it because it's YOUR gun. Not because of some etherial right to bare arms.
If you don't have any such way to express privacy "rights," in terms of property rights, then you've got nothin. (And no. That's not a mis-spelling. I wanted it to sound like that.)
Tracy
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 05:52 PM NHFT
. . . but I recall SCOTUS considers the work the observer applies in determining whether there was a transgression
You're realying on the Supreme Court to define our rights now? :P
Tracy
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 03, 2006, 09:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 07:32 PM NHFT
2) Where the hell is Ian's moderating voice-of-sanity co-host, Mark?!?? How come he's not posting here?
I think we're too extreme for him >:D
What happened to MAnwitch?
TRacy
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap18b.asp#_ftnref9
Human Rights and Property Rights
It is often asserted by critics of the free-market economy that they are interested in preserving ?human rights? rather than property rights. This artificial dichotomy between human and property rights has often been refuted by libertarians, who have pointed out (a) that property rights of course accrue to humans and to humans alone, and (b) that the ?human right? to life requires the right to keep what one has produced to sustain and advance life. In short, they have shown that property rights are indissolubly also human rights. They have, besides, pointed out that the ?human right? of a free press would be only a mockery in a socialist country, where the State owns and decides upon the allocation of newsprint and other newspaper capital.
There are other points that should be made, however. For not only are property rights also human rights, but in the most profound sense there are no rights but property rights. The only human rights, in short, are property rights. There are several senses in which this is true. In the first place, each individual, as a natural fact, is the owner of himself, the ruler of his own person. The ?human? rights of the person that are defended in the purely free-market society are, in effect, each man?s property right in his own being, and from this property right stems his right to the material goods that he has produced.
In the second place, alleged ?human rights? can be boiled down to property rights, although in many cases this fact is obscured. Take, for example, the ?human right? of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate ?right to free speech?; there is only a man?s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.
The concentration on vague and wholly ?human? rights has not only obscured this fact but has led to the belief that there are, of necessity, all sorts of conflicts between individual rights and alleged ?public policy? or the ?public good.? These conflicts have, in turn, led people to contend that no rights can be absolute, that they must all be relative and tentative. Take, for example, the human right of ?freedom of assembly.? Suppose that a citizens? group wishes to demonstrate for a certain measure. It uses a street for this purpose. The police, on the other hand, break up the meeting on the ground that it obstructs traffic. Now, the point is that there is no way of resolving this conflict, except arbitrarily, because the government owns the streets. Government ownership, as we have seen, inevitably breeds insoluble conflicts. For, on the one hand, the citizens? group can argue that they are taxpayers and are therefore entitled to use the streets for assembly, while, on the other hand, the police are right that traffic is obstructed. There is no rational way to resolve the conflict because there is as yet no true ownership of the valuable street-resource. In a purely free society, where the streets are privately owned, the question would be simple: it would be for the streetowner to decide, and it would be the concern of the citizens? group to try to rent the street space voluntarily from the owner. If all ownership were private, it would be quite clear that the citizens did not have any nebulous ?right of assembly.? Their right would be the property right of using their money in an effort to buy or rent space on which to make their demonstration, and they could do so only if the owner of the street agreed to the deal.
Let us consider, finally, the classic case that is supposed to demonstrate that individual rights can never be absolute but must be limited by ?public policy?: Justice Holmes? famous dictum that no man can have the right to cry ?fire? in a crowded theater. This is supposed to show that freedom of speech cannot be absolute. But if we cease dealing with this alleged human right and seek for the property rights involved, the solution becomes clear, and we see that there is no need at all to weaken the absolute nature of rights. For the person who falsely cries ?fire? must be either the owner (or the owner?s agent) or a guest or paying patron. If he is the owner, then he has committed fraud upon his customers. He has taken their money in exchange for a promise to put on a motion picture, and now, instead, he disrupts the performance by falsely shouting ?fire? and creating a disturbance among the patrons. He has thus willfully defaulted on his contractual obligation and has therefore violated the property rights of his patrons.
Suppose, on the other hand, that the shouter is not the owner, but a patron. In that case, he is obviously violating the property right of the theater owner (as well as the other patrons). As a guest, he is on the property on certain terms, and he has the obligation of not violating the owner?s property rights by disrupting the performance that the owner is putting on for the patrons. The person who maliciously cries ?fire? in a crowded theater, therefore, is a criminal, not because his so-called ?right of free speech? must be pragmatically restricted on behalf of the so-called ?public good,? but because he has clearly and obviously violated the property rights of another human being. There is no need, therefore, of placing limits upon these rights.
Since this is a praxeological and not an ethical treatise, the aim of this discussion has not been to convince the reader that property rights should be upheld. Rather, we have attempted to show that the person who does wish to construct his political theory on the basis of ?rights? must not only discard the spurious distinction between human rights and property rights, but also realize that the former must all be absorbed into the latter.
Quote from: Braddogg on July 03, 2006, 11:22 PM NHFT
Quote from: d_goddard on July 03, 2006, 05:52 PM NHFT
I recall SCOTUS considers the work the observer applies in determining whether there was a transgression
SCOTUS may not be the best source for determining right from wrong . . . .
Agred 100%.
When proposing legislation, however, one should be mindful that the Reps, Senators, and the Committee Chairmen among them
do care what SCOTUS has had to say on any particular issue. Especially the "good guys" in the legiuslature, the ones who agree most with us and are most vocally happy we're here, they don't want to pass laws that then get struck down as unconstitutional.
Now, the smoking-ban proponents, they don't give a hoot about that g-d piece of paper, and they're happy to let the courts decide which laws happened to cross that annoying little "constitutionality" line.
Quote from: Rocketman on July 04, 2006, 01:01 AM NHFT
I do think we can afford to be pretty aggressive with this one since even an extreme position on this issue isn't likely to hurt our credibility much.
In this case, I'm not so concerned about our credibility -- like you say, we're not being radical here, in the average person's eyes! Rather, I am concerned that the proposed legislation will actually
pass, so we get some real advance in freedom as a result of our work.
I believe that having any victories, even small ones, but especially ones that get a lot of media attention (as this case has),
hugely help our cause, by showing liberty-lovers everywhere that New Hampshire is a place where you can fight for Freedom --
and win. Therein is a virtuous cycle that ensures that small measures that succeed are not comfortable traps. Rather, they are the catalysts of further reforms, made possible by an influx of more activists.
Quote from: Rocketman on July 04, 2006, 01:01 AM NHFT
"Whereas police are employed in the service of New Hampshire citizens, New Hampshire citizens shall have the right to record police acting in the line of duty, with or without consent"
I've pretty much come around to this line of thinking -- thanks to srqrebel, AlanM, Roycerson, etc. I'll drop the bit about "provided that such officer shall be notified of said recording", and offer it as amended language, if (when) the AG and police spokepeople start to complain.
Also, the nice folks on the RLCNH Yahoo group had a really good idea -- expand the text ever so slightly, to allow recording of
any public official, while they're doing their public duties.
So, with you folks' much-appreciated feedback, the working text winds up looking like this, for now:
Quote
AN ACT relative to permitting audio and video recording for personal security.
1 New Subparagraph; Capture of Audio with Uniformed Law Enforcement Officers Allowed. Amend RSA 570-A:2, II (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm) by inserting after subparagraph (k) the following two new subparagraphs:
l) A person having an interaction with a uniformed law enforcement officer, or with any public official acting on public business, to make an audio and or video recording of such interaction.
m) Within a person's domicile, as defined in RSA 259:23 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxi/259/259-23.htm), to make audio and or video recording for security purposes, where such recording shall not include areas outside the person's own property, and provided that there is a sign informing visitors of such recording prominently displayed outside the domicile.
Oh ,and Lex... the "ugly signs" you're complaining about are the stickers that every manufacturer I know of slaps on the side of their recording boxes... like the one in the pic of Mr. Gammon's house.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 04, 2006, 08:34 AM NHFT
I believe that having any victories, even small ones, but especially ones that get a lot of media attention (as this case has), hugely help our cause, by showing liberty-lovers everywhere that New Hampshire is a place where you can fight for Freedom -- and win. Therein is a virtuous cycle that ensures that small measures that succeed are not comfortable traps. Rather, they are the catalysts of further reforms, made possible by an influx of more activists.
Good point there!
Quote from: d_goddard on July 04, 2006, 08:34 AM NHFT
I've pretty much come around to this line of thinking -- thanks to srqrebel, AlanM, Roycerson, etc. I'll drop the bit about "provided that such officer shall be notified of said recording", and offer it as amended language, if (when) the AG and police spokepeople start to complain.
I think that's the best way to go.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 04, 2006, 08:34 AM NHFT
Also, the nice folks on the RLCNH Yahoo group had a really good idea -- expand the text ever so slightly, to allow recording of any public official, while they're doing their public duties.
I think that's an excellent idea!
Quote from: d_goddard on July 04, 2006, 08:34 AM NHFT
Oh ,and Lex... the "ugly signs" you're complaining about are the stickers that every manufacturer I know of slaps on the side of their recording boxes... like the one in the pic of Mr. Gammon's house.
We allow people to carry concealed weapons, why not cameras?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on July 04, 2006, 08:51 AM NHFT
We allow people to carry concealed weapons, why not cameras?
We allow people to
carry concealed weapons ... but not to shoot people with them at random ;)
Only one can actually harm you.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on July 04, 2006, 09:38 AM NHFT
Only one can actually harm you.
You say that now, but wait till I get the video and audio of just how vigorously you clean your privates in the shower ;)
Quote from: d_goddard on July 04, 2006, 09:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on July 04, 2006, 09:38 AM NHFT
Only one can actually harm you.
You say that now, but wait till I get the video and audio of just how vigorously you clean your privates in the shower ;)
Such a vivid immagination you have my friend.
Quote from: d_goddard on July 04, 2006, 09:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on July 04, 2006, 09:38 AM NHFT
Only one can actually harm you.
You say that now, but wait till I get the video and audio of just how vigorously you clean your privates in the shower ;)
You presume I would care. :icon_pirat: Pay me enough, and I'll make you that video!
Sorry, but for the right amount I would too. :-[
I'll pay not to see it. ;D
Sounds like we have ourselves a bidding war! >:D
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Video+games%3a+Nashua+police+go+too+far&articleId=d63a4972-2bc2-40ca-a1d8-81527cc71d4c
Video games: Nashua police go too far
NASHUA POLICE arrested resident Michael Gannon when he presented them with what he said was videotaped evidence that two detectives treated his family rudely while investigating one of his sons for possible involvement in a burglary. The charge: recording the communications of the officers without their consent, which they allege is a crime in New Hampshire.
Gannon?s tape was the product of his security system. To deter crime, he has cameras on his property, along with signs alerting strangers they are being recorded. That system caught the police officers on tape, allegedly illegally since they say they did not consent to be recorded. Suppose Gannon arrived at the police station with a video of two intruders talking while breaking into his home. Would the police have arrested him for taping the criminals without their consent? We don?t think so.
The police are investigating the two officers? conduct, it is worth noting.
Legislators need to revisit the wiretapping and eavesdropping statute. It is a good law in general, but exceptions need to be made. While it should remain illegal to, say, secretly record a tenant, one should be able to record on one?s own property government officials performing their official duties, and criminals.
We are not sure what point the Nashua police are trying to prove by charging Gannon, other than ?don?t mess with the police, buddy.? Imprisoning him for felony interception of oral communication will do nothing to protect the public, as Gannon?s only ?crime,? according to police, was having an operational home security system. But it sure will send the message that if you complain about police behavior in Nashua you can expect them to find a way to get you back.
Quote from: KBCraig on July 05, 2006, 02:05 AM NHFT
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Video+games%3a+Nashua+police+go+too+far&articleId=d63a4972-2bc2-40ca-a1d8-81527cc71d4c
[...]
Legislators need to revisit the wiretapping and eavesdropping statute. It is a good law in general, but exceptions need to be made. While it should remain illegal to, say, secretly record a tenant, one should be able to record on one?s own property government officials performing their official duties, and criminals.
I would be unsurprised if we someday discover that the Union Leader has folks looking on this forum. The Union Leader's editor was on CSPAN last year saying how
glad he is the the FSP chose New Hampshire, and that he's looking forward to the influence we'll have on the state 8)
Anyway, this editorial is a useful indication of the modd of the general public. It means we can expect support from the UL, at least, for the notion of surveiling your own property and -- very importantly -- the notion of recording public officials on public business
in general, which would be a very powerful right to have, if we can secure it!
I like McQuaid's comment at the NHLA Liberty Dinner. (Paraphrasing) "The NHLA knows how to guarantee coverage in the paper - invite the president [of the paper] to be your keynote speaker."
And you can see the results on my blawg, and over in the Civil Disobedience section.
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=4365.0
New Blawg Interview from last night:
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/07/kingcast-interviews-nashua-would-be.html
In which I start with this:
As previously noted, he lives a stone's throw from a friend of mine. My impression is that he is a nice guy, even though a blogger or two have opined that he's "not a ideal citizen" and shit like that. Query, why not I ask? Because he calls the police to his house after a home invasion? Because he has bad-mouthed a cop on occasion, for crissakes? That's part of why we have a Constitution, right? That's why our men and women are dying in Iraq, right? To preserve these goddamn freedoms, right?
Kudos for the referral to the News topic board and the proposed legislation.
-c
I think the domicile requirement is unnecessary. A police officer operating in public, i.e. not in undercover surveillance and outside of the cruiser -- should be under the expectation that whatever they say is being taped. This isn't "the inlaws are coming so let's get on our best behavior."
We pay police to be on their best behavior at all points in times, whether people like Jaffrey's Chief Dunn appreciate that or not.
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/07/kingcast-asks-why-did-jaffrey-chief.html
http://nhindymedia.org/newswire/display/3521/index.php
Peace.
Related news:
http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=15249
:P
Overload?
Got run time error at 12:04p.
-c
Quote from: FTL_Ian on July 11, 2006, 09:56 PM NHFT
Related news:
http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=15249
:P
VBscript error.
Oh well.. it was an article about three guys getting arrested for taping the cops in NM.
Okay, found it:
http://www.krqe.com/Video/expanded.asp?RECORD_KEY[Video]=ID&ID%5BVideo%5D=4161
You can look here:
http://www.krqe.com/Video/results.asp?Headline=video&submitButtonName=Search
It's the one titled "Bar staff shoots video, goes to jail", from 5/22/06.
Kevin
There's also this one:
Cops tapes himself, may go to jail. Because his dash cam recorded him shooting a man in the back.
http://www.krqe.com/Video/expanded.asp?RECORD_KEY[Video]=ID&ID%5BVideo%5D=1531
I've touched on exposing undercover cops in my blawg,
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/04/naacp-trial-hey-blogger-why-you-buggin.html
Whosarat.com has been doing it for years, but he was a criminal defendant as was I (and still am, albeit now facing some bogus misdemeanor charges now that they backed down on trial day).
http://nhindymedia.org/newswire/display/3521/index.php
Anyway, it worked for me; Blogger restored my posts:
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/04/naacp-trial-justice-prevails-american.html
One thing they haven't seemed to agree on here is whether those cops were undercover or not; obviously that may affect the ultimate analysis.
Peace.
My hope is that the new law makes recording legal whether the police are undercover or not. After all, if you know they're unhdercover, they're not doing it correctly, right? ;)
Indeed I made that argument on another thread containing proposed legislation, or perhaps it was this same thread, earlier.
Yes, the minute they step outside their cruiser unless there is some highly intensive SWAT surveillance going on, we need to know what they are doing. It's not like "oh, the in-laws are coming so let's get on our best behaviour."
No, we pay them to be on their best at all times, yo.
I'd pay them to go away.
Quote from: Christopher King on July 13, 2006, 10:57 PM NHFT
Indeed I made that argument on another thread containing proposed legislation, or perhaps it was this same thread, earlier.
Probably this one: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=4265
Anyways, Karma to you for thinking like me ;) ;D
Quote from: FTL_Ian on July 13, 2006, 11:06 PM NHFT
I'd pay them to go away.
Only
after you become fantastically wealthy and famous, Ian. ;)
Quote from: d_goddard on July 13, 2006, 11:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on July 13, 2006, 11:06 PM NHFT
I'd pay them to go away.
Only after you become fantastically wealthy and famous, Ian. ;)
Bribe the gangs to stay out of NH ;D
You mean the gangs with the badges?
Notice the police are trying to deflect attention, saying that Gannon turned over an edited tape that didn't include "everything he did".
Gannon is not charged with doing anything except recording the police, so anything on the tapes is irrelevant to the criminal case.
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Nashua+dad+won%27t+take+plea+deal&articleId=f89578bb-02fa-4032-bbe3-e747240ac930
Nashua dad won't take plea deal
By NICHOLAS COATES
Union Leader Correspondent
Nashua ? Michael Gannon said he has rejected a Nashua Police Department plea deal to reduce the two felony wiretapping charges against him to a misdemeanor wiretapping charge.
Police have charged him with illegally recording two separate conversations Gannon and his wife had with two Nashua Police detectives last month.
Gannon was charged with recording a conversation between Detective Andrew Karlis and Detective Thomas Bergeron while the three stood on Gannon's front porch late on the night of June 23. He also was charged with recording a conversation between him, his wife and Karlis on June 26.
Police said Gannon broke the all-party consent provision of the state's wiretapping law. Gannon has argued that the police knew they were being taped because he told them he had a surveillance system in place when they came to investigate his son.
According to Gannon, he would not have had to serve any jail time if he decided to take the plea deal.
"I'm a card player, and they (police) are trying to tell me they have all the aces when I'm staring at four aces in my hand," Gannon, 39, of 26 Morgan St., said yesterday. "They offered me the deal (before my probable cause hearing), and I know I did nothing wrong so I said, 'No way am I taking that deal.'"
Gannon was initially set for a probable cause hearing on July 12, but Nashua Police Department Legal Bureau Commander Capt. Peter Segal asked for a continuance. Nashua Police Chief Timothy Hefferan said yesterday the delay was sought because the tape Gannon originally turned in to police -- which led to his eventual arrest -- was edited and didn't contain "all of the things he did those nights."
Hefferan said he was unaware of the plea deal, but planned to discuss it with the department's legal bureau this morning.
Hefferan said the tape Gannon turned in to police when he tried lodging a complaint about the behavior of police detectives Andrew Karlis and Thomas Bergeron was "edited, and there is more than one version.
"Because there are multiple versions, it has complicated things," Hefferan said.
Hefferan said his department's internal investigation into Gannon's complaint about the two detectives' conduct is ongoing.
Gannon disputed Hefferan's claims about the multiple versions of the tape, saying that it was an edited version for a reason.
"I brought them a tape that had 15 minutes of misbehavior. I decided to bring that instead of all the tapes because that would have been 30 hours worth of tape," Gannon said. "I would not have minded bringing in the rest of the tapes, but they never told me to do that.
"The only time I got nasty with them is when the one detective snapped at me after he came to my house at 11 at night. He kept asking for my son and was being rude. I told him to leave and then he stuck his foot in the door as I tried to close it. When he did, he came into my house and that's when I told him, 'You get the (expletive) out of my house.'"
Gannon said he has a warning sticker on the cable junction box on the side of the building, that says: "Warning. Homeland Security Cameras. Closed-circuit television and audio monitoring on premises."
"I read your story in the Union Leader about the woman from the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union that said I am right," Gannon said. "If she says I'm right, then I know I'm right."
Quote from: KBCraig on July 27, 2006, 02:55 AM NHFT
Notice the police are trying to deflect attention, saying that Gannon turned over an edited tape that didn't include "everything he did".
Gannon is not charged with doing anything except recording the police, so anything on the tapes is irrelevant to the criminal case.
That point would make for a good LTE
Quote
"I read your story in the Union Leader about the woman from the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union that said I am right," Gannon said. "If she says I'm right, then I know I'm right."
Yeah I believe everything I read in the paper! lol
Finally got around to calling nashua pd to gripe about this and they transferred me to a desk seargent. Don't remember his name but he was maybe the second rudest cop I've talked to in-state. He says they get calls all the time from people angry with what they do...wonder why that is... He refused to give me any names of people I should talk with and said I have no recourse becuase I'm not directly involved. I said your telling me I can't stick up for a fellow NH resident?
I wasn't rude to him but wasn't real friendly either. I don't remember any other details but I do remember that I was still talking when he hung up two minutes into the conversation.
post from MoneyDollars on the Nashua telegraph forums at
http://forum.nashuatelegraph.com/viewtopic.php?t=39
<< Questions for NPD
Why was Detective Andrew Karlis put in charge of this case, as he is a juvenile detective, and Mr. Gannon is 49 years old? Also, the alleged crime was against Det. Karlis. It seems like a conflict of interest.
The news articles say the apartment was secured around 9PM, and the family was not allowed to return until 4AM, the last thing logged in the search warrant inventory was at 3:45AM.
How often is a home in Nashua "secured" 9PM at night, and prevent a family access to their home until 4AM, even to get a key to a camper on the property?
Hon. Bamberger issued the search warrant at 2:10AM.
How often are search warrants granted in the middle of the night(2:10AM) in the Nashua District?
Do police just always assume it is a sure thing these days, just a matter of filling out the paperwork?
Does the judge even look at the search warrant paperwork, or just sign it?
What was the emergency in this case?
Has Hon. Bamberger ever denied a search warrant?
What was the emergency?
Was anyone outside of the NPD allowed to watch the police do the search?
Why not allow the people who live in the house to watch the search?
Why was Mrs. Gannon cited with disorderly conduct, and at what time? >>
IIRC, I believe there was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ANYONE who was outdoors was implictly giving their permission to be photographed because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy outside.
It seems that cops wouldn't be an exception to that...
JM
Yeah, it just keeps on getting dumb and dumber.
Michael's sister wrote in to me today.
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/07/kingcast-receives-kudos-from-nashua.html
And I in turn responded by noting how her brother's case and my case are disintegrating as they should. In his case they sent it to the Grand Jury which will likely not return a True Bill.
In my case, Jaffrey Chief Dunn has gone on an indefinite medical leave.
The message below was posted at the nashua telegraph forum:
http://forum.nashuatelegraph.com/viewtopic.php?t=25&start=30
by the Outlaw Cameraman's sister user name mellowme
I will give her a shout and invite her over here to this thread
----
Hi I am Mikes sister,
Mike needs a REAL GOOD LAWYER who is not afraid to take on cityhall. And additional funds to fight this.Please if anyone wants to help. I am starting a fund for him. We cant let the city win this or they can do it to anyone. we need to help him win for our own familys and our rights as American citizens. If you know a great attorney who wants to take this all the way. He is looking at 21 years if he loses this case. PLEASE HELP!!!!
HI Mellowme here, Mikes sister
thanks for the invite, right now
Mike is in need of a real good Lawyer,21 years in prison sucks!!!!! I am setting up a defense fund to put towards a REAL LAWYER. he has a Public Defender who isnt helping him out at all. I think he's afraid to take on the NPD. Mikes home address is out there if anyone is able and willing to send an extra dollar. towards the lawyer It will be payed forward and hopefully a stupid ass law changed!!! I thank you all for your letters and calls to the NPD I Know Mike thanks you too!!!!!
please keep up the awesome work it will never be forgotten!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I do have a video camera with audio and would be willing to go anytime
Welcome to the underground.
Welcome, Mellowme!
Quote from: mellowme on August 01, 2006, 03:51 PM NHFT
HI Mellowme here, Mikes sister
thanks for the invite, right now
Mike is in need of a real good Lawyer,21 years in prison sucks!!!!!
Welcome to the Underground!
We're definitely behind Mike. There are many liberty battles being waged right now, so please understand if people are slow to respond. Just reading Tuesday's posts has kept me up way past my bedtime.
Mike and his lawyer must focus on "effective consent", based on the posted video/audio recoding notices, plus Mike's interaction with them where he told them to "smile; you're on camera". Any continued conversation after notification constitutes consent to be recorded.
Please keep up posted. Because we're all volunteers, we rely on everyone to post news and updates.
Kevin
As I posted on the Nashua Telegraph forum, I am still actively working to get the language nailed down for a law that would clearly make it NOT a crime to surveil one's own home, nor to tape the police wherever they may be. I'll formally submit the LSR once the November elections are done -- as I'm learning, that's the best time (I previously thought they could be submitted already; that was totally wrong)
If either of those provisions become law, the charges against Gannon vaporize instantly, and nobody in New Hasmphire ever gets put in this wretched position again.
I realize that's not enough -- he needs good legal defence NOW, cause NOW is when they are attacking him, but everybody's gotta fight in the way they can most effectively help.
Mellowme, please give everybody's best wishes to your brother. Let him know the Free-Staters don't take this crap lying down... and if you guys are fighting for Freedom in NH, then you're Free-Staters too!!!
Thanks for dropping by mellow, and for all you are doing to help your brother on this. KB is right, we are kinda overwhelmed right now with various battles against various government entities, but hopefully each of us will at least do some small thing!
Those of you not yet involved can do these two simple things:
email npd http://www.gonashua.com/content/1151/default.aspx
call npd 603-594-3500 fax 603-594-3616
and I see mellow has a call out for donations.
Mellow you may want to take a look at our calendar, and if there is something you would like us to do on a particular day just post it there. court dates, demonstrations, whatever.
sent another email to npd
---
I appreciate that many of you put your lives on the line standing between those of us who live in and visit Nashua, and criminals.
But am still wondering why you guys have not dropped your crazy case against the Outlaw Videotaper Mike Gannon. Your reputation is going downhill fast with all the negative media coverage.
Yours,
(sig)
Dada, my guess is you (and a anyone who helped in what you did, contacting the NPD) saved the day for Mr. Gannon.
This was just posted on the Nashua Telegraph Forum (http://forum.nashuatelegraph.com/viewtopic.php?p=444#444):
Quote from: dkiesowNASHUA ? Police won?t prosecute a city man for using his home security system to record detectives on his front porch, Police Chief Timothy Hefferan announced Friday. Police also have concluded that Michael Gannon?s complaint that a detective was rude to him was justified, though Hefferan added that Gannon himself was also ?provocative? and ?disrespectful.?
Sunday's paper isn't online yet, so I can't check the veracity of this.
Anybody got a print subscription?
Quote from: d_goddard on August 04, 2006, 07:28 PM NHFT
Dada, my guess is you (and a anyone who helped in what you did, contacting the NPD) saved the day for Mr. Gannon.
This was just posted on the Nashua Telegraph Forum (http://forum.nashuatelegraph.com/viewtopic.php?p=444#444):
Quote from: dkiesowNASHUA ? Police won?t prosecute a city man for using his home security system to record detectives on his front porch, Police Chief Timothy Hefferan announced Friday. Police also have concluded that Michael Gannon?s complaint that a detective was rude to him was justified, though Hefferan added that Gannon himself was also ?provocative? and ?disrespectful.?
Sunday's paper isn't online yet, so I can't check the veracity of this.
Anybody got a print subscription?
Vindication: Police drop wiretap charges (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060804/NEWS01/60804012/0/REGISTER)
Nashua man was accused of taping police at his home
Published: Friday, Aug. 4, 2006
NASHUA ? Police won?t prosecute a man for using his home security system to record detectives on his front porch, Nashua Police Chief Timothy Hefferan announced Friday.
Michael Gannon was arrested June 27 after he made the videotape to record conversations among detectives who were at his door looking for his 15-year-old son, who was being investigated in connection with a mugging downtown. When Gannon brought the videotape to a police station to complain that a detective was rude to him, he was arrested on felony wiretapping charges.
The case attracted attention around the world, as news spread via the Internet. The Telegraph and city police received scores of phone calls and e-mails condemning the charges.
In addition to dropping the case against him, Nashua police also have concluded that Gannon?s complaint about the detective was justified, although the chief added that Gannon himself was ?provocative? and ?disrespectful.? The chief declined to say what discipline the detective might face.
Hefferan also commended detectives for their ?tenacity and initiative? in investigating Gannon?s 15-year-old son, who was later charged in connection with the mugging. Police also found a stolen handgun inside the house, they reported, but it?s not clear who had possession of it, Hefferan said.
Gannon, 39, expressed relief.
"Glad to hear some good news finally,? he said. ?I?ve been worried, a little scared, because they said they were going to hold 21 years over my head.?
After the case became public, the chief had said he would ask a prosecutor, First Assistant County Attorney Roger Chadwick, to review the case against Gannon.
On Friday, after conferring with the prosecutor, Hefferan said he decided to drop the matter.
?It?s the same sense that I had early on when I first learned of this, the morning after it occurred,? Hefferan said. ?It wasn?t a real good feeling that I had for it?. We felt it would be extremely difficult to convince a jury of this.?
While police believe Gannon had violated state wiretap laws, Hefferan wrote in a statement announcing his decision, police and prosecutors concluded the case wasn?t strong enough to bother prosecuting.
Gannon?s cameras recorded both audio and video, and a sticker on the side of his Morgan Street home warned that persons on the premises were subject to being recorded. Police had charged that Gannon violated state wiretap laws by recording officers without their knowledge while they were standing on his front porch.
It is a crime under state law (RSA 570-A:2) to use any sort of electronic device to eavesdrop or record conversations without the consent of everyone involved. It's a felony to record other people's conversations, and a misdemeanor to record one's own conversations without the other person's consent.
Gannon said detectives came to his home late at night, and refused to leave when he asked them to do so. He took a videocassette to the police station as evidence, saying he wanted to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, whom he said was rude to him.
Police have investigated Gannon?s complaint, and concluded it was founded, Hefferan said. Hefferan said some action would be taken, but he couldn?t discuss it because the detective has already been publicly identified.
?I have sustained the complaint, and believe one of our detectives did not afford a member of the public the level of courtesy that they expect and deserve, regardless of how provocative, uncooperative, or disrespectful that individual may have been to the officer during the same encounter,? Hefferan wrote.
Gannon disputed that he was rude to police, saying he simply asked them repeatedly to leave, and used vulgarity only when they ignored his request.
?I told them get the eff out of my house,? Gannon said, adding, ?I don?t see how me saying ?Goodnight, gentlemen? about 40 times is rude.?
?All I did is file a complaint, and I end up going to jail? They put my family through hell,? Gannon said. ?I?m not saying my kids are perfect, but the way they came on, they acted like my kids killed the president or something.?
Gannon was released after his wife posted $10,000 bail. Before opting to drop the case, police offered a plea deal, Gannon had said: a 30-day, suspended jail sentence if he admitted to a single misdemeanor charge of evidence tampering.
Gannon refused.
?I felt that I did nothing wrong, so I wasn?t guilty,? he said Friday.
After Gannon turned down that deal, a prosecutor said his case would be sent to the Hillsborough County Attorney's office for further prosecution. But Hefferan?s decision on Friday ends the case.
Gannon appreciated the numerous phone calls he received from people offering their support, ?people saying they backed me and all that.?
?But at the same time, I?m facing all these trumped charges, running scared,? he said. ?I was more worried about the 21 years than anything else.?
Gannon said he hopes police will return and reinstall the security cameras, which they seized from his home during a search after his arrest.
?They broke them off the mounts, and ripped the wires right out of the wall,? Gannon said. ?They took it, they can return it, that?s my feeling.?
Hefferan said police will return Gannon?s equipment. He has yet to determine whether police can make public a copy of the videotapes, however. Because the recording is technically illegal, he said, it would be a crime to distribute it.
?I?m not sure whether I can do that,? Hefferan said.
The state wiretap law notwithstanding, 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.
The case is being discussed in a forum on the Telegraph Web site, at www.nashuatelegraph.com/gannon.
Andrew Wolfe can be reached at 594-6410 or awolfe@nashuatelegraph.com.
Cops will start thinking twice about harrassing people if they know they'll be run through the ringer with phone-calls etc.
tracy
Great news, now let's get rid of that law and make it so anyone is free to record anyone else on their own property, cop or no.
Hey, that's great!
yeehah! I had been planning another silent sign holding visit to the interior of a certain police station , nice that i will not have to bother now. Good for Chief Hefferan
Woohoo! Great news!
Although it would be funny if the chief had granted the press request for copies of the tape, then wound up facing felony charges for distributing captured conversations. ;D
Kevin
Hefferan admits they crossed the line, and says he's pleased that they did so. He claims the recording equipment is "illegal material", and will not return it.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Nashua+officer+to+be+disciplined&articleId=28837bdc-40a6-4f9f-bfa2-cbebc0c5e7ac
Nashua officer to be disciplined
By NICHOLAS COATES
Union Leader Correspondent
NASHUA ? Police Detective Andrew Karlis will be disciplined for discourteous behavior toward Michael Gannon and Police Chief Timothy Hefferan has decided to drop the felony wiretapping charges against Gannon, Hefferan announced yesterday.
Hefferan declined comment on the disciplinary action against Karlis after Gannon logged a complaint for "rude and discourteous behavior" when investigating Gannon's 15-year-old for an alleged mugging.
The police arrested Gannon, 39, of 26 Morgan St., on June 27 on two felony wiretapping charges, accusing him of using his home security system to record conversations that detectives had on his porch when investigating his son.
Police prosecutors offered Gannon a deal last week to drop the felonies if he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of tampering with one of the videotapes, according to Gannon.
Gannon turned the deal down, and prosecutors dropped the felonies saying that they would send the case to the Hillsborough County Attorney's Office for further prosecution, Hefferan said.
Despite still feeling strongly that Gannon broke the law, Hefferan said the single reason his department will not continue to prosecute the case is because it wasn't winnable in court.
"The citizen complaint has no bearing on the outcome of my decision as far as what to do with the charges," Hefferan said by telephone yesterday. "It was solely based on the facts of this case and not anything to do with the complaint.
"We sustained the allegation that the officer was discourteous to a member of the public. I'm admitting that, and I want to be above board on these things. We will take the necessary action with our employee. And, like we would normally do, we would never discuss the nature of that action might be."
Gannon said from his home yesterday that the news was a "big weight off (his) shoulders," but added that he still has outstanding issues with the police department that he wants resolved.
"This is huge coverup and has been from the beginning," said Gannon. "I've seen these things on TV and you never think they really happen, but I'm in a big one right now."
Gannon added that his biggest issue with the police department is that the behavior he recorded Karlis and fellow detectives exhibiting seemed like "a big joke to all of them" and that he was painted as a scapegoat.
"They were making jokes about my military service, about the value of my home and the way I talk," Gannon said. "When I brought that tape down the station and the sergeants (Sgt. Francis Bourgeois and Detective Sgt. Dennis Linehan) and the other officers saw it, it had Karlis and the other detectives making fun of me and being extremely rude to me. They must've saw it and said, ?Oh (expletive), we better confiscate this evidence and charge him.'"
Gannon was arrested after he brought a videocassette to the police station because he wanted to log a complaint against Karlis, Hefferan said.
Gannon had set up two cameras outside his home nearly four years ago to record audio and video after receiving threats for a former tenant in the apartment building he owns and problems of vandalism.
A sticker about the size of an adult hand sits outside the building on the cable junction box that warns of the system.
Karlis and other officers went to Gannon's home on several occasions in June while looking for Gannon's 15-year-old son P.J. who was being investigated for a mugging downtown, Gannon said. The police had argued that Gannon violated wiretapping laws by recording the officers without them knowing while they stood on his front porch.
Gannon and his wife said they gave the officers gave them fair warning on several occasions.
"We'll admit our error here," Hefferan said. "These detectives were fairly aggressive in investigating serious crime against a person and I am pleased that they did that. The citizens want us out there doing that."
Hefferan said Gannon would not be able to recoup any of the videotapes or any of the recording equipment that police confiscated during their investigation.
"That material is still illegal. It would be like returning drugs to somebody because you can't prove it. Plus, you'd have to have the consent of those involved and Detective Karlis has not consented.
"The department will maintain and destroy the evidence according to the normal protocol."
Gannon is still considering suing the department for Karlis' and other officers' behavior and for Hefferan's claims that the department won't return the evidence.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_TAPING_ARREST_NHOL-?SITE=NHMAL&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Aug 4, 5:22 PM EDT
Police won't prosecute man in taping case
NASHUA, N.H. (AP) -- Police have decided not to prosecute a man charged after he used his home security system to videotape police who came to his home.
Police Chief Timothy Hefferan said the department still believes Michael Gannon violated the state's wiretaping law. But he said he isn't sure the state would win the case at trial.
Gannon said he did nothing wrong. He was arrested after he brought his videotape to the police station. He went there to complain about the officers who came to his home investigating his 15-year-old son in an assault case.
Police charged Gannon violated state wiretap laws by recording officers without their knowledge while they were standing on his front porch. Gannon maintains he told the police they were being recorded and that a sign warning of the security system was posted.
Police said Gannon tampered with the videotape, but Gannon said he simply copied portions of different recordings onto a single tape, to better show police what he wanted them to see.
Hefferan said he will discipline one detective in the case who was not as courteous as he should have been, regardless of how provoked he felt he was at the time.
Quote from: Pat McCotter on August 04, 2006, 08:53 PM NHFT
Vindication: Police drop wiretap charges (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060804/NEWS01/60804012/0/REGISTER)
( . . . )
The state wiretap law notwithstanding, 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.
Another news article says the notice is the size of an adult's hand. The law does not define "sufficient notice". Hefferan's claim that the Gannon broke the law, but he dropped the charges because the case was not winnable in court, shows that he knows full well that the "obscure little sticker"
did supply sufficient notice.
Kevin
So the cops drop the case so they don't lose in court, which could theoretically damage the law. Even though they drop the case, they get to keep all of Mr. Gannon's cameras?
Fucking theives. I wonder which cop took home the surveillance system.
All right!
Now if they let Russell out of jail we can actually convince people that New Hampshire is the free state.
ALWAYS make a second or third copy of tapes and send a copy IMMEDIATELY to someone else by US mail or private courier if the tape may be confiscated by police.
Too bad the confiscated electronic system isn't rigged. Everything they confiscate, they should be terrified of handling or keeping.
Maybe there's 10,000 roach eggs in it.
Or mercury.
Maybe there's hellaciously allergy-triggering haptens.
Or poison ivy extract.
Or paraldehyde.
Or lead, arsenic, zillions of tiny needles, toxic waste, a hidden stash of smokeless powder sitting on top of the fuse that's not really rated for the load, diethyltelluride, a wax ampule of butyric acid, ....
Maybe unplugging it arms the heating coils inside. Or just closes a short-circuit in the power line. Or bridges a contact to the pile of steel wool mixed with road flare. Or emits a powerful, oscillating magnetic field that erases tapes, hard drives, screws with CRT's, etc.
Go ahead and steal my stuff. Enjoy.
I like your thinking Bald Eagle... >:D
Kola :icon_pirat:
Quote from: d_goddard on July 01, 2006, 10:52 AM NHFT
Here's my first rough draft of an LSR (Legislative Service Request, 1st step in making a NH law)
Quote
AN ACT relative to permitting audio and video recording for personal security.
1 New Subparagraph; Capture of Audio with Uniformed Law Enforcement Officers Allowed. Amend RSA 570-A:2, II by inserting after subparagraph (k) the following new subparagraph:
l) A person having an interaction with a uniformed law enforcement officer, to make an audio and or video recording of such interaction, provided that such officer shall be notified of said recording
1 New Subparagraph; Capture of Audio within Personal Domicile Allowed. Amend RSA 570-A:2, II by inserting after subparagraph (l) the following new subparagraph:
m) Within a person's domicile, as defined in RSA 259:23, to make audio and or video recording for security purposes, where such recording shall not include areas outside the person's own property, and provided that there is a sign informing visitors of such recording prominently displayed outside the domicile.
I assume this is the bill you mentioned (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9845.msg170067#msg170067) over here? This is exactly how I think the law needs to be modified—I agree with keeping the privacy law on the books but it needs a police exception. If you want any help with getting this passed the next time around, contact me.
I'm signed up to the NHLA as
jraxis, too.
If the police are so good, if they are good people with good intentions, and are as good as they want you to think they are, then what's the big deal with recording the police? They shouldn't mind people seeing them doing their job. If they really are good people, there will be no harm done, when people record what they do.
Quote from: ninetales1234 on July 27, 2007, 05:21 PM NHFT
If the police are so good, if they are good people with good intentions, and are as good as they want you to think they are, then what's the big deal with recording the police? They shouldn't mind people seeing them doing their job. If they really are good people, there will be no harm done, when people record what they do.
Just quote what
they say to you when you try to invoke a right to privacy:
If you're not doing anything wrong, what have you got to hide?