Tape the cops, go to jail.

[Kat Kanning]

Hey, that's great!

[Dave Ridley]

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

[KBCraig]

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. 

Kevin

[KBCraig]

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.

[KBCraig]

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.

[KBCraig]

Vindication: Police drop wiretap charges

( . . . )

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

[FTL_Ian]

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.

[TackleTheWorld]

All right!
Now if they let Russell out of jail we can actually convince people that New Hampshire is the free state.

[Bald Eagle]

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.

[kola]

I like your thinking Bald Eagle... 

Kola 

[J’raxis 270145]

Here's my first rough draft of an LSR (Legislative Service Request, 1st step in making a NH law)

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 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.

[ninetales1234]

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.

[J’raxis 270145]

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?