Question to Audio and video recording by Police on stops

[java]

Hi, First post here after joining the other day.  Pretty cool.  Now, if I can only jot down the proc-411 number.

do I read RSA 570-a:2 correctly that police when on traffic stops need to inform you that they are using audio recordings with the video?  Does anything trump this?

  (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.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm

[d_goddard]

You're correct. The power is completely asymmetrical. LEOs can INFORM (not ask) citizens that they are being audio recorded. Citizens have to ASK if the LEO will let them be audio recorded.

If this seems to you to be unfair, unjust, and likely to foster corruption, you're not alone.
We will be able to address this in the 2008 legislative session.
When the time comes, I hope I can count on you, and HUNDREDS of others, to call their Reps and show up in person in the State House to demand a regress of this grievance.

[KBCraig]

You're correct. The power is completely asymmetrical. LEOs can INFORM (not ask) citizens that they are being audio recorded. Citizens have to ASK if the LEO will let them be audio recorded.

Not according to the law. My analysis is here:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10666.msg184002#msg184002

I do not know how NH courts have ruled on this, but the law plainly says that audio recording is legal if all parties are notified that it is taking place.

The interesting part of the law is that LEOs must inform to stay legal. Wonder how often that happens? Certainly didn't happen in the videos we've seen of the interactions between Bruce McKay and Liko Kenney.

[d_goddard]

The interesting part of the law is that LEOs must inform to stay legal.

Your emphasis is on the wrong word.
LEOs must inform
Citizens must ask

[KBCraig]

The interesting part of the law is that LEOs must inform to stay legal.

Your emphasis is on the wrong word.
LEOs must inform
Citizens must ask

Again, the law says nothing about asking. It says that it's illegal to intercept an "oral communication". It defines "oral communication" in such a way that if they know they're being recorded, it doesn't apply.

Citizens need only inform.

[d_goddard]

Citizens need only inform.

Make sure that isn't misconstrued as legal advice, 'cause at least one NH Deputy Attorney General doesn't agree with you.

NH is a "2-party intercept" state -- both parties must agree to the audio recording.
The police have a special exception in the RSA... same place that also exempts school bug operators from getting childrens' permission to audio record them (as of last year)