Barskey pulled over again 2-9-09

[leetninja]

Kop pulled him over.  Seems like everything is ok but the Kop was a jackass.

Mike informed the kop that he was audio and video recording.  At first kop objected - then said "do whatever you want" and then proceeded to say that Mike was being pulled over for no inspection sticker - mike told him he only registered it 4 days ago = kop confirms it and then goes to "check" things with paper work.

Told Mike that he can not audio record without consent and if recording continues that it is an illegal wiretap. is that accurate?

[Coconut]

Told Mike that he can not audio record without consent and if recording continues that it is an illegal wiretap. is that accurate?

Sorta. But wiretap laws were written before portable audio recorders. So a court would have to decide if the law actually applies. It's retarded.

[MengerFan]

Geesh, violence so early in the morning?

[Coconut]

Told Mike that he can not audio record without consent and if recording continues that it is an illegal wiretap. is that accurate?

Sorta. But wiretap laws were written before portable audio recorders. So a court would have to decide if the law actually applies. It's retarded.

The cop seemed so clueless. All he knew was that if there's audio recording going on, it might fall under the wiretapping laws. THERE'S NO WIRES TO TAP. That was not the spirit of the law when it was written.

Anyway, a cop at freedom fest told Dave Ridley "You can video record me, but I don't want to be audio recorded." Dave held the camera steady and replied "Well you can arrest me then." The cop says "Ok, if that's what you want" and continues his business, leaving Dave alone. I don't think Dave got enough credit for that act of standing up for himself.

[KBCraig]

Told Mike that he can not audio record without consent and if recording continues that it is an illegal wiretap. is that accurate?

Sorta. But wiretap laws were written before portable audio recorders. So a court would have to decide if the law actually applies. It's retarded.

+1 to "Sorta". The law (RSA 570-A) says that it is felony wiretapping to intercept an "oral communication". The law also defines "oral communication" this way: any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.

Nothing about "you must have consent", although that's the common perception, and it's what they'll use to arrest and prosecute. By the black letter of the law, once you've notified someone that you're audio recording, they cannot have "an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception", and they're no longer under "circumstances justifying such an expectation". That means it's no longer an "oral communication" under the law, so it's not a violation to record it.

Oh, and if they charge you, it is a felony.

[MTPorcupine3]

It is reasonable to assume that the contact is being filmed and recorded by the cop. It stands to reason that if you're filming and/or recording as well, that's just a back up and there is no need for consent. Am I correct on this?

[Roycerson]

That's a good point.  The police video is public record so it could be argued that it would even be unnecessary to inform them you are audio recording as they are already aware they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.  Even so, you'll be in a much stronger position if you inform them you are audio recording.  I don't see where consent is required by law and I think it's unlikely a person would be convicted if they have clearly informed the subject they are being audio recorded.  You never know.  In the end the thugs can pretty much do whatever they want regardless of the law, I never count on actually being innocent of the charges to protect me.

[Puke]

What's the pig have to hide?
Quit your "public servant" ( ) job if you don't want to be held accountable.

[Moebius Tripp]

Is it reasonable to assume that communications involving a "public servant" in the course of "public duties" isn't subject to "public scrutiny"?  Turn on the lights, watch the roaches scatter.

[dalebert]

I think someone mentioned this somewhere, but many of the cops audio and video record their encounters from the camera in the car. So are they committing a felony? The next time a cop claims I can't audio record them without their consent, I'm going to ask them if they're audio and video recording me. Then I'm going to continue recording anyway. I think the wire-tapping law has been absurdly misinterpreted to claim that you must have consent to audio record someone in person. I guess we'll find out in court sooner or later.

[Pat McCotter]

So, did someone at dispatch tell him that the audio recording was actionable or are all NH cops taught this as a matter of training?

[J’raxis 270145]

Bill up this year to nip this kind of intimidation:—
http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view?bill=HB312&year=2009

[Mike Barskey]

Bill up this year to nip this kind of intimidation:—
http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view?bill=HB312&year=2009

This is important! I'm not sure if I can be at the hearing, so who should I call/email to tell that I want this bill to pass? Thanks for the help.

[dalebert]

Has anyone yet addressed the fact that, if it were a felony to audio tape someone live, and I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of the wire-tapping law, that police are committing that felony at routine traffic stops every day? Doesn't that seriously undermine this absurd claim that it's a felony to live record someone?

[Peacemaker]

Great point Dale, but I hate to say this appears to be yet one more example of law enforcement enforcing laws on the people...and excluding themselves from abiding by them (for the peoples' protection of course).