I was forcibly stopped from recording Concord PD

[Giggan]

For those who heard  my Porc 411 calls the other night, I was detained for looking youthful at 3 in the morning, and recorded the encounter. 3 cops tried to tell me they didn't consent, but acquiesced after I explained the wiretapping statute and that what I was doing was legal. A fourth, Sgt. Michael Pearl, the midnight shift supervisor, attacked me by grabbing the phone out of my hand and powering it off, despite the fact that I had already turned it off as he was preparing to attack me. I'm considering filing a complaint with the PD. I think it would be ideal if I could put some pressure on CPD to make a public statement about their policy on treating legal recording of officers and get some sort of reassurance that this won't happen again (for what its worth...)

Below is a letter to the editor I've written and have yet to send. I'd appreciate any constructive criticism. Keep in mind that the intended audience of this piece is the general public, not fellow liberty activists. Also, any suggestions on actions I should take to follow up on this would be appreciated. Here's a rough draft of the letter:

Do Concord police officers have something to hide? If not, then why was I forcibly prevented from recording a constitutionally questionable stop that occurred in the early morning hours of June 29th?

Myself and two friends were walking down Old Loudon Road, and ahead of us a police cruiser pulled to the side of the road and waited as we walked by. Passing it, the lone driver called for me to stop my current business to entertain him. Knowing the NH statute regarding police 'contacts', I continued walking and stated, "I have no obligation to stop" (See RSA 594:2 "Questioning and Detaining Suspects").

I was then told I had to stop. Fearing taser prongs to the back, I stopped and pulled out my phone, dialing Porc411. If I seem a little over prepared for police encounters, this is because I've had a very unpleasant learning experience in Sarasota, Florida. I was picked up one evening on my college campus because my clothing partially matched the description of those worn by a man who had just committed a robbery nearby. My initial detention was legitimate, and the robbery became a non-issue for me after the victim was brought to the scene and confirmed that I was not the culprit. However, I would be in police custody for another hour. Sitting in the dirt with my hands cuffed behind my back, three sheriff's deputies tried to manipulate me into confessing to possessing a glass pipe with marijuana that they claimed to have found in the area. Despite never even seeing the pipe myself, I was told a number of times the long court process I would have to go through over it. I was told that I was going to be charged, that it would be in my interest to 'start cooperating', and that if I didn't I was going to jail. Having just completed four years of schooling in the field of criminal justice, I knew better, but unfortunately most people don't. Cops lie, and it's not hard to understand why. Their job, as well as the prosecutor's, becomes immensely easier when they get a confession, no matter the charge. It is unfortunate that such incentives exist, but the reality is that they do, which is why I now protect myself with remotely recorded audio of any police encounters.

Back to Concord...Despite the fact that I did not match the description of any missing juveniles, I was told I was being detained for being a 'suspected juvenile'. Ironically, I was not even the youngest in the group. Though the constitutionality of the stop was questionable, my major issue how the police dealt with my recording their conduct.

The wiretapping statute in NH (RSA 570-A:2) makes it a felony to record anyone without their knowledge in a place where they would have an expectation of privacy. In a public place, there is no expectation of privacy, and there is especially none when one is explicitly informed that they are being recorded. The initial officer who accosted me told me that it was a felony to record anyone without their consent. I explained the statute, and he was from that point on respectful of the fact that I was recording. Then another officer appeared on the scene, who I recognized as the school resource officer at the time I had attended Concord High. I informed him that I was recording him, and he told me he did not consent. After explanation of the law, he too expressed no further resistance to my recording. A third officer, who I was unable to identify, appeared and told me to stop recording. He too acquiesced after informed him of the NH statute. By this point, I had given all the information required of me under RSA 594:2 had this been a Constitutional stop (which I believe it wasn't). I even gave my date of birth at their insistence (which is private information that NH citizen-subjects are not required to give to police during any non-custodial contact) as I wanted to be on my way as quickly as possible, and I was being threatened with caging if I didn't.

It was then that a fourth officer arrived on the scene. He rapidly approached me in a very confrontational manner. You can hear him in the last few moments of my second Porc411 call. As he approached:

"You're being audio recorded, sir."
"(Negative?), shut it off."
"Under the New Hampshire..."
"Shut it off, don't argue with me, shut it off!"
"Alright, under duress, I will turn it off."

At this point, I closed my phone, as the officer was approaching with the clear intention of grabbing my phone. He then screamed at me, "Don't tense up on me!" as I went to lower the phone and he forcibly grabbed it from my hand. Keep in mind, if I did the same to the officer, it would be a felony assault charge.

He opened it up, powered the phone off, and told me to put it in my pocket. I decided that at this point, the officer was being so verbally combative that I could not reason with him any longer and resigned to following his wishes for my own safety, as well as the safety of my friends. Knowing that the officer was breaking the law by forcibly stopping me from recording him and grabbing the phone out of my hand, I thought to myself, "what other laws is this officer comfortable breaking?" I did not feel comfortable even explaining my rights at this point, and just wanted the encounter to end ASAP.

I was then told that my "theories" hold no weight out here. Paraphrasing the rogue officer's spiel, "I'm the midnight shift supervisor. If you're walking around at 0300 hours, you're probably up to no good. So you do not give us any problems when we tell you to do something. When I tell you stop recording, you stop recording. We've got a city to protect. We've got scum to deal with and you're out here wasting our time and resources. You wanna play a game with us and we'll take you right to the station."

The 'midnight shift supervisor', who I found out after calling the police station the next day was Sgt. Michael Pearl, then tried asking me incriminating questions, so I exercised my fifth amendment rights. We were released shortly thereafter.

I'll soon be investing in a more concealable recording device for when I'm walking around Concord during Mr. Pearl's shift. To all Concord residents and those visiting our otherwise pleasant town, be forewarned that not all of Concord's police officers are concerned about your Constitutional rights. I would appreciate it if the Concord Police Department would publicly state their policy on dealing with peaceful people who are fully complying with the law by informing officers that they are recording.

Despite being initially uniformed about the statute, I commend the first three officers for being respectful and not assaulting me when I explained myself to them and continued recording. If what Mr. Pearl did is considered the worst behavior by the Concord PD, I'd say we're doing much better than other communities around the nation. However, no level of lawbreaking by the police is acceptable. Mr. Pearl, I forgive you for what you have done to me, and ask that you reconsider your aggressive approach in the future.

[Tom Sawyer]

Perhaps a call to their Public Relations Officer, to ask questions in helping to get their departments position clearly stated for your "Letter to the Editor."

I wonder how many young folks Sgt. Michael Pearl has menaced, interrogated, or assaulted?

[Russell Kanning]

yea .... good job
i agree with Roger
if you want the letter published by the concord monitor ... it might need to be shorter
you might want to explain what a Porc411 call is
when you are done with the letter, i can put it in the online edition of the NHFree Press and if it is short enough maybe Kat can fit it in the print edition

[Kat Kanning]

Kira also got hassled for looking young at 3 am in manchester.

[Giggan]

Cool, I'll touch up the letter in the next day or so. Tomorrow, I plan on going to CPD to attempt to file a complaint. A fellow activist will be filming.

Semi-relevant recent article, a kid at a party arrested for 'wiretapping' for filming the police.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20100707-NEWS-7070370

[neggy]

This is why I like you "guys" ( men and women) so much, ypu put your necks out there to preserve my rights.

Thank You!

[jb2058]

Can you help me with this story....I am new to this state and I was reading you article.. I looked up the law 570-a:2 but I do not see where it states that you can record someone if they don't have an expectation of privacy. I want to make sure that if this happens to me and my friends I am on good grounds to record the encounter.

[Giggan]

Can you help me with this story....I am new to this state and I was reading you article.. I looked up the law 570-a:2 but I do not see where it states that you can record someone if they don't have an expectation of privacy. I want to make sure that if this happens to me and my friends I am on good grounds to record the encounter.

It's confusing because it's written in Legali, but under 'definitions' (RSA 570-A:1) oral communication is defined as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation."

Telling someone, "you're being recorded" would remove any such expectation. There is a reason it's called the 'wiretapping and eavesdropping' statute, because that is what it is intended to cover.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-1.htm

Video of complaint filing:

Filing a Complaint Against Concord NH Police

Revised LTE:

Do Concord police officers have something to hide? If not, then why was I forcibly prevented from audio recording a constitutionally questionable stop that occurred in the early morning hours of June 29th?

Two friends and I were walking east on Old Loudon Road, and ahead of us, a police cruiser was pulled to the side and waited as we passed. The lone driver yelled for me to stop my current business and entertain him. Knowing the NH statute regarding police 'contacts', I continued walking and stated, "I have no obligation to stop" (See RSA 594:2 "Questioning and Detaining Suspects").

I was then told that I had to stop. Fearing taser prongs to the back, I halted and pulled out my phone, dialing Porc411. If I seem a little over prepared for police encounters, this is because I've had a very unpleasant learning experience in Sarasota, Florida. I was picked up one evening on my college campus because my clothing partially matched the description of those worn by a man who had just committed a robbery nearby. My initial detention was legitimate, and the robbery became a legal non-issue for me after the victim was brought to the scene and confirmed that I was not the culprit. However, I would be in police custody for another hour. Sitting in the dirt with my hands cuffed behind my back, three sheriff's deputies tried to manipulate me into confessing to possessing a glass pipe with marijuana that they claimed to have found in the area. Despite never even seeing the pipe myself, I was told a number of times of the long court process I would have to face and the dollars I would have to spend. I was told that I was going to be charged, and that it would be in my interest to "start cooperating". Having just completed four years of schooling in the field of criminal justice, I knew better, but unfortunately most people don't. Cops lie, presenting suspects with fabricated deals (presumably to lessen the damage of a charge) when they are actually asking for everything they need to begin using more state aggression against you. It is not hard to understand why. Their job, as well as the prosecutor's, becomes immensely easier when they get a confession, no matter the charge. It is unfortunate that such incentives exist, but the reality is that they do, which is why I now protect myself with remotely-recorded audio coverage of any police encounter.

Porc411, short for Porcupine 411, is a phone service maintained by NH liberty activists that allows individuals to leave a message on a digital answering machine that then sends the audio file to subscribed users. It is a vital tool for anyone in need of a recording device in a situation that an on-site audio recorder might not survive. After police confiscate recording devices of any kind, it is not uncommon for them to be returned mysteriously broken or with all of the footage erased. Porc411 and services like qik.com now provide activists with tools that were unfortunately absent in too many police misconduct stories of the past.

Back in Concord...despite the fact that I did not match the description of any missing juveniles, I was told I was being detained for being a 'suspected juvenile'. Ironically, I was not even the youngest in the group. Though the constitutionality of the stop was questionable, my major issue is how the police dealt with my recording their conduct.

The wiretapping statute in NH (RSA 570-A:2) makes it a felony to audio record anyone without their knowledge in a place where they would have an expectation of privacy. In a public place, there is no such expectation, and there is especially none when one is explicitly informed that they are being recorded. The officer who initially accosted me told me that it was a felony to record anyone without their consent. I explained the statute, and he was from that point on not objectionable to the fact that I was recording. Then another officer appeared on the scene, who I recognized as the school resource officer at the time I had attended Concord High. I informed him that I was recording, and he told me that he did not consent. After explanation of the statute, he too expressed no further resistance to my recording. A third officer, whom I was unable to identify, appeared and repeated the now-familiar demand. He as well acquiesced after informed of the NH statute. By this point, I had given all the information required of me under RSA 594:2 (had this been a Constitutional stop, which I believe it wasn't). I even gave my date of birth at their insistence (which is private information that NH citizen-subjects are not required to give to police during any non-custodial contact) as I wanted to be on my way as quickly as possible, and I was being threatened with protective custody caging if I didn't. The police were literally going to deem me "too incompetent to exist" unless they could validate that I had been alive an arbitrary amount of years.

It was then that a fourth officer arrived on the scene. He rapidly approached me in a very confrontational manner. You can hear him in the last few moments of my second Porc411 call:

"You're being audio recorded, sir."
"(Negative?), shut it off."
"Under the New Hampshire..."
"Shut it off, don't argue with me, shut it off!"
"Alright, under duress, I will turn it off."

At this point, I closed my phone, as the officer emanated the clear intention of snatching it. He then screamed, "Don't tense up on me!" as I went to lower the phone, and he forcibly grabbed it from my hand. Keep in mind, if I did the same to the officer, it would be a felony assault charge.

He opened up, powered off, and told me to put the phone in my pocket. I decided that the officer was being so combative that I could not reason with him any longer. I resigned to following his wishes for my own safety and the safety of my friends. I did not feel comfortable even explaining my rights at this point, and just wanted the encounter to end ASAP.

I was then told that my "theories" hold no weight out here. Paraphrasing the rogue officer's spiel, "Listen, if you're walking around at 0300 hours, you're probably up to no good. So you do not give us any problems when we tell you to do something. When I tell you stop recording, you stop recording. We've got a city to protect. We've got scum to deal with and you're out here wasting our time and resources. You wanna play a game with us and we'll take you right to the station."

This man, who identified as the midnight shift supervisor, I found out by calling the police station the next day was Sgt. Michael Pearl. After he started asking incriminating questions and I exercised my fifth amendment rights, we were released.

I'll soon be investing in a more concealable recording device for when I'm walking around Concord during Mr. Pearl's shift. To all Concord residents and those visiting our otherwise pleasant town, be forewarned that not all of Concord's police officers are concerned about your Constitutional rights. I would appreciate it if the Concord Police Department would publicly state their policy on dealing with peaceful people who are fully complying with the law by informing officers that they are recording.

Despite being initially uniformed about the statute, I commend the first three officers for being respectful enough to not assault me when I explained myself to them and continued recording. If what Mr. Pearl did is considered the worst behavior by the Concord PD, I'd say we're doing much better than other communities around the nation. However, no level of lawbreaking by the police is acceptable. Mr. Pearl, I forgive you for what you have done to me, and ask that you reconsider your aggressive approach in the future.

[Walker]

I see the officer offered no legitimate reason for you not to film in the interview area. 

I think you did a nice job with the police personnel and the recording.  The woman and the officer seemed a little nervous, but law enforcement must understand that there are repercussions when they use less than industrious policing tactics.  Law enforcement should never be reduced to fishing expeditions.  Detecting crime requires skill, knowledge, and hard work.

[KBCraig]

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=No+police+scrutiny%3a+Drop+the+camera+and+back+away&articleId=72e946b9-ea84-4462-aafc-b6be8bfbd303

[Kat Kanning]

If your letter is all ready, we'll put it in the NHFP. 

[Giggan]

Cool, much appreciated. I'm pleased with the letter as is, feel free to post it when you get a chance.

[Sam A. Robrin]

Regarding the final paragraph, the guy you borrowed it from is finally getting repercussions for his phony-sounding "I forgive you" nonsense.   I hope he'll listen and drop it, and that you will, too!

[Giggan]

I don't always feel comfortable using it against aggressors. The recent context in which I think you're referring to where it was used I don't think it was totally sincere (at the time, anyway). Also, the fault in that conflict wasn't totally one sided either. I'm comfortable saying it here because I'm not seeking anything from Mr. Pearl but his understanding that what he did was wrong.

[Sam A. Robrin]

One of the most difficult lessons for me to learn was that not everyone is scrupulously conscientious just because you are.  You can't appeal to the better nature of an opponent who doesn't have one, and however bizarre it may be, some do not.