video recording question amongst other things

[leetninja]

I recently (yesterday) video taped (iphone) someone who was verbally and physically assaulting a 60+ year old woman and then physically assaulted me from behind as well and then threatened us both with a firearm.  I informed him that there was an audio and video recording in progress - he didnt say anything other than he was going to kill me - of course the police do nothing as usual but i expect nothing from them anyhow.  This is one of the very few times i was not carrying my firearm and now i regret not having it on me.

i caught the best parts on video (verbal abuse/assault/threatening/acting like a lunatic and also caught being attacked from behind as well) when i showed it to the kops that is when the argument began.  they tell me that NH is a two party state and that it requires CONSENT from the person(s) involved or it is a felony (illegal wiretapping) charge against me.  Somehow I think they are wrong.  I let them know that I disagreed with their position on the matter.  Made it VERY clear.  I also explained that this took place on public property where to the best of my knowledge there is no expectation of privacy. 

Can someone please clarify the video recording thing to me?  At this point I need sources to be cited because I plan on making a VERY big deal over this.  This insane person ADMITTED that he assaulted me, threatened me with a firearm, and attacked me from behind as well as a 60+ year old woman and yet no arrests are being made. 

[thinkliberty]

You thought the police would help you?!


You are very lucky they didn't arrest you. 

i showed it to the kops that is when the argument began.  they tell me that NH is a two party state and that it requires CONSENT from the person(s) involved or it is a felony (illegal wiretapping) charge against me.

[leetninja]

You thought the police would help you?!


You are very lucky they didn't arrest you. 

i showed it to the kops that is when the argument began.  they tell me that NH is a two party state and that it requires CONSENT from the person(s) involved or it is a felony (illegal wiretapping) charge against me.

i didnt have much of a choice - the neighbors and my mother called them - she doesnt have the same mindset as most of us here - anyhow it matters not at this point - what i need is someone to clarify - preferably with sources - the matter of video taping a third party.

[KBCraig]

You're correct that the law doesn't require permission, only notice. The cops don't care (and neither did former AG Kelly Ayotte); they sometimes insist on arresting people anyway.

The charges get dropped, but it costs you time, money, and a felony arrest record. It's like an aggravated version of the standard "contempt of cop" charge, which is disorderly conduct.

Here's the law:

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.
    III. ""Intercept'' means the aural or other acquisition of, or the recording of, the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

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;


Now, most people, especially police, are familiar with 570-A:2:I, which requires "consent of all parties". That section specifically applies to an "oral communication". The trouble is, they don't bother reading the definitions. I quoted them first, and please note that there is a specific definition for "oral communication": "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation"

The moment you notify someone that you are audio recording, they no longer have an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, and there are no "circumstances justifying such an expectation". That means it is no longer an "oral communication" in the eyes of the law; and, since it is not, it is not illegal to record.

Dave Ridley recently explained this to a Concord cop, and artfully told him he was audio recording, but was backing away so that he couldn't hear the cop, but if the cop approached and talked his voice would be recorded.

Cop: "You can't record audio" (Concord, New Hampshire cops)

The cop didn't like it, and kept saying he could arrest him anyway, but it was obvious from his demeanor he knew Dave was right about the law.

[KBCraig]

Oh, and it's only a misdemeanor if you're a party to the communication, or have the permission of one of the parties, but it's usually charged as a felony. Why not? They're already filing a false charge, might as well use the wrong penalty, too.

[leetninja]

Craig!  You sir are my hero of the day!

I think I will probably copy pasta a lot of what you said into a letter to my town officials as well as the police chief to have him remind his kop-soldiers that they are to respect the laws they are supposed to enforce.

In other news I have discussed the idea of "running" for Sheriff before.  I think it is about time I get my 10 gallon hat, my horse, and start riding through the streets.  My signage will read as follows:

___________________________
|     ~Look at my horse!~           |
|   REAL NAME FOR SHERIFF!      |
|  {{Picture of something epic}}  |
|     DON'T TREAD ON ME!           |
|     ~My horse is amazing!~        |
--------------------------------------|

[Knowaymr]

So cough up the video already....I won't tell

[leetninja]

So cough up the video already....I won't tell

i dont know how to take that but i am working on getting the vid off my iPhone

[Firewall99]

"A number of cases show how police continue to misunderstand citizens' rights to record their behavior, and they're now neatly compiled into a video from the Cato Institute."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/police-continue-to-harass-citizens-who-record-them-102826639.html

[Knowaymr]

So cough up the video already....I won't tell

i dont know how to take that but i am working on getting the vid off my iPhone

With a grain of NaCl of course. If you've got the goods on some bad...use it. I subscribe to Ridley's "Don't get mad.. get video" philosophy.
Peace