Tape the cops, go to jail.

[KBCraig]

Man complains to Nashua PD about behavior of two officers in his home. Presents taped video and audio as evidence. Winds up being charged with two felonies, facing up to 14 years in prison.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Nashua+dad+turns+in+tape%2c+gets+arrested&articleId=d98cb83f-8365-4ff1-84a9-c2dfab341c46

Nashua dad turns in tape, gets arrested

By RUSS CHOMA
Union Leader Correspondent

Nashua ? A Nashua man is facing two felony charges for allegedly using secret video cameras to tape police who had come to his home to investigate his son?s possible role in a robbery.

Nashua Police arrested Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., on Tuesday and charged him with two felony counts of interception and disclosure of telecommunication or oral communications. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison.

Gannon is accused of making several audio and video recordings of at least two Nashua police officers who had come to his home to interview him about the whereabouts of his 15-year-old son, who was a suspect in a June 21 robbery.

According to court filings, Gannon and his wife, Janet, had videocameras set up at both the front and rear entrances of their home. During an interview with police, Janet Gannon told investigators that the couple bought the cameras from Wal-Mart because there had been some criminal mischief in the parking lot in front of their home.

Michael Gannon came to the police station Tuesday with a videotape that he said showed the officers being ?discourteous.? The tape included a recording of a conversation Gannon had with officers and a second conversation the police had when they were alone. While Gannon waited in the lobby of the station, police reviewed the tape. When they discovered the officers did not know they were being recorded, they arrested Gannon.

Yesterday, Nashua Police Sgt. Detective Jeff Maher said that although the cameras were not hidden and police officers were on Gannon?s property when the recording allegedly occurred, Gannon never told the police officers that he was recording their actions and conversations. That makes it a crime, he said.

?Just the fact this recording occurred, a crime was committed,? Maher said.

According to court documents, police had visited Gannon?s house several times inquiring about his son, but the only indication Gannon ever gave the officers that he was recording them was when he told one of them to smile because he was on camera.

Maher said that security cameras on private property are not illegal, but the person being videotaped needs to be notified. Maher noted the Nashua Police Department uses cameras in its booking area, but has a large sign informing people they are being recorded.

Maher also explained that Gannon?s alleged taping is different from when television crews or members of the media might record police investigating a crime scene, because there is an expectation that might happen.

?There certainly is a kind of awareness in a public place that you are being recorded,? he said. ?This was not the case.?

[Braddogg]

By RUSS CHOMA
[. . .]
Maher said that security cameras on private property are not illegal, but the person being videotaped needs to be notified.

What a stupid law.  It seems like this should be the focus of the outrage; that the "victims" were police officers should not distract us (i.e., the outrage isn't that someone tried to complain about the cops and is now facing 14 years in prison, as your summary emphasized, but rather that property rights are infringed by this law).

[Kat Kanning]

That sucks.  There's no reason why anything the police do should be private.

[AlanM]

Hey, we can't have police being video-taped without permission on private property. The tapes might show them being rude, discourteous, or doing something illegal. Cops are special, don't you know? They are the enforcement arm of the vast state monolith. Citizens have no right to video-tape cops, but cops have the right to video-tape us unawares.
What a crock! Did someone say this is a free country? Yeh, right.

[president]

Maher said that security cameras on private property are not illegal, but the person being videotaped needs to be notified. Maher noted the Nashua Police Department uses cameras in its booking area, but has a large sign informing people they are being recorded.

From my reading of the law, notification is not good enough. You need consent to make a recording....

The Nashua PD is going to have a lot of arresting to do....

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

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;
       (b) Wilfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:
          (1) Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in telecommunication, or
          (2) Such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication, or
          (3) Such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on premises of any business or other commercial establishment, or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment; or
       (c) Wilfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph; or
       (d) Willfully uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph.
    I-a. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without consent of all parties to the communication, the person knowingly intercepts a telecommunication or oral communication when the person is a party to the communication or with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication, but without the approval required by RSA 570-A:2, II(d).
    II. It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for:
       (a) Any operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of any communication common carrier whose facilities are used in the transmission of a telecommunication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of such communication; provided, however, that said communication common carriers shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.
       (b) An officer, employee, or agent of any communication common carrier to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to an investigative or law enforcement officer who, pursuant to this chapter, is authorized to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication.
       (c) Any law enforcement officer, when conducting investigations of or making arrests for offenses enumerated in this chapter, to carry on the person an electronic, mechanical or other device which intercepts oral communications and transmits such communications by radio.
       (d) An investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of the officer's duties pertaining to the conducting of investigations of organized crime, offenses enumerated in this chapter, solid waste violations under RSA 149-M:9, I and II, or harassing or obscene telephone calls to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication, when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception; provided, however, that no such interception shall be made unless the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, or an assistant attorney general designated by the attorney general determines that there exists a reasonable suspicion that evidence of criminal conduct will be derived from such interception. Oral authorization for the interception may be given and a written memorandum of said determination and its basis shall be made within 72 hours thereafter. The memorandum shall be kept on file in the office of the attorney general.
       (e) Where the offense under investigation is defined in RSA 318-B, the attorney general to delegate authority under RSA 570-A:2, II(d) to a county attorney. The county attorney may exercise this authority only in the county where the county attorney serves. The attorney general shall, prior to the effective date of this subparagraph, adopt specific guidelines under which the county attorney may give authorization for such interceptions. Any county attorney may further delegate authority under this section to any assistant county attorney in the county attorney's office.
       (f) An officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the commission in the enforcement of chapter 5 of title 47 of the United States Code, to intercept a telecommunication, or oral communication transmitted by radio, or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.
       (g) Any law enforcement officer, when conducting investigations of or making arrests for offenses enumerated in this chapter, to carry on the person an electronic, mechanical or other device which intercepts oral communications and transmits such communications by radio.
       (h) Any municipal, county, or state fire or police department, the division of emergency services, communications, and management as created by RSA 21-P:36, including the bureau of emergency communications as defined by RSA 106-H, or any independently owned emergency service, and their employees in the course of their employment, when receiving or responding to emergency calls, to intercept, record, disclose or use a telecommunication, while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or the protection of life or property.
       (i) Any public utility regulated by the public utilities commission, and its employees in the course of employment, when receiving central dispatch calls or calls for emergency service, or when responding to central dispatch calls or calls for emergency service, to intercept, record, disclose or use a telecommunication, while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of service, or the protection of life and property. Any public utility recording calls pursuant to this subparagraph shall provide an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the conversation. The public utilities commission may adopt rules relative to the recording of emergency calls under RSA 541-A.
       (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.

Source. 1969, 403:1. 1975, 385:2. 1977, 588:16. 1979, 282:1. 1985, 263:2. 1988, 25:3. 1990, 96:1; 191:2. 1992, 174:2. 1995, 195:1; 280:10, I, II, III. 1996, 251:24, eff. Aug. 9, 1996; 274:1-5, eff. Jan. 1, 1997. 2002, 257:11, eff. July 1, 2002. 2003, 319:129, eff. Sept. 4, 2003. 2004, 171:21, eff. July 24, 2004.

[Braddogg]

From my reading of the law, notification is not good enough. You need consent to make a recording....

I'm not sure, but if I tell Bob he could be recorded if he comes on to my property (through saying it to him or posting a sign), and Bob comes on to my property, hasn't he consented to being recorded?

I also found it predictable that the law provides all those sovereign immunity clauses to which we have become accustomed..   

[president]

It would all depend on the wording of the sign, or what you told Bob.

Simply saying "you are being recorded" is no good, but "by entering this property you consent to being recorded" would be consent....

But some one in the police station booking area does not choose to go there, and cannot leave if they do not consent to the recording. They only inform people they are being recorded, they don't ask for consent.


I need to make a shirt that says:
"By talking to me, or being in my presence, you consent to being recorded"

[AlanM]

Convenience stores, banks, etc. all have cameras recording what goes on on the property. They have signs that say cameras are being used on the premises. That is all you need to do. Post the signs.

[JonM]

Do those cameras record audio?  Images don't seem to be the problem in that law.

[president]

Many don't. Many only take a few low quality b+w frames a second.

[president]

Convenience stores, banks, etc. all have cameras recording what goes on on the property. They have signs that say cameras are being used on the premises. That is all you need to do. Post the signs.

Wouldn't the camera in plain view be enough if you just need to inform?

Are these places breaking the law if they record a blind person that can't see the sign, or an illiterate person that can't read the sign?
How many languages does the sign need to be in?

I also don't see what point of the sign is if it doesn't somehow talk about consent.

[Dreepa]

Money D call the NPD and ask them.. This is a great point.

Maybe we can have them start arresting owners of gas stations, convenience stores and banks.

[president]

Money D call the NPD and ask them..

I think I will, but I need to record it 

Anyone with a video camera want to go the the NPD later this afternoon around 5-6 PM?

[president]

more:

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121/-1/news

Man charged after videotaping police

By ANDREW WOLFE, Telegraph Staff
awolfe@nashuatelegraph.com

Published: Thursday, Jun. 29, 2006
Michael Gannon stands outside his house on Morgan Street where he videotaped a detective who had come to his house investigating his 15-year-old son Tuesday in Nashua. Gannon said the detective was rude, and brought a surveillance tape to the Nashua Police Station to file a complaint. Instead, police arrested him, telling him he had violated New Hampshire?s eavesdropping and wiretap laws.



Staff Photo by COREY PERRINE


Michael Gannon stands outside his house on Morgan Street where he videotaped a detective who had come to his house investigating his 15-year-old son Tuesday in Nashua. Gannon said the detective was rude, and brought a surveillance tape to the Nashua Police Station to file a complaint. Instead, police arrested him, telling him he had violated New Hampshire?s eavesdropping and wiretap laws.
Order this photo

NASHUA ? A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man?s sons.

Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon?s wife, Janet Gannon, and police reports filed in Nashua District Court.

Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective?s consent.

The Gannons? son, Shawn Gannon, 18, is charged with resisting detention and disorderly conduct, and his wife also was cited for disorderly conduct, she said.

Janet Gannon said the family plans to hire a lawyer, and expects to sue the police department.

The couple?s 15-year-old son also was arrested, charged as a juvenile in an unrelated robbery case, according to police reports and Janet Gannon.

The Gannons installed a video and audio recording system at their home, a four-unit building at 22-28 Morgan St., to monitor the front door and parking areas, family members told police. They installed the cameras about two years ago, buying the system at Wal-Mart, Janet Gannon told the police, according to reports filed in court. The Gannons have owned the property, which is assessed at $382,700, for the past three years, city records show.

Janet Gannon spoke with The Telegraph by phone Wednesday afternoon, before going to bail out her husband. She said they installed the system in response to crime in the neighborhood, and at their house.

?We?ve had two break-ins. One guy came right up our stairs and started beating on my husband, and we called the cops,? she said. Another time, after someone broke into a camper on their property, Janet Gannon said an officer suggested they were ?too rich? for the neighborhood, and should move.

The security cameras record sound and audio directly to a videocassette recorder inside the house, and the Gannons posted warnings about the system, Janet Gannon said.

On Tuesday night, Michael Gannon brought a videocassette to the police department, and asked to speak with someone in ?public relations,? his wife said and police reported.

Gannon wanted to lodge a complaint against Karlis, who had come to the family?s house while investigating their sons, Janet Gannon said. She said Karlis showed up late at night, was rude, and refused to leave when they asked him.

?He was just very smart-mouthed. He put his foot in the door, and my husband said, ?Excuse me, I did not invite you in, please leave,? and he wouldn?t,? Janet Gannon said. ?We did not invite him in, we asked him to leave, and he wouldn?t.?

After the police arrested the Gannons? sons, Janet Gannon said, they ?secured? the house, and told her and her sister-in-law they had to stay out of it from around 8:45 p.m. Tuesday until about 4 a.m. Wednesday.

Police said they were waiting to get a warrant to search the house, Janet Gannon said.

?They were waiting for a warrant to seize the cameras and the tapes in my house . . . because they said having these cameras was against the law. They?re security cameras,? she said, adding, ?They said they could do that. They could seize my apartment.?

Karlis went to the Gannons? home at about 11:30 p.m. Friday night and again at about 7 p.m. Tuesday, police reported. Karlis was investigating the Gannons? 15-year-old son in connection with a June 21 mugging outside Margaritas restaurant, for which two other teens already have been charged, according to police reports. The boy also is charged with possessing a handgun stolen three years ago in Vermont, and resisting detention, police said.

The boy wasn?t home when Karlis went there, and the Gannons were ?uncooperative? regarding his whereabouts, police reported.

The Gannons felt police were harassing the family, Janet Gannon said.

?There were six cops in my yard,? the first time police came, she said. ?My husband was very upset. How many cops does it take to talk to a 15-year-old.?

Karlis didn?t know about the security camera until his second visit, when Michael Gannon told him to ?smile? for the camera, police reported.

Janet Gannon said her husband explicitly warned officers of the camera, later adding ?smile,? as a joke.

?I heard him say it,? she said. ?He said, ?Gentlemen, there?s a camera right there.??

According to police, however, Janet Gannon told officers she didn?t remember her husband warning police about the security camera.

Police reported that Gannon ?has a history of being verbally abusive? toward police, and that after his arrest, he remarked that the officers ?were a bunch of corrupt (expletives).?

Andrew Wolfe can be reached at 594-6410 or awolfe@nashuatelegraph.com.

police report pdf:
http://media.nashuatelegraph.com/assets/gannon_synopsis.pdf

He called the cops a "bunch of corrupt fucking assholes" right after he got arrested 
Its right at the end of the PDF

Did he ever get to file his complaint?

[FTL_Ian]

I hope you guys are getting in touch with Mr. Gannon.  Sounds like we could be of assistance.  Russell?  Feature story for the KFP?