Tape the cops, go to jail.

[Jared]

I've always lived on the NH border, and I'm moving over next month.

So you don't live in NH yet? 
Welcome to the forums.

Take the pledge
www.pledgebank.com/first1000

No, I spent most of my life 15 minutes from the NH border in South Berwick, and have spent the last couple of years in Kittery (right over the bridge from Portsmouth, NH). I'm moving to ossipee next month for awhile, maybe a long while. My wife and I have made the decision to stay in NH as part of the FSP. I feel like kind of a poser since I'm not really moving that far . Anyway, we'll probably come back to the Portsmouth area after awhile. If you're into music, film, theatre, etc, Portsmouth is definately the place to be. I'm a musician, and I would have to say that the Portsmouth/Dover area is the best place for that kind of thing. It is, however, in desperate need of some porcs. I see at least one person wearing a Che shirt just about every time I go downtown . A local Portsmouth publication called "The Wire" actually did a big cover story on the FSP awhile back. It's probably still in the site's archives somewhere (http://www.wirenh.com). Thanks for the welcome!

[Dreepa]

I've always lived on the NH border, and I'm moving over next month.

So you don't live in NH yet? 
Welcome to the forums.

Take the pledge
www.pledgebank.com/first1000

No, I spent most of my life 15 minutes from the NH border in South Berwick, and have spent the last couple of years in Kittery (right over the bridge from Portsmouth, NH). I'm moving to ossipee next month for awhile, maybe a long while. My wife and I have made the decision to stay in NH as part of the FSP. I feel like kind of a poser since I'm not really moving that far . Anyway, we'll probably come back to the Portsmouth area after awhile. If you're into music, film, theatre, etc, Portsmouth is definately the place to be. I'm a musician, and I would have to say that the Portsmouth/Dover area is the best place for that kind of thing. It is, however, in desperate need of some porcs. I see at least one person wearing a Che shirt just about every time I go downtown . A local Portsmouth publication called "The Wire" actually did a big cover story on the FSP awhile back. It's probably still in the site's archives somewhere (http://www.wirenh.com). Thanks for the welcome!

Then you should definately sign the pledge (people moving to NH).

I think I did see that wire article.
I moved here last Sept and I love it here.

[TackleTheWorld]

Is there any sort of police watch in NH? I've always lived on the NH border, and I'm moving over next month. I had planned to look for a police watch group in my area (of Ossipee), but after discovering this law, I'm wondering if a watch would even be legal. If it is NOT legal, perhaps we should do it anyway. Would this be productive or counter-productive? Porcs can't do much good in jail .

New Cop Watch Poll!

By the way, Porcs in jail can influence police, fellow prisoners, guards, judges, nurses, prison bureaucrats and newspaper readers, if they are lucky.

[president]

It looks like we have a winner:

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

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.

Burglars have no expectation of privacy while in my house, and no one esle should.....and if a sign is posted, and the camera is in veiw....

[president]

For the record, MD, you are being so cool and helpful here, I formally retract calling you the T-word in the past.
Karma for you.

Heh heh with trolls like fisher/MD, who needs friends and activists?

I'll buy ya a beer!

Money Dollars is not a troll around here.  He just has some fundamental disagreements with decisions the FSP has made in the past, as I understand it.

I consider him an asset to NHFree.com.

This is the fastest way to get me to leave.
If you keep this crap up I am going to delete my account.

We ain't buddies, we ain't partners, and we dam sure ain't friends. Remember that.

A few of your friends have threatend to sue me, have done illegal background checks on me.... Fuck, don't get me started......I'm getting mad.

And you guys never fucking listen.....

[Atlas]

Keep up the great activism MD. Oh, and BTW, chill out. Go smoke a dube.

Well, on second thought, you might want to consider smoking a blunt instead to curb your anxiety.

[FTL_Ian]

I consider him an asset to NHFree.com.

This is the fastest way to get me to leave.
If you keep this crap up I am going to delete my account.

We ain't buddies, we ain't partners, and we dam sure ain't friends. Remember that.

I never said anyone here was a friend.  Ever.  Friendship by it's nature, to me, is very exclusive.  I echo your sentiments, just a little more tactfully.   

A few of your friends have threatend to sue me, have done illegal background checks on me.... Fuck, don't get me started......I'm getting mad.

Again, you're not speaking of friends of mine.  I don't have any friends in NH.  The person I talk to most in NH is Gardner Goldsmith, and he's more of a friendly radio associate at this point.  I only have a handful of friends at any given time.

Keep up the great activism MD. Oh, and BTW, chill out. Go smoke a dube.

Good idea.   I think MD prefers the bong though. 

[president]

Got a response at 11:00PM

On 6/30/06, Maher, Jeffrey <MaherJ@pd.ci.nashua.nh.us> wrote:

    Sir-
        When dealing with issues of consent, the appropriate inquiry is whether or not the individual recognizes that he is subject to having the conversation recorded or electronically intercepted.  That is to say, with proper posting and notification the issue of consent can be nullified.  For instance, by speaking into an answering machine (clearly a recording device under the statute), the caller is deemed to know and consent to the recoding of his voice.
        The issues that you bring to bear are simply to great to respond to in an e-mail.  As with any rule of law, there are numerous exceptions.  State case law may also modify the issues in each specific case.
        I would encourage you to conspicuously post that video recording is being conducted.  I would also advise that any audio recording capability be disabled.  It's often the "oral communication" aspect of the statute that creates the issues.
        Feel free to contact me at 594-3582 with any additional questions or stop by the station some time.
     
    Sgt. J. Maher

And my reply:

Sgt. Maher,

Thank you for your prompt response. While looking into the statue I also saw the definition of "oral communication" as used in the statue:

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.


To me this would mean if someone is aware of the recording device, when they talk it is not considered "oral communication" as defined by the statute, and no consent is needed.

A burglar should have no expectation of privacy in my house, and no one should have that expectation if a sign is posted, and the camera is in plain view. The same would apply in the booking room.

Are you familiar with any state case law I can look into on this matter?

I may take you up on the offer and stop by next week, but I need to do some more research, as I only recently became aware of this law, or to be more exact, that it applied to security cameras on my property.

Thanks again,
    ...............

I also noticed this on the bottom of the email:

****DISCLAIMER****
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you believe you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the Nashua Police Department at (603)589-1650

The first sentence says the email is intended soley for my use. So I can do whatever I want with it.

The third sentence says that if you are not the intended recipient you cannot "use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying" the email.

[president]

Keep up the great activism MD.

Like I said, you guys never fucking listen.

ba-bye.

[KBCraig]

Keep up the great activism MD.

Like I said, you guys never fucking listen.

ba-bye.

LMAO... I worried that we were being too friendly to him.

Other than his first few weeks here, I never considered him a troll. An antagonist, yes. An asshole, frequently. An asset, usually. But never a troll.

I hope he gets over his "issues". We really do share common goals. No matter how bad he hates that.

Kevin

[FTL_Ian]

LOL indeed, Kevin.  He's certainly still reading the board, and I expect we'll hear from him again.   

[Lex]

LMAO... I worried that we were being too friendly to him.

Other than his first few weeks here, I never considered him a troll. An antagonist, yes. An asshole, frequently. An asset, usually. But never a troll.

I hope he gets over his "issues". We really do share common goals. No matter how bad he hates that.

I believe he has left and comeback many times before under different screen names and avatars both on the NH Free forum and on the Free Talk Live forum. It's part of his act.

[KBCraig]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Officers+being+investigated+after+complaint&articleId=ef3d4b0d-300a-4a93-81cc-f706ae1056d3

Officers being investigated after complaint

By NICHOLAS COATES
Union Leader Correspondent

Nashua ? Following a complaint that two officers were ?rude and discourteous? to family members during a robbery investigation, two police detectives are the subjects of an internal investigation and an inquiry by the County Attorney?s Office, Nashua police Chief Timothy Hefferan said yesterday.

Police Capt. Scott Howe was put in charge of the internal investigation, and Assistant County Attorney Rusty Chadwick is the point for the external investigation, Hefferan said.

Hefferan confirmed that one of the detectives is Andrew Karlis, but Hefferan declined to identify the second.

The Gannon family, of 26 Morgan St., alleged the detectives? behavior occurred during a two-week period and came to a head with a June 23 incident on the family?s front porch.

According to police affidavits filed in Nashua District Court in connection with the arrest of family patriarch Michael Gannon, Karlis and Detective Thomas Bergeron visited the home at 11:20 that night to question a member of the family, a 15-year-old boy, about the robbery the boy was allegedly involved in.

That night, Shawn Gannon, the family?s 18-year-old son, said his family watched and listened to the tape recording of the security system that monitors the front porch and back parking lot. He said they heard the detectives having a disconcerting conversation about how they would mistreat Michael Gannon.

"We heard them pull up, and when they (Karlis and Bergeron) came up to the porch, they were talking about how my dad was a disabled veteran. Then we heard how they wanted to make him more disabled," said Shawn Gannon. "Detective Karlis said that my dad has been giving him a hard time for the past couple of days (with the investigation). And the other detective standing next to him said, 'Well, why don?t you pull him out of the house and I?ll give you my billy club.'"

Hefferan said he had not reviewed all of the initial evidence as of yesterday, but did say he believes the allegation lacks merit.

"I?ve had superiors review the tapes, and they have not reported back to me that there is anything like that on there," Hefferan said. "I think that something that significant of a statement ? a threat of physical violence ? would have been something noteworthy that would have brought to my attention."

Michael Gannon, 49, was arrested Tuesday night and charged with two felony counts of violating state wiretap laws for not making the police aware of the audio recording of police visits on June 23 and 26.

Gannon went to the police station that night to find out the status of his 15-year-old son, who had been arrested earlier in connection with a June 21 mugging outside of Margaritas restaurant in Nashua, according to police affidavits.

According to the Michael Gannon arrest documents, once in the lobby, Gannon became ?agitated and somewhat aggressive? when speaking about how Karlis and fellow detectives treated family members during the investigation into their son.

Gannon then said he wanted to log a complaint about the incident and provided a videotape with the alleged rude and discourteous police behavior on it.

Sgt. Francis Bourgeois, the officer in charge that Tuesday night, Detective Jonathan Lehto and Karlis watched the tape, according to the affidavits. Bourgeois has three to five years? experience working with the law (that Gannon allegedly violated), having worked with the narcotics division here (the Nashua Police Department) and with the Attorney General?s office, according to Hefferan.

After viewing the tape, Bourgeois made the determination that Gannon broke the law and had Detective Daniel Archambault arrest Gannon at the station, according to the affidavits.

Police then went to the Gannon house and seized all of the video and audio surveillance equipment the family had set up in their home, including cameras, microphones and videocassette recorders, according to affidavits.

The Gannon family has argued that the recording was legal and done to protect their house from the various crimes in the French Hill neighborhood of Nashua.

According to the state statute that the police allege Michael Gannon violated, the party being taped must be made aware of the recording and consent to the recording, Nashua attorney Eric Wilson said.

There are two signs posted on the front and side of the house a little larger than the size of a hand that warn people about the recording. ?Warning: homeland security system. Audio and video in use,? the signs say.

?If, in fact, the man (Gannon) has posted on his property informing those who enter onto the property that they are being video- and audio-taped, that satisfies the two-party consent requirement in the state,? said Claire Ebel, executive director of the state American Civil Liberties Union.

Janet Gannon said that besides the signs, her husband told visiting detectives in the past, ?the first thing he said, and he said it very clearly, ?Gentlemen, there?s a camera right there.? ?

"The question to ask is: 'How do you know in the affirmative that someone has seen those signs or seen those warnings,' " Hefferan asked. "To assume that someone has given consent because there are some stickers up . . . it?s a quantum leap to suggest they must have given consent because they must have seen the signs. If there?s a small sign somewhere. The detectives would have been focused on the family so much they would not have noticed that there were stickers or placards up."

[srqrebel]

The detectives would have been focused on the family so much they would not have noticed that there were stickers or placards up.

So now the chief does not expect his detectives to be aware of their surroundings, nor consider it their responsibility to read posted warnings???!  Gee, this gets better all the time!

[d_goddard]

Here's my first rough draft of an LSR (Legislative Service Request, 1st step in making a NH law)

AN ACT relative to permitting audio and video recording for personal security.

1 New Subparagraph; Capture of Audio with Uniformed Law Enforcement Officers Allowed. Amend RSA 570-A:2, II by inserting after subparagraph (k) the following new subparagraph:

l) A person having an interaction with a uniformed law enforcement officer, to make an audio and or video recording of such interaction, provided that such officer shall be notified of said recording

1 New Subparagraph; Capture of Audio within Personal Domicile Allowed. Amend RSA 570-A:2, II by inserting after subparagraph (l) the following new subparagraph:

m) Within a person's domicile, as defined in RSA 259:23, to make audio and or video recording for security purposes, where such recording shall not include areas outside the person's own property, and provided that there is a sign informing visitors of such recording prominently displayed outside the domicile.