Rochester Man Charged for Recording Cop

[FTL_Ian]

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070507/FOSTERS01/105070187&SearchID=73280469534888

[Crocuta]

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

Under New Hampshire Statute Sec 570-A:2, a Class B felony only exists when the person recording is not a party to the conversation.  If the person recording is a party to the conversation, then the best they could charge with is a misdemeanor.

That's one that needs to be changed.  How absurd to say that as a private person, I can't record a conversation that I'm a party to!

Taken to the extreme, one could find many examples of public recordings that would fall under this broad definition of "wiretapping."

The definition of "Oral Communication" is interesting, however:
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.

Communications "subject to interception" are defined under 570-A:2 II, and are entirely LEO related interceptions.

Taken as a whole, it is clear that the statute was intended to prevent LEO's from recording people without consent to record, or without a valid court order.  What a twisted misuse.

[Dreepa]

Croc you will like this thread:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=7769.0

(that is one on Denis's pet projects.)

[cyberdoo78]

Note to self: Post a 'this car is under 24 hour surveillance'.

Seems to work for the courts when they put 'no firearms allowed' signs and then say, you were warned. Or other notices. Honestly its not equal to allow cops to have video cameras in cars and then don't allow it when you do it to them. Go figure, bass ackwards people.

[FTL_Ian]

 I would recommend giving all police notice upon their approach that they are being recorded.

[Dreepa]

Seems to work for the courts when they put 'no firearms allowed' signs and then say, you were warned. Or other notices. Honestly its not equal to allow cops to have video cameras in cars and then don't allow it when you do it to them. Go figure, bass ackwards people.

It is the audio portion that makes it against the law not the video portion.

[cyberdoo78]

I have a tendency to be less clear about my thinking when I type.

I was attempting to make the comparison that it seems not equal for a cop to do one thing and then a citizen to not be allowed to do the same thing.

The issue to me was not that it was audio or video, but that something was recorded. Of course I subscribe to the idea that, if you don't want the public to know about it, don't say or do it.

The Right to Privacy, in my opinion does not exist outside of your property, specifically parts of your property that are designed to keep said privacy. Outside your property you should have no expectation of privacy because you are no longer in control of "all things".

I do not attempt to suggest that the right of an individual to have privacy is not a right, personally I don't believe in the right to privacy, but to say that you have no real expectation of privacy outside your property because you do not control it.

Again, my opinion, don't argue with it, cuz I own it.

[Dreepa]

I have a tendency to be less clear about my thinking when I type.

I was attempting to make the comparison that it seems not equal for a cop to do one thing and then a citizen to not be allowed to do the same thing.

The issue to me was not that it was audio or video, but that something was recorded. Of course I subscribe to the idea that, if you don't want the public to know about it, don't say or do it.

The Right to Privacy, in my opinion does not exist outside of your property, specifically parts of your property that are designed to keep said privacy. Outside your property you should have no expectation of privacy because you are no longer in control of "all things".

I do not attempt to suggest that the right of an individual to have privacy is not a right, personally I don't believe in the right to privacy, but to say that you have no real expectation of privacy outside your property because you do not control it.

Again, my opinion, don't argue with it, cuz I own it.

Oh I agree with you  just wanted to point this out.

[lordmetroid]

It's bullshit... Of course one needs to be able to gather evidence against the police, they aren't above the law!

[cyberdoo78]

It's bullshit... Of course one needs to be able to gather evidence against the police, they aren't above the law!

No, they aren't. The law protects them from us. The law applies to everyone, with a few exceptions, those almost always being the government.

[Dave Ridley]

Rochester Police Department

(603) 330-7127

rochesterpd.org

For those who wish to express their displeasure with RPD for enforcing an evil law.

[space]

the police have always acted like they are above the law. they make the rules as they go along and the only thing that stops them is when the injustice gets out and there and the people have had enough. I can't tell you how many times I've been violated by the police. They murder, rape, and abuse people and think they are in the right. so many monsters become police officers and the few who are decent people are few and far between, although in fairness they do exists. We the people have every right to photograph them(still or motion). And if their doing nothing wrong what the hell do they care?

[cyberdoo78]

I love the SCOTUS case that stated, a law enforcement officer who makes an illegal arrest and is shot while doing so and who dies, the person responsible can only be charged with 'involentary manslaughter'.

I think it is reasonable to say that a law enforcement officer who makes an illegal arrest and is shot while doing so and -doesn't- die, the person responsible can not be charged with anything. Perhaps something about threating a law enforcement officer, perhaps. One would assume that if one is armed, and is faced with another individual who is armed and who has authority granted to it by law, that one would give a notice of intent(some times misconstrued as a threat) prior to discharging his firearm.

Of course this is all neat and dandy, if it weren't for the fact that men(judges) rule over other men(everyone else) and so true justice can not happen within our current form of justice or government.

[Recumbent ReCycler]

The last time I went to court to fight a speeding ticket, the police officer lied on the stand.  First he admitted that he didn't remember why he didn't write something on the ticket, as he didn't remember the stop, but was going off what he had written in his notes.  I argued that what he said was not true, but the judge found me responsible, even though the trooper said that he was on the other side of the [4 lane] highway and estimated my speed.  If only I had a video recording of the event.  I want to install a recording device in my car that will record onto a hard drive on a continuous loop so that I can record the events leading up to a stop, as well as the stop itself automatically.  I have witnessed a lot of dishonest cops lie on the stand in cases where I was there to witness what they were testifying about.  I would rather have both video and audio so that when a cop claims that I said something I didn't, I will have proof that they are lying.  I wonder if a bumper sticker would be adequate notification.

[mvpel]

As I recall, there's a bill this session to make it so that police have no expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties.