Wiretapping Charges Dropped 333
Ada_Rules writes "I realize that the end of a story is not nearly as sexy as the beginning, but police in Nashua have dropped the wiretapping charges against a man that had recorded both video and audio from on his home security system. The man had brought a videotape to the police station to back up a claim that a detective was rude to him while on his property as part of an investigation. In addition, the police have determined that the man's complaint about the detective was justified."
Really that much of a victory? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that it is less that the little guy here won, so much as the DA simply thought he wouldn't win. The decision is less based on the merit of the claim so it doesn't seem like anything is really gained by this happening.
Yeah, But... (Score:5, Interesting)
In a fair society:
1: He is entitled to compensation, say $1000 per hour for every hour between the time he was charged and the time he knew for sure that the charges were dropped.
2: The police involved should be sent back for a minimum of 40 hours of updated training in the laws they are supposed to be enforcing.
3: The city attorney, who didn't immediately drop these bogus charges (he, at least, has no excuse at all for not knowing the law) should be immediately fired, suspended, or recalled as appropriate.
4: If there were any judges involved who didn't immediately drop the case, they should be impeached.
Then there'd have been some true justice here.
One down...one (at least) to go (Score:5, Interesting)
They are lucky they kept the tape... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Might have something to do with the cops lying. (Score:3, Interesting)
Come the day of court, no witness. The cop and the prosecutor had to drop the charges because they had no evidence. Furthermore I had photos of my car after the accident to show that the damage was not consistant with a 160mph accident, and they had nothing to refute it.
Leasson learned here is, know your rights, and know that the cops are not on yourside, its up to you to prove you are innocent.
so this means? (Score:1, Interesting)
Are we living in a police state? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like New Hampshire needs to change it's law (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember: This isn't a US thing, this is state by state. Some states, like New Hampshire are rea 2-party, and bitchy at that. All parties involved in being recorded have to consent beforehand. Of course, police get an exemption from this for their cameras in the cars.
Well that's not how it has to be. Other states are 1-party states, meaning only 1-party has to be informaed of the recording. So you can't go and tap your neighbours phone, but you can tap your own and not tell anyone. So long as one person knows, it's fine. Further some places, like Arizona, have a law such that if you own something, you are implicitly a party present or not. So you can record your own property, phoneline, whatever, and even if others are conversing without your presence you are still a party because it's your stuff.
So that's what it comes down to here. The NH voters just need to get this on the next ballot and change it. Now I'm guessing, for all the outrage, they are just going to let it drop and forget about it. Kinda sad, but really nothing you can do.
just classify police with movie stars (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we know better. Turns out to be very useful to watch the police, as useful as it is to keep an eye on any public servant entrusted with the peoples' power. So I'd say the right thing to do is classify the police -- or any government agent -- in the same way as we classify public personages, like candidates or actors in public. These people by their choice of profession and action implicitly give consent to be recorded. It's not a felony to record John Kerry making a public speech (should you have sufficient stamina or caffeine), or film Mel Gibson getting arrested on Highway 1, even if neither gives his prior consent. These people have chosen to be "public personages" and are in public, and that means they no longer have the same rights to privacy as Joe Citizen.
If the police are out in uniform doing the public's work, it seems to me there should be a clear presumption that they're just as much public personages as a candidate for the state legislature giving public speeches, and that they have implicitly given permission to anyone to film or record them. (An obvious and sensible exception would be when they're undercover, not in uniform.)
Re:Are we living in a police state? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:RTFA (Score:1, Interesting)
Their entry was unlawful. Their evidentiary discovery was unlawful. Obstruct investigation? There
The charge was police intimidation, pure and simple. Stop being an apologetic for the fascist thugs.
Re:They are lucky they kept the tape... (Score:1, Interesting)
route the data directly via an encrypted link to offsite storage. Then we will see some amazing changes, perhaps for the beter.
The point at which surveilance becomes irrevocable is a big step. When it is no longer possible to confiscate, intimidate and destroy the evidence "big brother" starts to work *for* the common man and not just against him. What many have been saying here for years, the playing field is ultimately levelled when you take ubiquitous surveilance to the limit.
Imagine the cops had seen the camera, got jumpy and forced their way into the house, then threatened the guy to hand over the tape.
Sorry too late guys. In fact 1 hour later the video is posted to scores of internet sites where the public can all watch the cops making assholes of themselves. Bye bye career in law enforcement.
Cases like this are good to help keep the cops honest and properly behaved.
I just find 1-party a better system (Score:5, Interesting)
I see the privacy arguments of a 2-party system, I just think they are invalid. It is basically saying "I should have privacy, even when I do things that break privacy." As the saying goes, if two people know it, it's not a secret. So if you tell me, you should assume I can tell others, if I wish, regardless of if it's jsut me telling them from memory, or having a recording of it.
To me it's similar to photography laws (which are fairly uniform). You can photograph my house from public property, there's nothing I can do to stop you. You can't come on my property, of course, or circumvent barriers I have, but you can stand on the street and take pictures (or video) to your hearts content. Thus, if I want to have privacy, I need to keep my blinds closed. If I am standing on my porch naked, I can't get pissed that you took a picture of me. I have no expectation of privacy, because I'm publicly visible, even if I'm on my property.
Re:Watching the watchers (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't limit it to law enforcement. Let's have all politicians and public officials videotaped whenever they're in public areas. And since we, the taxpayers, pay for their offices, those offices are technically public areas. If they claim they work for us, then they can't have any secrets from us in their work, can they?
Basically, if a 'public servant' (whether politician or civil servant) is on the clock, then the people who pay for them should have the right to see exactly what they're doing at any time. Playing trashcan basketball when they should be working? Fiddling their expenses? Beating up 'troublesome' citizens? Declaring war under false pretenses? We should know, and hold them accountable for it. These people do not rule us. We chose them to do a job for us. That's what they forget, at every level. It's high time that they were reminded they serve us. At our sufferance. If they wilfully do a bad job, they should be gone.
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:gee, mod parent up maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
Juries don't have the legal knowledge of everyone else in the courtroom and therefore can't act with respect to legal precedent unless instructed to do so by the judge. However, the judge can't instruct the jury to act in accordance with the previous jury's actions, because juries don't write rulings or legal opinions, so nobody else involved can proveably discern what a jury used in its decision.
A jury certainly can nullify, and the end result is the same, but only for that particular case. (And, as an aside, that's why precedent is tricky - no two cases are exactly alike, and opposing sides have different interpretations of precedent. That's why we have judges, not databases of rulings.) There's nothing stopping a prosecutor from filing a very similar case in another jurisdiction, nor should there be until a judge is more assertive and strikes the law down as unconsitutional - thank God for pre-trial motions. Judges nullify laws. Juries nullify charges.
Re:Garnish the cop's wages. (Score:1, Interesting)
Since we have criminal penalties that grow on second, third offences (etc) we should make a similar tiered system for police officers (and other public servants) that cannot do their job properly.
No one earns the right to be a police officer by passing the exam, we ought to revoke those privileges upon bad behavior. If such behavior does not get corrected (ala Three Strikes or something less extreme) they get demoted.
If the police force of cities shrinkbecause of this, the people can understand the cause. It may also encourage honest people who wish to help their neighbors to become good cops themselves, without fear of having to interact with such corrupt scum
Re:A secure home (Score:4, Interesting)
The guy appears to be a total jerk to have raised such a son and go to such efforts to keep him from getting caught.
Well, can you blame him? Maybe he didn't even know his son had a gun. Even if he knew, he probably didn't know, and surely couldn't believe, his son was a mugger. Also, don't blame all the kid's problems on the parents; you're just as aware as I am of the fact that after a certain age, friends contribute more to one's upbringing than parents. Furthermore, his son being a criminal doesn't mean he's a jerk. Think a little before you go randomly insulting people with misinformed knee-jerk statements.
However, I for one would be very careful about creating exceptions to a law that protects privacy, who knows what other exceptions they may invent against me?
Exceptions for the cops are already in place: they can film you, but you can't film them. That doesn't mean you can break the law though, but from what I read in the previous article there's an exception if both parties know they're being filmed. The sign clearly stated such, so the cops would have known if they bothered to read it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it, and ignorance of the wording on the sign you just passed is no excuse for suing someone who's done nothing wrong.
The police didn't break any laws
They refused to leave after being asked several times to do so. One cop even stuck his foot in the door, so even assuming the front yard was not private property, the house clearly is (just clarifying, 'coz the street I live in, everything between the street and the outer wall of our house is property of the town I live in, not private property). As far as I know, remaining on someone's private property after being asked to leave, is illegal.
What is the proper etiquette to talk to the family of a man who commits muggings at gunpoint?
Why would you treat him any other than you would treat any other random civilian? Being family of someone who at the time the actions took place was suspected of committing muggery does not mean you're in on the deal, so there's no justification for being treated as such. However, this gets abused fairly often; I know a girl whose whole family is on some government black list here in Belgium, barring her and her family from ever holding public office, simply because her grandfather or something was a collaborator in the second world war.
This means they had every reason to investigate.
Sure, "investigate" being the keyword here. Not "harrass". Maybe in your world all verbs have the same meaning, but there's roughly 6 billion of us who'd happily trade with your world if we'd only knew for certain that "trade" doesn't mean "make war" in your language...
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:5, Interesting)
The law says it is illegal if it is covert. He did have signs on his home but the police claim that they where not large enough.
This comes down to one question. Should the police have any right to privacy while acting in the line of duty?
Should any public official have a right to privacy when acting in the line of duty?
I honestly would have to say that I don't think so.
If an employer has the right to monitor employees performance than the public has the right to monitor public officials performance.
They aren't off the hook yet! (Score:5, Interesting)
They still haven't returned the cameras (or the tape, I think) and they still maintain that he broke the law (maybe they're right, but if so, that law is despicable and just wrong).
They say he was disrespectful to them. That may be, but they still owe him a public apology for what they did.
Re:I just find 1-party a better system (Score:4, Interesting)
I suggest the main reason we care about our privacy in conversation is that we know we are intrinsically much more guarded in what we say when we know every last detail of what we say will be recorded and can be quoted, often out of context, later, to anyone at all. And that means we're a lot less likely to be as honest and forthright in any conversation that's being recorded, or which we suspect might be recorded. That hurts everyone.
Let me put it this way. Say you own a small business, and an irate customer calls because one of your salesmen did something bogus -- sold him a widget without mentioning a peculiarity that made him drop it and hurt his toe. Now, if you and he are talking privately -- no recording, no one listening in -- then the conversation will be pretty informal. It might get heated, but it will probably be as honest as it can be. You might be willing to agree your salesmen fscked up, apologize, and offer to make some minor restitution. The guy might be mollified, agree he's a little at fault too, and accept. Problem solved.
But suppose you know the conversation is being recorded, and a jury might hear it later and nail you for $10,000 of damages plus costs? Or it might be played on YouTube and cause you endless PR problems? You're going to be a lot cagier, you're going to admit nothing, argue aggressively that caveat emptor and it's not your salesman's fault, et cetera. And the guy at the other end, he's not going to be willing to admit he might have been a little inattentive, a little at fault, too. So the conversation is less likely to come to a mutually-acceptable end, and much more likely to be a stiff, pointless exchange of talking points. That's not good. Means what could have been a small conflict can become a much bigger and harder to solve conflict.
Basically having a two-party law says conversations are generally "off the record" unless everyone agrees otherwise, and I suggest a big purpose of this is to encourage the greater honesty in conversation that happens when things are off the record.
Sure, it's true people can take notes of a conversation, or memorize parts of it. But these are both very limited ways of recording the conversation, and are bound to generally capture only the high points. It's much harder to take some little tidbit out of context and use it to damn you. Furthermore, you have a plausible defense in that you can argue the fallibility of memory, or the illegibility of the notes, whatever. So it's definitely harder to use the conversation to attack you than if it were recorded in perfect fidelity.
I'm not saying this argument need be convincing. Your argument is sound. It's a tough call which argument should prevail, and probably people feel one way and then the other, depending on what's happened to them lately. Sure, sometimes I wish I could've recorded things the ex-wife said to me over the phone. But then again, there are times I'm right glad she couldn't record what I said. It cuts both ways for most people, sooner or later. That's probably why there's no national consensus on this issue, and different states have substantially different laws.
Re:gee, mod parent up maybe (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is why I don't watch Jerry Springer (Score:2, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance [wikipedia.org]
They weren't children, it wasn't mortal danger or bodily harm, the teenagers should have known the risk, and anything he could do to stop them would have involved a lot of effort. Attractive Nusicance doesn't even begin to apply to this case. It is for a child that might unwittingly hurt himself.
What he did wasn't nice, but it wasn't wrong, and only maybe, barely immoral. I would argue it was a very fitting punishement.
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's good to hear. When he sees a bad cop violate the law, does he arrest them? (Poor second choice: Does he report them to Internal Affairs?) An acquaintance of mine who is married to a cop once said, "I've never seen anyone break as many laws as cops". Of course, I took that to mean mostly "trivial" laws, the sort that a cop will overlook unless he's looking to hassle you.
If your brother in law looks the other way, then he is part of the problem.
Personally, I don't think a cop should be monitored on the job any more than say, a casino dealer. Even though a cop is dealing with life, death, and the public good, and a dealer is just dealing with money. I've heard that dealers are watched every minute, but I don't know if that's true.
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:2, Interesting)
One other thing, they thought they wouldn't win in court because why? Was it against the law? No, if that's the case every gas station and 7/11 store in the state is violating the law. Have you ever see a big sign telling you that you are being videotaped at any store you've ever walked into? No you haven't and the reason is that it's not illegal in the first place. All that crap about videotaping being wiretapping is all bullshit. If it was true they would prosecute every gas station and convenience store in the whole state.
That's why they decided not to prosecute. They knew they would have to face the law and it was not on their side. The police fucked up royal in the first place with the prosecution for wiretapping thing and had to make a face saving exit.
Viola, drop charges and insist that a crime was committed but that reasonable jurors would not convict even though it was a crime. I have news for you, police or prosecutors don't drop charges even when they have no evidence. In this case they indisputable evidence, but only if it really was illegal. Otherwise all they had was evidence of a citizen acting perfectly legally and within the law. After all, if videotaping really was a crime, and they had the tape, and the equipment that made the tape, then they had an open and shut case.
The only explanation is that there is no law against security cameras.
Re:This is why I don't watch Jerry Springer (Score:2, Interesting)
If I leave my floor slippery and wet at night to deter burglars, you would be among the crowd of scumbag lawyers trying to sue me for his broke leg and stiches.
If I keep a yard full of half-working cars but decide to only fix a few of them because I believe my yard would be a target for car thieves, why on earth should I be responsible for the thief who got killed when the axel fell apart while crusing 80 down the highway with my stolen car?
If you come onto my property with the intention of stealing something, I have the legal right to shoot you in my state. If you try to steal my fuel, then I am well within my rights to store crap in there that will wreck your car as a deterrent. I'm not telling you to take the fuel. Unless you get express permission, you have no expectation whatsoever, morally, ethically, or legally to touch those cans.
What if I decide to put in diesel fuel in those cans? Its a prefectly valid fuel for certian types of engines that can also ruin a normal engine. There is no difference.
It is amazing the sorts of minds out there who side with the common criminal and are against the rights of those to stop criminals. I will never side for a person who intentionally and willfully comitted a crime and got himself into trouble in the process and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.
Re:Really that much of a victory? (Score:3, Interesting)