Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Leave a Message, Go To Jail

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the live-free-or-hey-shut-that-thing-off dept.

Censorship 486

Okian Warrior writes "A man in Weare, New Hampshire was charged with felony wiretapping for recording the police during a traffic stop — based on a cell phone call he made as an officer approached his vehicle. From the article: Police considered it wiretapping because the call was being recorded by a voice mail service without the officer's consent."

cancel ×

486 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

America, land of the "free". (3, Funny)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391022)

Makes me more and more glad I live in the UK.

Re:America, land of the "free". (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391036)

LAWL

Re:America, land of the "free". (5, Insightful)

Zapotek (1032314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391046)

Good one mate! That's what I call British humour!
PS. I live in the UK too and I have to keep my blinds shut due to the traffic camera firmly pointed towards my bedroom window.

Re:America, land of the "free". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391130)

And you haven't disabled that camera, because... Why?

Re:America, land of the "free". (5, Funny)

Zapotek (1032314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391164)

Because when I climb 5 meter tall poles with wire-cutters in my teeth people tend to freak out.

Re:America, land of the "free". (3, Insightful)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391228)

Because when I climb 5 meter tall poles with wire-cutters in my teeth people tend to freak out.

In rural America, we just make paper mache eggs and dress up as the easter bunny [youtube.com] . C'mon UK--exercise your right to dissent.

Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391248)

I think most people would freak out because of the camera's themselves, not because of an unknown citizen taking a wire-cutter to those things.

"Hi neighbour, what'cha doin'?"
"Taking down that camera"
"Right, need some help with that, I've got a very nice angle-grinder, let me get it."
" "
"Good night, neighbour!"
"Sleep tight, frriend"

Re:Really? (2, Funny)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391280)

Let me get off the pole before you take the angle grinder to it. Thanks.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

TheABomb (180342) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391316)

If the common man that that healthy a level of disrespect for tyranny, the cameras never would have made it up in the first place.

More likely he'd be the one to call the authorities on you.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391430)

Damn filters. The empty line had some "sound effects", but I retardedly chose to put them in angle brackets.

Anyway, the gist of the message was that good neighbours would help each other taking down the enemy.

Re:America, land of the "free". (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391268)

just buy a 200mw laser pointer, and point it to the camera for a minute or so.

Re:America, land of the "free". (2)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391474)

Why not blind the camera with a low-powered pointing laser from your home? Or a high-power cluster of infrared LEDs? That should blind it in both day and night conditions.

http://www.google.com/search?q=blind+camera+infrared [google.com]

Re:America, land of the "free". (1)

dadioflex (854298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391102)

Cos... oh, yeah... photographing police is against the law here.

No need for this or that. Just, wham, against the law.

Re:America, land of the "free". (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391142)

Uhm, not in the UK it isn't - there are no laws forbidding you from photographing or videoing the police while on duty....

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

Source: The police themselves! http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm [police.uk]

Re:America, land of the "free". (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391262)

This article [guardian.co.uk] describes three activists being arrested (it's not mentioned in the article, but they were all later acquitted); it's not clear if they were arrested for photographing police offices or for simply asking police officers to give their badge numbers (neither are illegal in the UK, and police officers are required by law to give their badge numbers when requested by a member of the public).

The problem is that the police frequently seem to be unaware of what the law says.

FitWatch [fitwatch.org.uk] is a great resource for seeing how the police photographers act, and how they expect civilian photographers to act.

Posting anonymously because I live in what is rapidly becoming a very unpleasant place to live.

Re:America, land of the "free". (5, Informative)

MidoriKid (473433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391360)

That link says they have the power to confiscate anything they think might be evidence of terrorism. "This includes any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence."

So basically, you can photograph and video tape the police if you want your camera seized.

Re:America, land of the "free". (-1, Redundant)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391104)

ROFLMAO

Re:America, land of the "free". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391118)

LOL!

No need to record them, everything will be recorded for you!

Re:America, land of the "free". (2)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391398)

It's true you won't get shot by cops in the U.K. but you get your live micromanaged in other ways. Europe will usually be "more free" than either.

Re:America, land of the "free". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391436)

Tell that to Jean Charles de Menezes.

Oh, wait .....

Re:America, land of the "free". (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391486)

Makes me more and more glad I live in the UK.

...where cameras in London track every move, and you have to pay to drive on city streets.

live free or die, eh? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391026)

gotta love NH.

Make it clear to your DA (3, Insightful)

Zaphod-AVA (471116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391044)

If you believe that use of the wiretapping law in instances like this is abuse, make sure your district attorney knows that prosecuting these cases means you will do your best to get a different person into their office next election.

Re:Make it clear to your DA (3, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391090)

That would require being an active citizen. It's much easier to just post on Slashdot talking about how elected officials are all corrupt and evil members of the Illuminati.

Re:Make it clear to your DA (3, Insightful)

morari (1080535) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391318)

No, that would require a working government.

Re:Make it clear to your DA (1)

TheABomb (180342) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391338)

Speaking as a Freemason, I wish this were true.

Re:Make it clear to your DA (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391200)

It's not abuse, it's almost certain to be the natural extension of the law. The laws on wiretapping don't generally specify the methods that are used to do the actual recording, so an audio recording of any sort is equal to any other. If you're in a 2 party consent state, then this sort of prosecution is to be expected, if the person did the recording, which it sounds like he did, then he'll end up being charged and likely convicted.

There isn't anything inherently abusive about it, the statutes are there for everybody to read and if you're going to record somebody without their consent then you need to be really careful that you don't violate the law.

Now, whether the statute itself is reasonable or in this instance is within the protection of the constitution is a different matter all together. This seems a bit overly strict and probably not what the people writing the law really had in mind.

Re:Make it clear to your DA (5, Insightful)

cob666 (656740) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391246)

It's not abuse, it's almost certain to be the natural extension of the law. The laws on wiretapping don't generally specify the methods that are used to do the actual recording, so an audio recording of any sort is equal to any other. If you're in a 2 party consent state, then this sort of prosecution is to be expected, if the person did the recording, which it sounds like he did, then he'll end up being charged and likely convicted.

By your logic, if I am in line at Dunkin Donuts and the person in front of me (Joe) is on the phone leaving a message while I'm talking to my friend then Joe is guilty of illegal wiretapping.

Re:Make it clear to your DA (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391314)

Considering the police record all traffic stops, video and audio. WTF man, the cops can do it without drive consent but the driver can't do it without the cops consent?

Re:Make it clear to your DA (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391446)

Conversely, perhaps others shouldn't run their yapper while I'm trying to record a message. Then they don't end up on tape!

Re:Make it clear to your DA (4, Insightful)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391454)

A public official has no expectation of privacy while going about their official duties... Believing anything else is insanity.

Re:Make it clear to your DA (4, Insightful)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391502)

1 The charge itself is effectively a punishment.

2 The Wiretap statute doesn't apply.

Abuse.

Cops like to do this to scare people from recording them. Many of the instances I've read about, this ends up being thrown out. They want to cover their ass, rather than serve and protect. This type of "scope creep" should be strongly discouraged.

When you use the phrase "natural extension" of a law; I can't help thinking that makes it whimsical. "The law is what I SAY it is!"

hurry up and revolt (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391050)

Hurry up and revolt.

Cue a dozen, "It's not as bad as under Honecker, so we don't need to do anything yet!" responses.

Re:hurry up and revolt (4, Funny)

SimonTS (1984074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391388)

They're Americans. They're already revolting ;-P

Re:hurry up and revolt (0)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391452)

Or how about, "We live in a democracy, so we can vote people out of office instead of having a violent revolt?" And before anyone chimes in with a snarky, "oh, you think voting makes a difference?", well, it makes just as much difference as revolting, and is a lot easier to do. There's no guarantee the people in Egypt will get a good government after revolting, just as there's no guarantee with a democracy voting. The difference is, democracies can make the same changes without the bloodshed.

Re:hurry up and revolt (4)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391516)

Great idea, I just never know whether the douche or the turd sammich is the better choice. So far, I only noticed that I'm invariably wrong, so maybe it's better I abstain from voting.

How could it be wiretapping? (4, Insightful)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391052)

Unless they were on private property? Even if the car is considered private property, unless the officer was sitting in the passenger seat, anyone can record anything they want anywhere if it is in public. That is the premise for most all security cameras and recordings anywhere ever.

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (2)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391112)

Yes, I'm pretty sure that the courts have said that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a traffic stop on a public highway. Unfortunately, NH, may well have more restrictive laws.
I wonder whether that audio is publicly available.
IANAL

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391180)

Somehow I am doubting the home of the Free State Project has MORE restrictive laws regarding personal liberties.

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (4, Informative)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391408)

Here is a summary of NH law [rcfp.org] . It does seem pretty severe. According to this article [boingboing.net] only two states don't allow recording without consent when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. From link one, it looks like NH may be one of them.

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (3, Informative)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391424)

relevant law [nhdcyf.info]

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391548)

As a matter of coincidence, I spent some time last week specifically reading the New Hampshire statutes regarding wiretapping.

Sadly, this is technically illegal in New Hampshire. We are not allowed to hold police accountable if they don't want to be held accountable.

Also, fuck them

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (2)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391132)

No. There are different laws for video vs audio, as well as based on jurisdiction.

For example, I recall one story where a landlord installed spycams in an tenants apartment and recorded her, but he wasn't convicted because he only recorded video [if he had audio, then he would have been].

Some jurisdictions require both parties to consent to recording audio, some just one party. I would guess most places have video without audio generally is permissible in public places, but IANAL.

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391260)

Just call 911 and LET THE POLICE RECORD IT FOR YOU.

This isn't a joke. 911 tapes record a LOT more than just your conversation. If one goes missing, its a LOT of cases that go into jeopardy. If a 911 tape goes missing, AND the digital audio does missing, its a big deal.

So call 911 and let them record it. Your lawyer can make a request for the tapes in a given time period under FOIA, they don't even have to use your name. No tapes? Still have the LUDS / telcom records, and that gives your lawyer all the ammo they need in a court case.

I would LOVE to see a case where a police officer claimed wiretapping for a 911 call...

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391438)

They probably would charge you with calling 911 when there was no emergency [as I would expect most places would have laws against abuse of 911, and they would just say this was an abuse of 911].

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391470)

If pressed, you should claim that you were not sure if the person pulling you over was an actual cop and you'd like some verification. Given that there was a rash of "fake" cops pulling women over and robbing/molesting them, that's not unfounded. They'd have to prove your intent otherwise in court, which they probably wouldn't bother to try.

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391488)

I'd start with... "Hello there is a crazy man following me. He said he was a police officer but his badge looked plastic like the ones on TV".

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391540)

Some person in a flashy car demanding from you in no uncertain terms to pull over? I'd say that warrants an emergency call!

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391148)

alot of states have laws that state basically, its ok to record an officer in public with video, but as soon as audio is thrown in, its wiretaping.. its an archaic law thought up when the idea of everyone having a device to record audio and video with them seemed far fecthed.. it really needs to be updated for the 21st century.

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391222)

Precisely, in a 1 party consent state this wouldn't have happened because the person doing the wiretapping would be considered to give the consent, assuming that they were a part of the discussion. In 2 party consent states you need to have consent of all parties involved.

And yes indeed all states have their own rules as far as what exactly is needed for consent. And really this is something that you should know about to begin with, just because that way you have some idea what the rules are. Extending it to voice message services in this manner isn't something which should surprise anybody it is still a recording made by the person that's being charged, assuming that individual actually did it.

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (1)

danlip (737336) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391342)

Most security cameras only record video and not audio because of these laws. As silly as it is the law only applies to audio.

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (3, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391350)

It is not recording video that gives the law entry into most situations. It is recording voice. Security systems are usually video only. This is probably frightened, corrupt, public officials fearing it is too easy to catch them in their corruption if voice recording is allowed. All people should have the right to covertly record voice and video anywhere at anytime. Anything outside the walls of their home is public by definition.

Re:How could it be wiretapping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391402)

Unless they were on private property? Even if the car is considered private property, unless the officer was sitting in the passenger seat, anyone can record anything they want anywhere if it is in public. That is the premise for most all security cameras and recordings anywhere ever.

It's wiretapping because the lawmakers of that state say it is.

Want to dispute them? Spend a lot of money and time taking them to court only to have them continue doing it in some slightly different manner. Rinse. Repeat.

incomparable powers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391054)

wiretapping without a warrant should be illegal for the government. citizens, on the other hand, should be free to do whatever they please.

Re:incomparable powers (2)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391084)

Unfortunately corporations count as citizens in this country. If we make an exception for citizens then the government can just pay AT&T to wiretap everyone.

Re:incomparable powers (1)

yndrd1984 (730475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391326)

Unfortunately corporations count as citizens in this country.

Corporations are "legal persons" - they can own things, have due process rights, and can be sued. They aren't citizens - they can't vote, etc.

Re:incomparable powers (1)

danlip (737336) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391352)

Anyone acting on behalf of the government should have to follow the same rules as the government.

Re:incomparable powers (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391460)

That's why we in Germany decide between "natural" and "juristic" persons. The construct of the juristic person makes sense when it's about stuff like contracts. But when it comes to criminal law, it all has to be about natural persons. You can't put a company to jail, or do you?

Re:incomparable powers (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391156)

Why do you suppose private military companies [wikipedia.org] like Blackwater [wikipedia.org] exist in the first place? Hint: because they're not constrained by all those pesky rules the government is required to follow.

Meanwhile, the case in question is textbook police misuse of power.

Re:incomparable powers (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391236)

It sounds good until you realize that random citizens making recordings doesn't in any way, shape or form ensure the recordings are accurate. Not just in terms of editing, but in terms of putting words into other people's mouths. Also, you have to be extremely careful about where you draw the lines because you can very easily wind up with vigilantism.

Re:incomparable powers (2)

vakuona (788200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391332)

As long as recordings are authentic and complete, I am more willing to take my chances with someone recording me, than to be in a he say she say situation without evidence. Sometimes recording someone without them realising it is the only way to get an honest answer out of them. 2 party consent basically makes it impossible to obtain a recording without involving the law, and this is probably only possible if there is a crime suspected, or some sort of criminal investigation going on with a warrant. And only the police, i.e. the government, are allowed this.

Turn it around (2)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391064)

Charge the police officer with Wiretapping for intercepting communications between the man and his cell phone.

Re:Turn it around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391178)

Go one better: Charge the officer with civil rights violations for an illegal wiretap without a warrant for the use of a cruiser dashcam and microphone.

Re:Turn it around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391286)

Seems like a good idea. According to the linked law text, one of the exceptions allowed is the following, which includes the requirement of the officer to notify the driver he is being recorded, which might be interesting to know if this happened..

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lviii/570-a/570-a-mrg.htm
              (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.

NH WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391072)

How can it be wiretapping if there was no wire tapped? When is recording a personal conversation illegal? New Hampshire sucks if they actually allow the police to prosecute this individual.

Re:NH WTF? (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391198)

When is recording a personal conversation illegal?

In the following states, recording of a telephone conversation (personal or not) require the consent of all parties: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. [rcfp.org]

This is why for all customer service lines you hear the message "Please note that this call may be recorded for training purposes." The company need to cover their asses in case someone from one of those states called.

Re:NH WTF? (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391468)

The recorded conversation was not a telephone conversation. The only media involved was the air. So, it was airtapping, not wiretapping.

Double standard? (4, Insightful)

Shoten (260439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391076)

That's odd...because many (if not most) states have systems whereby the actions in front of the car are recorded on video, and audio is captured from a microphone on the officer. The basis for this not needing a warrant is common law precedent that during a traffic stop there is no expectation of privacy...so how is there an expectation of privacy if it's the person being stopped who does the recording?

Re:Double standard? (5, Funny)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391126)

Because if its the police doing the recording its easier for the recording to go missing or accidentally glitch than it would be if the person being pulled over did the recording.

Re:Double standard? (5, Informative)

FlatEric521 (1164027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391328)

Because if its the police doing the recording its easier for the recording to go missing or accidentally glitch than it would be if the person being pulled over did the recording.

And the article mentions that claim:

Police also claim dashboard camera videos of her arrest aren't available because the equipment wasn't working that night. Hipple said police don't have maintenance records to prove the cameras weren't working.

That was from an earlier arrest of a different person, so it might be no surprise that the man the article focused on didn't trust the police to have records of his traffic stop.

Re:Double standard? (2)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391250)

It was probably more about the idea of being able to arrest the guy on a trumped up charge than to actually get a conviction.
That is the great thing about the law enforcement agencies. You can screw people without actually having to convict them of any wrong doing.
There is not much you can do to fight, stop, or prevent it aside from thoroughly screening who gets to be a police officer.
The system was actually intended to work this way.

Re:Double standard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391288)

That's a myth. The car recorders are only activated if they put on the sirens. Why do you think the police uses flashing lights without the sirens most of the time? There's a ton of paperwork involved too apparently.

Disclaimer: My neighbor is a cop, and has a lot to say.

Re:Double standard? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391330)

Depends - in my area the camera records all the time, with the recording being saved as soon as the lights go on. (plus some time before the lights as well).

Re:Double standard? (1)

grim4593 (947789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391510)

That is not true. I was just on a jury and we had the entire film from the police station all the way to a random traffic stop. The cameras are on all the time.

Re:Double standard? (2)

morari (1080535) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391344)

It's the same old story... Murder in a costume is a crime. Murder in a uniform is heroic.

Don't tread on me (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391124)

It's odd that New Hampshire is almost militant about civil liberties but someone has managed to jigger things so that they are a two-party state.

Only seems to apply to police (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391128)

Funny how every time I hear of a case like this it's a cop being recorded. Since they are public servants shouldn't it be legal to record them if they are on duty? This is strictly about them not wanting records when they do something wrong. With current technology I think they should have at least audio recording of on duty police officers. It would be valuable evidence that would help back up the cops testimony. I think it shows how often there is wrong doing by cops given how violently opposed they are to recordings. I still remember the video taping of a cop slamming a kid into the trunk of a car in LA. They made all sorts of excuses but it was inexcusable behavior. The kid was handcuffed and unconscious when he got slammed in the trunk. It actually woke him up when he hit the car after they beat him unconscious. His crime? He was filling up the car while his father sat inside. It was a case of mistaken identity but the cops consider everyone guilty until proven innocent. FYI I've got two family members that were cops but I also lived 25 years in LA and had some very bad experiences with them.

Lack of public trust will hurt us all. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391524)

It will bite them in the ass. They'll be in court over an excessive force suit or something and they'll claim that their equipment wasn't working that night. The jury will just think "Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhht."

If the cop is right then they'll have a video.

If the cop is lying then there won't be any recorded evidence.

That's what I'll do if I'm on a jury. No video records then everything out of the cops mouth is a lie.

Yep, vicious killers will walk because of the cops inability to keep the public's trust.

I've done this on several occasions. (4, Informative)

Riot.ATL (1365395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391150)

Atlanta's police are corrupt and brutal; it's for my own safety. They've beat me down before and left me, without any arrest, bleeding on the sidewalk. Every single time I interact with an officer where I'm suspected of committing a crime, I record the audio.

How stupid. (3, Insightful)

Renraku (518261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391172)

Wiretap, noun - an act or instance of tapping telephone or telegraph wires for evidence or other information. No wiretapping was involved. Recording in public is 100% legal in all jurisdictions if there is no reasonable expectation to privacy. Police officers do not have an expectation to privacy whenever they pull someone over in public. How the hell is this even a case? Oh, wait, gotta protect their own. Gotcha.

Re:How stupid. (2)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391508)

Recording in public is 100% legal in all jurisdiction

Completely false. Public recording is, in general, illegal in all of the USA. Some states are 1-party, meaning that you can record a conversation if you have permission from at least one of the two members of that conversation. Other states (like the one in TFA) requires permission from all parties to the conversation. That means to record a police officer, you need his permission first. Nowhere in the states can you record in public without permission from anybody at all. That's always illegal.

Legal ramifications of notifying the police (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391174)

What would happen if you start the phone call and when the police man comes up to you, you were to say to him before you talk I am required to tell you that this conversation may be recorded and can be reviewed in the future for due process. I'd imagine the police would then tell you to stop the recording and if you refused to do that you would be in breach of the order of an officer of the peace. But if you were to do that I'd imagine the legal system would be interested in the ramifications of the event. Also, what would happen if you were not in control of the recording device? The cop could tell you to turn if off and you could say you have no way of doing that. It would be trivial to make that the truth - make the recording only able to be turned off when the car has been turned off for at least 20 minutes or something.

Consent (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391176)

Ummmm... if he actually is a bad cop - you know, the sort who is the whole point of getting such "wire taps" in the first place - then he sure as hell isn't gonna give his consent now, is he? You'll be lucky to walk away with the recording device intact. You yourself will be lucky to walk away intact, since he now knows you suspect him of being a bad cop.

Re:Consent (3, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391300)

I further find it deeply disturbing that some citizens have been fighting tooth and nail to preserve the right to carry concealed firearms, yet seemingly no one has been fighting to preserve the right of citizens to protect themselves by carrying concealed recording devices. That SHOULD be a right. Instead we've had these so-called wiretapping laws in place for decades that prohibit it.

Which would you rather have: a concealed weapon to shoot the bad cop, only to face accusations you can't refute in the aftermath, or a concealed recording device to catch the bastard red-handed in the act? You might need both, but we only have laws that protect ONE (in some places) and not the other .

Re:Consent (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391520)

Well, if it comes down to it, I suppose I'd rather have the weapon. If I'm later defending myself in court, it's because I'm still alive. Who cares if I leave a mountain of damning evidence to my heirs?

But yeah, I see your point.

babys/LSI; deweaponization happening (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391210)

that's the spirit? we have reports of citizens dismantling/disabling weapons of all nature, world wide. hopefully, it's going to be more difficult to re-stock some of that hideous waste of life/resource DEAD weight.

so in there with the unimpeded ruthless taking of many innocent lives, there remains a sense of fearless will/determination, that unarmed folks have never experienced before. some think we're worse than wasting what time we have left as well.

What if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391226)

What if the citizen had asked for permission to record the conversation and the officer had declined? Would the officer then be able to /rightfully/ order that the recording be stopped, or would he just say, "Have a nice day!" and drive off?

Well, that answers that (5, Funny)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391232)

Dear New Hampshire,
You can now shorten your slogan to just "Die."

Love,
The police (not the band)

Re:Well, that answers that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391526)

The only good cop is a dead cop.

Police abuse, business as usual (5, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391256)

Why is it that the police, aka public servants, are elevated to near untouchable status with these discriminatory laws ?

If you work for the government, be it federal, provincial/state or municipal, your actions are liable to be scrutinized by the public. Police should not be an exception. They get too many "magic rights" that allow them to dominate the public they were hired to serve. If cops weren't wrongly treated as superheroes in the law, they might start behaving a little less like spoiled bullies and more like human beings again. And I dare to dream that the career would attract a lower proportion of psychopaths (seriously, look it up if you don't believe me).

Re:Police abuse, business as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391472)

Citation please.

Re:Police abuse, business as usual (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391496)

act less like spoiled bullies, I find that amusing as the majority of kids that went on to be police officers after our high school graduation were dumdumdum... the bullies

Re:Police abuse, business as usual (-1, Troll)

Dainsanefh (2009638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391522)

That is because there are too many niggers and wetbacks that are cop killers. That is why they have special rights. Get rid of these two groups of people in America, and we shall have peace again. You never hear this kind of shit in northern Europe, why? because niggers and wetbacks are virtually non-existent. This proves once again they are an inferior race.

Reasonable Expectation to Privacy (1)

WarpedCore (1255156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391278)

The driver and the officer have no reason to believe that their actions on a public highway are not being recorded by a third party. The officer is taping the situation from a dashboard traffic camera, there's passer bys, and on major highways, traffic cams. I understand that in some states, law only one consenting party has to be aware (like yourself) that the conversation is being recorded while other states require you to tell the person on the other end.

As it's read, it's kind of baseless since the inherent design of a voicemail is to record messages and not eavesdrop or record conversations. People don't have an expectation to privacy if your voice somehow crops up on a voicemail someone is leaving ten feet away on your on a sidewalk.

I could understand this being a law violation if you "accidently" leave your iPhone on voicemail or in a voice memo app in your psychologist's office to hear in on the next patient or doing something malice towards the confidential privacy of others protected by law.

Where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391302)

Where in NH was this? (Sorry I couldn't help my self....)

Suing the wrong person.. (1)

sstamps (39313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35391366)

Clearly, they need to sue the cell phone / message service for wiretapping and recording the poor law-abiding citizen's call.

I bet that will solve the issue in a jiffy.

Warning Sign on Dashboard (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391434)

I have a warning sign on my dashboard "in clear view" of anyone looking into the vehicle, that says:

"You may be recorded via audio or video if you are within 10 feet of this vehicle.
If you do not wish to be recorded, please leave the area immediately."

I only put the sign up when driving, not when parking (someone would tear the car apart looking for the video camera)

Is there anything else I could do to "warn" people that they may be recorded?

-- AC

You smell that? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35391440)

You smell that? It's BAAAACCCCCCOONNN!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>