Quantcast

No gun for YOU!

Discussion in 'Legal' started by bruss01, May 8, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bruss01

    bruss01 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    626
    We need to keep DANGEROUS FELONS like this from EVER EVER HAVING A GUN!!!

    ***********************************************

    http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...RS01/105070187


    Dover man arrested for taping his DWI investigation in Rochester

    ROCHESTER — A 48-year-old Chestnut Street man was arrested early this morning for wiretapping for allegedly recording police while they were investigating him for driving while intoxicated.

    Police say they were patrolling the downtown area at 2:54 a.m. when they discovered Christopher A. Power of 52 Chestnut St. sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle with its motor running at the Rochester Common.

    After speaking with Power, police began investigating him for driving while intoxicated and arrested him. During the arrest an audio recording device was discovered.

    "During a search after the arrest an audio recorder was discovered on the driver's seat cushion," Capt. Paul Callaghan said. "The officer noticed that the recorder was recording."

    Power was charged with driving while intoxicated and wiretapping, which is a Class B felony.

    Power is being held on $2,500 cash will be arraigned this afternoon at Rochester District Court.

    ********************************************

    Another example of why keeping guns from supposed "felons" SOUNDS a lot better than it turns out to be in actual practice. Pretty soon jaywalking will be a felony. Something tells me this is NOT what they had in mind in 1968 when they passed the GCA.
     
  2. scurtis_34471

    scurtis_34471 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,014
    Location:
    Ocala, FL
    New Hampshire's wiretapping law is draconian and does nothing but protect police from accountability. There was a case a couple years back where the cops made threats of violence against a citizen on his doorstep and the entire exchange was captured by his home security system. When he used the tape in a complaint against the police, he was arrested and charged with wiretapping. A jury eventually found that the large security system sticker on the side of his house was ample warning of the presence of surveillance equipment and found him not guilty.

    I normally like the way New Hampshire does things, but this should be called the Police Complaint Retaliation Act.
     
  3. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    17,389
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    Considering it's OK for LE to record, I cannot understand how someone could be charged with wiretapping, which relates to phonecalls, with a simple recorder running in plan view. My old Sony Walkman has a microphone - would I be arrested for possession of wiretapping equipment?
    Can somebody challange this law?
     
  4. KnifeLawGuy

    KnifeLawGuy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    33
    Location:
    Northeast
  5. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,902
    Location:
    Texas
    how dare he... Why does he need voice recording equipment???? Only the police and military should be allowed access to that. What if he stole someone voice print and used it to access private information? What if he recorded a teenage girl? HOW DARE HE DO THAT....
     
  6. HiroProX

    HiroProX Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    546
    How can that even be wiretapping when... no wire was tapped?

    That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
     
  7. Libertylover

    Libertylover Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    172
    scurtis, the case to which you refer was the Michael Gannon case in Nashua. Mike's a household name for us liberty oriented folks in NH. I don't think his case ever went to a jury, if my memory serves me correctly, (keep in mind this was just last year) the chief of police had the case dropped. Nashua PD is a pretty nasty department, they're basically known for this type of thuggery. The counsel at the NH chapter of ACLU HATES Nashua PD. I've talked to a lot of folks who feel they were treated unfairly by Nashua PD for things like demonstrating (granted, most of them technically WERE tresspassing on private property). Enough about Nashua specifically though.

    Bills HAVE been introduced in the NH legislature to deal with this. The cops LOVE to abuse this one in this state, and something needs to be done to make it perfectly legal to record "public servants" in any contact with the public. This law right here is easily one of the WORST infringements of liberty in general in NH.

    If you'd like to get involved in the fight for liberty in NH, check out the NH Liberty Alliance at www.nhliberty.org. They're free to join and they do some great work for the voters, including rating the legislators, reviewing bills that come up in the legislature, and leading direct action at the legislature such as notifying people of important committee and other meetings that we should consider attending. They can even teach you how to effectively testify before committees and how to be an effective "citizen lobbyist." I can't say enough good things about NHLA.

    www.nhliberty.org
     
  8. hammer4nc

    hammer4nc Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    977
    Haha, I was born and raised in this town...

    Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but the operative phrase used in state-sponsored recording is "expectation of privacy". Usually quoted that the citizen really has none when outside his domicile, or when travelling on public roads.

    So, how is the "expectation of privacy" different for a LEO in similar circumstances? :confused:

    Or, has the double standard for public officials simply become so entrenched that it is now enforced without any questions whatsoever?:banghead:
     
  9. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,404
    Location:
    Michiana
    Your point is duly noted. Why officials have the right to wiretap and common citizens don't is the start of a good argument.
     
  10. sadhvacman

    sadhvacman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    cartersville, ga
    utterly rediculous
     
  11. Risasi

    Risasi Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    851
    Fight fire with fire.

    Frankly I have very seriously considered wiring a computer into my car (likely mini-itx form factor). What I would do is install a cell phone internet card into said computer. With a link to an off-site repository for near immediate retrieval (by some third party) of audio and/or video of the events that transpire in a traffic stop.

    Personally I don't have much use for such rig right now, since the local authorities are generally well behaved. ([EDIT] Edit to add: And I don't break the law) But if things become any more draconian, well yes, you can be assured I will have implemented such a "defense system". Let's see what happens when they decide to gag youtube, google videos, P2P file sharing and bit torrents?

    Obviously local, state* and fed laws apply, IANAL, YMMV, etc and so forth...


    *P.S. Yes, it's legal in my state, as long as one party is privy (me). However frowned upon by the powers that be.
     
  12. another okie

    another okie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,850
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    "Wiretapping" is just a slang word for it. In general, recording conversations can be sticky. Whether there's a "wire" or not is not important. In some states both parties to a conversation have to consent or know it's being recorded; in others just one party. There's also a separate federal law on it, which is quite complicated. Read your local and federal laws carefully before recording.
     
  13. sadhvacman

    sadhvacman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    cartersville, ga
    So are these kids that are recording their teachers with their cell phones being charged with felonies?
     
  14. Risasi

    Risasi Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    851
    Okie is right. It is a very sticky subject. Which is why I attached my disclaimer. In fact one of the local police departments was told by the city council that they wanted to record audio in the local city clerk's office. They intended to hire me to get that done. Though legal (while jumping through certain hoops), my response was "don't do it".


    Like I said I find no use for it right now, because I am not concerned about the abuse of police powers in my locality. (If I went to my place of birth, well that is another story).
    I see audio recording as a useful tool in an arsenal to fight corruption. And I will not play by the rules should such a scenario arise. By then I believe such a case will have relegated us to the point of no return. The one, the many, will have to fight for their rights tooth and nail. Hopefully I do not need to see that day, but should it come I hope it will be with total commitment.

    And if any LEO are on this thread reading this, and this bothers you...well, it should. It's what keeps those in power honest.
     
  15. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    It's one law for me, another for thee. Gotta love it. Because if you don't, they'll kill you.
     
  16. ptmmatssc

    ptmmatssc Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    563
    Location:
    Maine
    Wow , I guess I'm not so bad off up where I live . Only one party needs to be aware of the recording . Essentially , as long as it stays in state , we can record phone calls , traffic stops etc that we are involved in . Thought about keeping one of those little digital recorders on me in case . my uncle used one while going through a divorce and caught his ex on tape threatening him amoung other things and it was allowed in court . :D
     
  17. damien

    damien Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,212
    Location:
    Northern IL, USA
    IL/TX/NY/CA Law

    I wonder what the law is in IL/TX/NY/CA. This could be a nice product for those larger markets. Let me introduce you to the PIGC0RDER. Sell it to the homies so they have a recording when they get profiled. Press a button, it records the event and sends it via GPRS to an offsite location in case the copper busts a cap in the girlfriend's ass.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01EEDC153BF93AA35756C0A9679C8B63

    After the coppers are let go without criminal charges, at least the homie will have some good evidence for the civil suit.

    The more the cops realize they are being recorded all the time, the more professional they will act. Frankly, with 80GB IPODs now, we could make a camera the size of a pack of cards that could record for 24 hours continuously. Cops and federal agents should be required by law to wear one all the time.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice