Free State Project Forum

FSP Community => Porcupine Festival => Topic started by: muni on March 26, 2010, 11:32:31 pm

Title: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: muni on March 26, 2010, 11:32:31 pm

Anyone knows anything about it?

I hope it's just an internet hoax.
Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: rossby on March 27, 2010, 12:07:06 am
Arrested for "wiretapping" by videotaping police officers during a traffic stop & search of a vehicle (one in which she wasn't a driver or passenger). Or so a little birdy tells me.
Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: Dreepa on March 27, 2010, 10:42:14 am
Arrested for "wiretapping" by videotaping police officers during a traffic stop & search of a vehicle (one in which she wasn't a driver or passenger). Or so a little birdy tells me.
your birdy is wrong.

She was arrested for disobey an officer (or some such)
Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: BikerBill on March 27, 2010, 11:43:26 am
Video of the follow-up visit to Weare PD here (http://bikerbillnh.blogspot.com/2010/03/weare-nh-pd-left-speechless.html).
Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: rossby on March 27, 2010, 12:36:11 pm
Arrested for "wiretapping" by videotaping police officers during a traffic stop & search of a vehicle (one in which she wasn't a driver or passenger). Or so a little birdy tells me.
your birdy is wrong.

She was arrested for disobey an officer (or some such)

Eh, she was mostly right.
Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: Polemic on April 13, 2010, 06:29:16 pm
Arrested for "wiretapping" by videotaping police officers during a traffic stop & search of a vehicle (one in which she wasn't a driver or passenger). Or so a little birdy tells me.

I've heard a lot about NH authority interpreting  RSA 570-A as prohibiting audio taping (esp. as a component of videotaping) in public spaces.
It's as if they have read the reasonable expectation of privacy out of the rule.

To my understanding (and a brief look at NH case law) courts have consistently held that there cannot be a reasonable expectation of privacy in 'open fields' and 'public spaces' and a mere recital of that expectation is not dispositive.

I feel like I'm missing something, since I'm clearly no expert in NH law.
Ross, you seem to know more about this area that I do, can you explain this?



Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: rossby on April 13, 2010, 06:45:10 pm
It's as if they have read the reasonable expectation of privacy out of the rule.

You hit it right on the head.
Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on April 14, 2010, 01:11:48 am
A don't think they mean to give 'reasonable expectation of privacy' to the officers. The officers are acting in a public capacity.

The Legislature is simply using P1A12, stating they have the legislative power to restrict your actions as long as it does not violate P1A3... and are choosing to envoke that power.
Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: Polemic on April 14, 2010, 03:19:06 pm
The Legislature is simply using P1A12, stating they have the legislative power to restrict your actions as long as it does not violate P1A3... and are choosing to envoke that power.

Are these statutory references or to the NH Constitution?
Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: rossby on April 14, 2010, 04:26:52 pm
A don't think they mean to give 'reasonable expectation of privacy' to the officers. The officers are acting in a public capacity.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying there can't be a reasonable expectation of privacy if you're in public.

The Legislature is simply using P1A12, stating they have the legislative power to restrict your actions as long as it does not violate P1A3... and are choosing to envoke that power.

Not even that. The statute in question is a very old one. It's based off of a model wire-tapping statute that many states enacted after the decision in United States v. Katz. It's a state response to protecting privacy from surreptitious recording from those new-fangled portable ee-lectronic recording dee-vices.

Problem is, the statute is written in very broad strokes. So, someon aiming to misbehave could certainly--but very disingenuously--make the case that videotaping a police officer detaining or arresting another person is "eavesdropping". Law enforcement officers (and some prosecutors) simply don't understand the law--because they don't read the whole thing. So police officers just think (incorrectly) that they can't be videotaped. So they report it as a crime. And sometimes it ends up becoming a criminal charge.

The statute specifically states that it only applies where a person "exhibits an expectation" that the communication could not be intercepted and the circumstances justify that belief. This is the "reasonable expectation of privacy". Police officers, being in public and performing the public duties of the state, are never in a circumstances that justifies a belief that an oral communications could not be intercepted, and they never have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy when they are actively detaining a person. Beyond that, most officers never "exhibit an expectation" that their communications could not be intercepted.

See disclaimer below.
Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: rossby on April 14, 2010, 04:37:50 pm
The Legislature is simply using P1A12, stating they have the legislative power to restrict your actions as long as it does not violate P1A3... and are choosing to envoke that power.

Are these statutory references or to the NH Constitution?

He's referring to the NH Constitution. It's composed of two parts; each part is composed of articles. He's referring to NH Const., Part I, Article 12 and NH Const., Part I, Article 3 respectively. (Not that I agree with his statement above.)

Also, sometimes you'll see or hear people write it out or speak it like, e.g., "Part First" or "Part the First". I don't.
Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on April 14, 2010, 06:13:52 pm
According to RSA 570-A, the courts may not hold a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' through a general recording. But when its clearly aimed at a subject... I think RSA 570-A:1(a) might stand. I don't note an exemption to 'subjects acting in a public capacity'.
Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: rossby on April 14, 2010, 07:01:27 pm
According to RSA 570-A, the courts may not hold a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' through a general recording. But when its clearly aimed at a subject... I think 1(a) might stand.

I don't see where the statute says that. First, keep in mind that we're never talking about telecommunications here. So, the only relevant part of the statute is the part that covers sound recordings. There's nothing about video (except a very recent and short addendum regarding an exemption that says some law enforcement video taping isn't wiretapping. But I'd argue that's irrelevant to what the rest of the statute means: providing an exemption for law enforcement from video doesn't change the rest of the statute; it just makes it clear that law enforcement can video people without breaking the statute).

You could absolutely break the wiretapping with a "general recording". Hiding a microphone in a doctor's office, a confessional, or a lawyer's office, or the girls' lockerroom would be good examples. Under the statute, the only things that matter are whether the people being recording (1) "exhibit[ed] an expectation that such communication [was] not subject to interception" and (2) the "circumstances justifed [that] expectation."

Obviously, most police officers going about their public duties while in full view of the public would miserably fail both requirements. And again, this really only covers sound recordings, not video.

See disclaimer below.
Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: Polemic on April 14, 2010, 08:07:17 pm
Are none of the earlier movers attorneys? Even a fresh admittee could defend this type of case and bring civil claims.

Really guys, get an attorney if incidents like these are common: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sHM3c-r8Oo

Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: rossby on April 14, 2010, 08:23:28 pm
Even a fresh admittee could defend this type of case and bring civil claims.

Pretty much.
Title: Re: Surrealpolichick arrested?
Post by: Sovereign Curtis on April 15, 2010, 10:44:32 am
Even a fresh admittee could defend this type of case and bring civil claims.

Pretty much.

Afaik there are FOUR FSP lawyers, three of which are licensed to practice in NH. One is taking on Carla's case. (I'm trying to hire two of em to defend me in my Felony Dispensing trial)