UPDATE: Lawyer and civil rights activist Christopher King has picked this case up. It promises to be an interesting case, as Mr. Gannon plans to sue once he beats the charges and because the police intend to make an example of him for allegedly being “verbally abusive”.
A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man’s sons.
Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon’s wife, Janet Gannon, and police reports filed in Nashua District Court.
Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective’s consent.
You can’t record people on your own property? This guy had a sign, so it wasn’t illicit. He wanted to use the tape to complain about a cop, what kind of irony is that?
Good.
Throw him in jail!
He has no right to question the authority of our police force!
There are terrorists out there trying to take away our liberty. The only way to beat them is to take away our liberty first!
You don’t really expect cops to know anything about civil rights or civil liberties, do you? Or care?
c’mon john
just because you pay their salary doesn’t mean you can put them under surveillance!
war on terror … hello!it’s the government job to keep the population under surveilance not the other way around!
you should be quiet and do as your told. opposition to the government is treason — democracy exists no more.
//ken
Can I add some fuel?
If this was Ann Coulter, you’d all be asking for her head! And the conservatives would be asking for a date!
should we update godwin’s law to include references ann coulter?
an coulter quiz
I just love this line: “Police reported that Gannon “has a history of being verbally abusive” toward police, and that after his arrest, he remarked that the officers “were a bunch of corrupt (expletives).””
No duh, what do you expect him to say when you lock him up for putting up security cameras on his own home, when you might not come across favorably on them. sheesh.
To all those in favor of Shrub’s draconian civil liberties abuses, :
Told ya !!!
Now how many neo-cons will consider this a frivolous law suit?
Let’s not make too much of this.It’s more of a unintended consequence or misreading of a reasonable law.
Just because it’s one’s “own house”, it does not mean you should have a right to videotape everything that goes on in it. People should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even on another’s private premise.
Yes, a lot of these laws were created to stop the creeps who videotape, without consent, others going to the bathroom, having sex, etc, so the purpose is a good one.
To throw some things into this. It’s my understanding that recording audio is the problem here. Recording video is different. You cannot record audio without the other persons consent. But you can record video without audio.
But come on, it’s all down to the police were caught being asses and they want to totally destroy any and all evidence to that fact. Once the tapes are in the possession I guarantee you they’ll have some sort of accident that destroys them. I mean come on, if it really was Gannon that was being abusive and uncooperative wouldn’t the cops want the video to show everyone? It would kind of back them up wouldn’t it?
Hmm…wonder why they want that tape so bad….
No Lou, if you’re on my property in plain site I have every right to videotape you. This isn’t about the expectation of privacy like when you’re in the bathroom. If you’re on my property, my lawn, my front door, there is zero expectation of privacy.
I also happen to be a freelance photojournalist…would they have confiscated my camera and images if I had shot them while they were on my property? I mean, this is news isn’t it? What if I were across the street shooting this while they were hassling someone else?
Does this also mean that if there was another Rodney King type incident in New Hampshire, the person videotaping the beating would be arrested?
8. Yes, a lot of these laws were created to stop the creeps who videotape, without consent, others going to the bathroom, having sex, etc, so the purpose is a good one
Good point.
9. You cannot record audio without the other persons consent.
Reminds me of Linda Tripp…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Tripp
I was really curious whether the police got a search warrant to search the house for other cameras and tapes as mentioned by the wife. What Judge would sign a search warrant to confiscate a camera from a private residence. While I couldn’t find out if that happened, I did come across a comment by a police Sargent.
Maher said that security cameras on private property are not illegal, but the person being videotaped needs to be notified. Maher noted the Nashua Police Department uses cameras in its booking area, but has a large sign informing people they are being recorded.
Maher also explained that Gannon’s alleged taping is different from when television crews or members of the media might record police investigating a crime scene, because there is an expectation that might happen.
“There certainly is a kind of awareness in a public place that you are being recorded,” he said. “This was not the case.”
http://tinyurl.com/le2gk
Hmmm, do I note a touch of hypocrisy there?
First, there were signs posted as well as being given a verbal notice.
Second, cameras from a television station (as do journalists) have no special privilege compared to private cameras.
Third, that would mean that anytime someone used a camera in public, they risk committing a felony because they might capture someone without their permission.
Fourth, requiring the permission of a vandal or thief would defeat the whole purpose of having a security camera.
Fifth, there was no expectation of privacy; the conversation was not privileged or confidential and took place between at least three people. The conversation took place outside the front door which is right next to the sidewalk.
Sixth, if any New Hampshire police have cameras in their cars, then they too would be breaking the law.
Seventh, does the notice in the police booking room allow for anyone to ask that the camera be turned off?
For the city’s sake, I sure hope they can settle quick. If this goes to court, expect to pay more.
Remember the good old days when the phrase “A man’s home is his castle” really meant something? And remember when we talked about how the Soviet Union was so restrictive of people’s rights and we couldn’t imagine something like that EVER happening here? Ah, the good old days…
I have a feeling that the DA in this case is going to drop everything. Not that they actually have a case. But that doesn’t stop the police from hassling these people like they did.
See, it’s a total pain in the ass to the people involved. The police can arrest, confiscate, intimidate all they want…doesn’t mean that they’ll actually press charges. Especially if they’re in the wrong. But that still doesn’t alleviate the fact that the guy WAS arrested and hassled. Sure, he’ll get his stuff back and even get an “apology” maybe….but underneath it all they’ll be saying they can screw with him anytime they want and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
The crime depicted in this story, “Bringing the administation of justice into disrepute,” is considered serious in many places.
#15: Ah, those must be aimed at crooked, violent and stupid cops, right?
Crooked, violent and stupid cops? Isn’t that like a triple redundancy?
all the cops I know that are ready for retirement…shudder to think what will happen when the “young’uns” start being alone on the streets. Seems the ME generation raised a whole lot of self centered, egotistical, morally corrupt kids……now clothed in cop clothes.
It’s weird how A Clockwork Orange was a 70’s view into the future.
Gee, and I thought New Hampshire’s motto was “Live Free or Die!”
Maybe they should change it to “Live Free AND Die!”
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Welcome to the Facist States of America.
Thanks to the Bush Crime Syndicate. A subsidiary of Halliburton.
Isn’t this the same town where they’re trying to take the Suprem Court justice’s property by eminent domain(after he said that was ok for cities to do).
POINT NOT MADE.
It has been established that ACCORDING to current LAW, as ascertained with the Popperatzi…
IF you are in PUBLIC you can EXPECt to be photographed, taped, or anything ELSE. If you are on PRIVATE property, THEY CANT do that.
not being up on New Hamshire law……I can’t say about the *audio* part. But the video part is perfectly legal and since it’s a private residence, they really aren’t required to notify the public thay they may be video tapped.
I hope Nashua has a good insurance company for city screw up payouts, because Mr. Gannon is about to become a very wealthy man.
Even the police can’t legally claim *ingnorance of the law*, they will go down.
YEp,
You have NO privacy rights, in a public location. PERIOD.
You only have the right, on PRIVATE land, NOT to be hurt when you trespass, by force. Accidents happen.
actually….there is no constitutional *right to privacy*. There can be privacy laws passed, but no *right* to privacy, implied or otherwise.
24: That’s not exactly true. The Supreme Court stated in Griswold (case that legalized contraceptives for married people) that there was a certain right to privacy in the bedroom of married couples. The phrase — “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance” — led to much head scratching by many, and to complete legalization of contraceptives and eventually, to the road down which legalized abortion lay. All based on a certain right to privacy.
Here’s an article that lays it out: http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp
This discussion and the comments herein are prima facie evidence that sometimes it better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and confirm it. Lots of gratuitous commentary with very few facts.
1. In NH, it is a class B felony to AUDIOTAPE a conversation without the consent of the people being recorded wherein the person making the recording is not a party to the conversation (regardless of whether or not notifications are posted). (BTW – Mr. H Fusion – NH law contains an exemption for law enforcement officals in the course of their duties as long as the party being recorded is notified – such as during vehicle stop and in booking areas.)
2. Mr. Gannon was arrested for recording a private conservation between 2 police detectives who were standing on his porch outside his house. (Detectives who were at his house by the way because there was an active arrest warrant for his son for armed robbery, and neighbors had observed the juvenile going in and out of the house numerous times during the week he was being sought. Mr Gannon should have also been charged with hindering apprehension.)
3. Additionally, a stolen firearm was recovered during the search of the residence. (Hope it wasn’t your house that broken into and your gun that was stolen and used to commit a felony.)
4. BTW – The “crooked, violent, stupid cops” that you refer to are the same ones who will rush to your home without thinking twice about whether or not they will ever see their loved ones again when you call from your upstairs bedroom about the noise you just heard downstairs and you don’t possess the testicular fortitude to go investigate it yourself.
Long Rifle—
1. You seem to have missed the part of the statute that defines “oral communication”. You are wrong about audiotaping a coverstion. it is “oral communication” that cannot be recorded without consent, but “oral communication” is defined by the statute.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-mrg.htm
” 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. ”
If the police had NO an expectation of privacy standing on someones front porch, five feet from the sidewalk, with cameras in plain view, and signs posted,………well, you get the point.
2. The conversation was not private. What if it was two muggers talking about how they planned to rob the person that anwers the door? Would Mr. Gannon have been arrested if he took that tape to the police? It is common to have video and audio monitoring of an etrance to an apartment. Are the nashua police going to arrest every resident with an intercom system at their front door?
3. I would not call the nashua police. I’ll handle it myself.
Sniper – You obviously did not read the affidavit. Just because someone is aware that they are being videotaped does not mean that they are aware they are being audiotaped. That is the crux of the matter.
Additionally, the statute explicitly states that all parties being recorded must give their consent, which was not the case here. There is plenty of case law regarding situations where people in public areas, e.g. – a phone booth–can have a certain expectation of privacy, which is why law enforcement agencies are required to obtain wiretapping/ eavesdropping warrants in such situations, such as listening in on two parties having a conversation on a park bench. Just because you assert that the conversation was not private, does not make it so. That is determined by the parties to the conversation and the totality of the circumstances. Perhaps if Mr. Gannon had requested that Det. Karlis “speak up” for the audio recording vice “smile for the camera” you might have a dog in this fight.
While it is common to have video surveillance in today’s world, it is not common to have AUDIO monitoring, due to the myriad and com-plicated legal prohibitions against such. And yes, you could be charged for listening in on someone’s conversation via an intercom.
BTW – Police routinely secure premises and vehicles while obtaining the necessary search warrant paperwork in order to prevent the destruction of physical evidence. A more detailed check of the incident will show that there where only two juvenile detectives working the night of the incident and that the other was tied up handling Mr. Gannon’s son. That left Det. Karlis to prepare the seach warrant paperwork. Sorry, no conspiracy here.
PS – Your acceptance of your personal safety as being primarily your responsiblility is laudable. Wish more people would acknowledge their responsibility in such matters.
Long Rifle–
“Sniper – You obviously did not read the affidavit.”
Yes I did. But it only tells one side of the story.
Did you notice how it did not mention that Mr. Gannon wanted to file a complaint?
You sound like you have some inside knowledge. Thanks for playing 😉
You obviously did not read/understand the RSA. It was not “oral communication” as defined by the RSA.
“Just because someone is aware that they are being videotaped does not mean that they are aware they are being audio taped. That is the crux of the matter.”
I would say it does not even matter in this case. The police had no expectation of privacy, and if they thought/think they did, they are mistaken. And even if consent was needed, signs are posted. The “I didn’t see the sign” excuse doesn’t work on the police….unless you are another police officer, I guess.
“Additionally, the statute explicitly states that all parties being recorded must give their consent, which was not the case here.”
For “oral communication” as defined by the statute, which was not the case here.
“There is plenty of case law regarding situations where people in public areas, e.g. – a phone booth–can have a certain expectation of privacy, which is why law enforcement agencies are required to obtain wiretapping/ eavesdropping warrants in such situations, such as listening in on two parties having a conversation on a park bench.”
Please point me to the case law in NH regarding this situation….standing on some one’s front porch, with signs posted, and the recording device in plain view.
Right, if the police want to ease drop on some one, they need a warrant. That is what the law is about. That is why it is titled wiretapping and ease dropping. This was not a public area. It was Mr. Gannon’s front door/porch, an area he has a right to monitor. If he was to record two people talking about how they would mug him, and he took the tape to the police, would they charge him Mr. Gannon with a crime? It is common to monitor both video and audio at the entrance to one’s home. Anyone who thinks they have an expectation of privacy in that situation is mistaken. Are the Nashua police going to arrest everyone with an intercom system? I would like to know if the police rang the door bell, then had their “private” conversation, or did they have the conversation then ring the door bell?
“Just because you assert that the conversation was not private, does not make it so.”
Just because you or the police assert the conversation was private, does not make it so.
“While it is common to have video surveillance in today’s world, it is not common to have AUDIO monitoring,”
No, it is very common. I would say it is more common to have audio monitoring at one’s front door.
“BTW – Police routinely secure premises and vehicles while obtaining the necessary search warrant paperwork in order to prevent the destruction of physical evidence.”
I can’t believe the police were worried about destruction of evidence. They had a copy.
Does this only happen after an arrest?
How often does this happen to some one’s home in NH(deny entry overnight)?
I find this practice very disturbing, and unconstitutional. I thought police could only detain someone and their vehicle for about 20 mins.
If police have enough reason to secure a vehicle or premises, that should be probable cause to search without a warrant.
What happens if the warrant isn’t issued?
Or do police just always assume it is a sure thing these days, just a matter of filling out the paperwork?
Does the judge even look at the search warrant paperwork, or just sign it?
How often does it happen at 9PM at night, and prevent a family access to their home until 4AM, even to get a key to a camper on the property?
How often are search warrants granted in the middle of the night(2:10AM) in the Nashua District?
What was the emergency in this case?
“A more detailed check of the incident will show that there where only two juvenile detectives working the night of the incident and that the other was tied up handling Mr. Gannon’s son. That left Det. Karlis to prepare the search warrant paperwork. Sorry, no conspiracy here.”
Well, this incident had nothing to do with juvenile detectives, other than Mr. Gannon wanted to complain on them, and the video tape would have been of them. Mr. Gannon is 49, so it is *very* strange that a juvenile detective would have anything to do with the arrest of him that night, or the search warrant paperwork. The arrest of Mr. Gannon has nothing to do with his sons. He was arrested by Officer Charles Macgregor If the NPD had a code of ethics in place, the handling of his arrest would be a violation of the code. Code would prevent the officer involved in an alleged crime from investigating any part of it. Conflict of interest. Sorry, but it does not look good for the NPD or Hon. Bamberger. But you are right. I don’t know the whole story, or what happened, or why it happened.
from earlier post:
“Detectives who were at his house by the way because there was an active arrest warrant for his son for armed robbery”
His 15 year old son?
Wouldn’t those records be sealed because of the age?
“3. Additionally, a stolen firearm was recovered during the search of the residence.”
When was that search warrant executed?
Wouldn’t those records be sealed because of the age?
Also, was anyone outside of the NPD allowed to watch the police do the search?
It would be pretty easy to say the police planted the gun if they did not allow anyone to watch them do the search. The news articles say the family was not allowed to return until 4AM, the last thing logged in was at 3:45AM.
Why not allow the people who live in the house to watch the search?
Why was Mrs. Gannon cited with disorderly conduct, and at what time?
Contrary to your belief, I have read/looked at/listened to every thing I can find on this matter.
PS. All my interactions with the NPD have been positive. I lived in Nashua for a few years. The NPD issued my first CC permit. Police will always be needed. Being a police officer carries a lot of power and responsibility. There will always be people who will try to get and abuse that power. Those people need to be found quickly, and prevented from abusing that power. It will make people distrust police, and in order to do their job effectively, police need the support of the people. I want to be able to call the Nashua PD when I need their help. I know most of the guys there are good, but just one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. I don’t want to be afraid of the bad apple showing up. And the bad apple may be good 99% of the time. But any abuse is not acceptable when you have the state issued authority to take some one’s life.
Oh, I missed the 9mm the first time I was reading the search warrant…..man, and it is the last thing logged….don’t know how I missed it….
The search warrant didn’t mention Patrick’s room……the search warrant had nothing to do with Patrick. Wonder why Det. Karlis looked in there?
Looks like it was Det Karlis and Legos how executed the warrant and invetory was made in their presence. Both are on the tapes……
looks bad for the police no matter what……..