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?
Sniper, sorry for the tardy response. Work comes first. Where do I start? Glad you picked up on the items I referred to that were contained in the article and the police reports that were posted on-line. Sorry, no inside info.
Re: court cases, I refer you to US v. Katz, specifically Justice Kaplan’s concurring remarks (which discusses governmental prohibitions against intercepting communications, and which were used as the basis for the regulations contained in Title III of the Omnibus Crime Bill, which covers both governmental and private interceptions.) BTW, NH’s definition of “oral communications” was taken directly from the OCB. Harlan stated: “There is a twofold requirement…[F]irst, that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable’”. The subjective expectation thus represents a question of fact, while the objective expectation represents a question of law.
WRT “oral communication”, the first element of the subjective requirement is satisfied as long as the parties communicate with spoken words (as is the case here). To satisfy the second element of the subjective requirement, the parties to the conversation must exhibit an actual expectation that their communication will not be intercepted. If the parties had no reason to that Mr. Gannon utilized audio surveillance, it follows that they would have an expectation that their conversation was private. Unless they conversed in a loud or otherwise distracting manner, they would also exhibit an expectation that their conversation would not be overheard by others nearby. The parties involved determine the subjective portion. The court will decide the objective portion, should this case go to trial.
So let me get this straight. Your legal theory is that the oral communication between Det. Karlis and another detective was not private because Det. Karlis had no expectation of privacy because he knew that he was being audio recorded on Mr. Gannon’s front porch, and thus there was no expectation of privacy. If this is correct, then you must also believe that that if Mr. Gannon’s allegations are true, that Det. Karlis was knowingly rude while cognizant of the fact that his actions would be recorded and could be used against him in a formal complaint to the department. Having lived in Nashua, you must know that NPD has a reputation for eating its own, and that the administration is no friend to the rank and file cop, (having disciplined officers in the past as a result of complaints, up to and including termination). Furthermore, for your theory to be correct, Det. Karlis must have perjured himself in a sworn affidavit, and another detective must have filed a false report when he interviewed Mr. Gannon’s wife and wrote that she did not recall her husband advising the officers that they were being, at a minimum, audio-taped.
Take a look at the photo in the Nashua Telegraph article. The small sticker on the electrical meter box is the only posted notification of electronic surveillance of any kind. Directly behind Mr. Gannon is the porch on which the detectives were standing when the incidents took place. The camera with its built in microphone was mounted up in the eve of the porch roof. Not necessarilty hidden, but not necessarily in plain view either. Notice the proximity of the porch to the sidewalk. Does Mr. Gannon have a right to record the conversations of passersby, which is certainly what his sysyem was capable of?
Having worked for over 20 years in the security field, particularly in the area of assessing and developing protection plans for federal installations, and having been in hundreds of retail businesses and thousand of private residences, I have never seen a security system in NH that recorded audio external to a facility. Not saying that they don’t exist, but they are certainly not as prevalent as you purport, and if they do exist, they are probably illegal. BTW – an intercom system is not what I am talking about here.
Regarding your implications to some sort of conspiracy as to how the search was conducted, police procedures are based on the following:
Federal and state law
Federal and state court decisions
National accreditation standards
Officer safety concerns
Your feelings on how NPD handled the search in this case are whole irrelevant. If a department fails to follow procedure, it leaves itself open to lawsuits and the possibility of having a case dismissed. Judges are on call and available every day after normal court hours in order to handle emergency restraining orders, and search and arrest warrants, etc. Once it has been determined that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and that evidence of that crime might be in a particular location, that location is secured until a warrant is obtained. If no probable cause exists to issue a search warrant, then the police cannot make entry in the premises and the premises is released. A warrant is issued for an address, thus the whole residence was subject to search, not just certain rooms. For officer safety reasons and chain of custody regarding evidence, non-departmental persons are not allowed to be present during a search. It’s common sense. Think about it.
The warrant was applied for because Mr. Gannon stated that he had more tapes in his house and the instrument of the crime of which he is accused, the surveillance equipment, was also there. All are evidence and need to be secured.
Time is not necessarily a factor in search warrants, only warrantless stops – e.g. motor vehicle stops, Terry frisks. The detectives had to interview everyone involved, obtain statements, write the reports, prepare an affidavit, contact the judge, fax him the paperwork, allow him to review the paperwork, have him sign it and fax it back, execute the search warrant, and secure and tag evidence. The Gannon’s are lucky that it only took until 4 AM. No different from any other search warrant.
BTW, if you read the police reports posted on-line, you while see that Det Karlis was ordered by a supervisor to prepare the search paperwork. The person with the most first hand information about an incident routinely is the one who will prepare and swear to the affidavit. Juvenile detectives regularly assist the criminal detectives and vice versa when one division or the other is short-handed. Just out of curiousity, are you accusing th e police of planting evidence?
“Why was Mrs. Gannon cited with disorderly conduct, and at what time?”
She was cited the afternoon her son was arrested after creating a scene in public while her son was being walked back to the cruisers after a lengthy foot chase. She refused request to stop yelling and swearing. She could have been arrested, but she wasn’t. She was cited before he husband complained. Additionally, her other son was also cited for similar behavior at the same time. Unfortunately, when the officer tried to hand him the summons, he refused to take it and then started to run away. He was subsequently caught and arrested for resisting detention
Anything else I can answer or clarify for you?
Wow. That was interesting. Nice bantering guys. It really makes a difference to a discussion when a lot of the facts are presented in such a thorough and intelligible way. I felt like I was in a courtroom.
My .02 worth, I think the wholde family is a blight on Nashua. I would give any beneficial doubts to the police in this case. Just think of all the pr**ks they have to deal with every day and how often they want to give one of them a head butt to the chest, but manage to keep their cool.
Does anyone expect those walking GED’s with guns to know anything about civil rights. If they had any other education, they would be working somewhere else. Everytime cops is on TV, it’s a constant abuse of authority.
Update to the original article!
“Wiretap charges may face review”
[edited: pls use tinyurl]
Be it a family of saints or sinners, these dipwad detectives were out of line.
cops have to be high school grads, not GED’s…..and a very large number now have at least Asst. Degrees in criminology
I think it’s unfortunate that this guy will probably win this thing. After looking into more local coverage it appears him and his family are todays version of the Dalton Gang..
Long Rifle
Regarding your implications to some sort of conspiracy as to how the search was conducted, police procedures are based on the following:
Federal and state law
Federal and state court decisions
National accreditation standards
Officer safety concerns
You missed the most important procedure the police must follow. The Constitution. Regardless of what the legislated law is, it must pass Constitutional muster.
The Police didn’t follow procedures in this case, and that is where your whole argument fails. The Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans the right to be secure in their persons, houses, effects, and papers. The Police violated the Fourth Amendment by deciding that
1)they did not have to leave when asked to.
2)the investigating detective could trespass by putting his foot in the door
3)deciding the personal effects were illegal even though the effects were for the protection of the house and non intrusive to any other person.
4)searching the entire house even though the police were advised where the tapes, cameras, and recording equipment was located.
5)securing the house for five hours until a search warrant could be obtained. While the police may secure the premises for a reasonable time, five hours stretches the imagination of reasonable and seven hours for items they already knew the locations of. There is also no evidence that the items were asked for without a warrant being issued.
Then, to top off their obvious Fourth Amendment mistakes, they posted the son’s name, age, and the fact that he was wanted for committing a criminal offense in violation of Juvenile privacy. It would have been so easy to simply black out the child’s name, address, and offense.
If you want us to see something in a picture, post a link to the picture. Detective Karlis’s statement is already suspect as he is the one that Mr. Gannon had made the original complaint about, thereby destroying any presumed neutrality. By ignoring Mr. Gannon’s complaint that Detective Karlis had not left when asked and subsequently put his foot in the door to hold it open then negates the rest of the objectivity expected of the Police. For a reference, refer to your National Accreditation Standards. To swear out a complaint without reasonable knowledge is a felony. By ignoring Mr. Gannon’s proper complaint about a criminal action and asking the subject of the criminal complaint to prepare a search warrant crosses the line. There can not be an expectation of reasonable knowledge when the document preparer and supervisor have shown an unreasonable action of bias.
Your complaint about the camera notice is a irrelevant. It was in plain view and the police had visited the house several times over the past few days, including searching the outside of the building. The proximity of the camera to the sidewalk again is irrelevant as there is nothing to suggest that he blatantly recorded passersby.
Sorry Long Rifle. Although you might have done some homework, it appears you are singing the Police tune and not the American tune. Americans should not have to go to a Police station to complain about police behavior. The very suggestion that Mr Gannon has had previous run ins with the police is irrelevant, EVERY citizen is entitled to the equal protection of the police.
BTW, he could record sidewalk passers by since there is no expectation of privacy in such a public place.
Had the police sought the videotapes as evidence regarding the son’s charges or to investigate if the parent’s were harboring the son, it probably would have been a kosher search.
It sounds like both the Police and the Homeowner were being antagonistic towards each other. How does the Police Dept. back down from this now? It’s kind of embarassing for them at this point. And the homeowner sounds like kind of a jerk. I can’t go with either side on this one.
Jerk homeowners are not subject to a different interpretation of law. It is not the role of police officers to have hissy fits
Law is not based on how embarrased the police are, or how big a dick the householder is being. If this country is still a nation of laws, the cops are wrong here.
The probable cause hearing was gonig to be today, but has been moved to July 27….
Why cant we all get along? so much hatred for the police that we wait for them to do something wrong and attack. Hope you guys dont need them someday. They’re gonna be pissed when they hear your nickname is “sniper” or “Mr. H. Fusion” they may not give you CPR if needed. HAHA!
I Love the Nashua Police Department. They Rock!
Jack, that is a typical blind opinion. You make it sound as if I (and sniper, whom I do not know) hate Police. I can’t speak for Sniper, but I don’t. In fact, I have offered to help a detective here in our county run for Sheriff. He has been to our house several times, socially, our daughter is on the same soccer and softball teams as his grand daughter. And he is not only a professional, he has earned mine and the county’s respect. In fact so has his opponent.
The one promise made and enforced by the current Sheriff is that no one is allowed to wear any symbol of the Sheriff’s office while not on duty. No civilian is allowed any symbol suggesting they are a supporter of our county police. Why? To prevent any suggestion of favoritism or bias while doing their job. So you might support your local cop, but here they will help you, even if you’re a jerk, with the same professionalism shown everyone.
…they may not give you CPR if needed. HAHA!
I sure hope you are not representative of the good folk of Nashua. And if you are a cop, which I suspect, it doesn’t make you or the Nashua Police Department look any better then most of the comments here have suggested. That you could find someone dieing (why else give CPR) funny, speaks volumes.
I don’t hate police. Sorry if you are getting that impression. As a matter of fact, I have not had any bad experiences with the NPD. They have always been professional to me and my family. But may experiences have no relevance to Mr. Gannon’s situation.
Also, I happen to like the cheif of police in my town. He is a great guy.
Pointing out the the police did or may have something wrong, and asking questions does not mean I hate them.
Mr. H. Fusion –
1. I did not overlook the Constitution – it is implicit in my reference to federal and state law, and federal and state court decisions. Laws are written and passed within the framework of the the respective constitutions (either US or state). Those laws that are believed to be unconstitutional may be challenged in court, whereupon they are either upheld or ruled unconstitutional. Didn’t think that I had to break it down Barney style in my previous post, but I obviously was mistaken.
2. Your argument that the police did not follow procedure and violated the 4th Amendment is not supported by reality or case law on the matter.
2-1. Police do not necessarily have to leave private property when requested. In fact, they could have obtained a search warrant to search the house for the wanted juvenile. Instead they attempted to work with Mr. Gannon to apprehend his son, but he was hostile and uncooperative from the start. It is also possible that they could have entered the residence without a warrant to arrest the juvenile. The law allows law enforcement officals to enter the residence of a wanted subject without a search warrant in order to make an arrest. A search warrrant is required only to enter the pemises of someone else other than the wanted subject in order to find that subject and take him into custody.
2-2. The alleged foot in the door is not a 4th Amend. issue.
2-3. The items that were seized were not “illegal” – they were instruments of an alleged crime and it was proper to take them into evidence.
2-4. Once again, the warrant was for the entire residence. So you’re telling me that it is inconcevable that Mr. Gannon might lie and not disclose the location of everything that he had. Case law allows the police to look anywhere within a residence (to include the curtilage) where the sought items listed in the warrant application may be located. Anything found as result of the search, but not listed on the original search warrant application, may be seized as evidence depending upon how it was found. For example, if the search warrant was for a gun used in a murder and the police looked in a nightstand drawer and found a kilo of cocaine, the cocaine could be used as evidence against the the owner of the property because it was found in a location where a firearm could be located. Given the same situation except that the item listed in the search warrant was a 50″ plasma TV, the cocaine would be inadmissible as the nightstand drawer would not be a reasonable location to look for the TV.
2-5. The amount of time required to secure and search the house was not unreasonable given the timetable required to obtain a search warrant. Once again, this is supported by case law on the matter. Search warrants are preferred over consent searches in felony cases. This way a person cannot later claim that they only gave consent because they were under duress.
If I were a betting man, I would bet a year’s salary on 2 things:
1. That if the case is dismissed, it won’t be on 4th Amend. grounds
2. That Mr. gannon’s complaint is being investigated and if substantiated, the appropriate NPD employess will be disciplined.
You adamant assertions that the police commited heinous and blatant violations of the 4th Amend prompts me to inquire what law school you claim as your alma mater. I am assuming it is of higher quality than that attended by the judge who reviewed the search warrant application for probable cause and signed the warrant.
3. NPD didn’t post the information – the Nashua Telegraph did. The police are required to release certain documents (per court decisions on the matter) when requested by the media.
4. I didn’t feel it necessary to include the link to the picture I was referring to as it is located at the top of this BLOG. It was taken directly from the Telegraph article.
Det Karlis didn’t swear out a complaint against Mr. Gannon, he merely put together the search warrant application. Bias? How so? Either the evidence is there or it isn’t. Once again I refer you to my original question to Sniper as to whether Det Karlis acted the way he did knowing he was being taped. Doesn’t pass the common sense test. I know you claim that you are not against the police, but you seem to be taking everything that Mr. Gannon is claiming as gospel and implying that everyone involved on the NPD side is lying, is biased, or has alterior motives.
I won’t go into the privacy issue any further. The case law is there. It is clear that everyone in this forum has their own opinion on the matter, and it will be up to the court to make the final ruling on the matter.
[editor: you’re off the main page; so, I’ll let this slide — but, read comment guidelines, pls. Usually, we’d cut a post this long.]
Hello, this is my first posting here.
I am a conservative.
I know that many people, both left and right demonize the other. I have done this and admit my own actions. I was refered here because this thread addresses an abuse of power, by the state, upon a citizen and this forum was addressing that.
Many here seem to think, in how they express, that conservatives are responsible for this, or don’t mind it.
That would be incorrect. We can debate each other on substantive issues and not come to a consensus as to policy.
But, this story was posted on conservative sites also, and not as a good thing. This was shown as abuse by the state upon a citizen, who was wronged by agents of the state, who then tried to intimidate and cover up what they had done.
To me, conservatism is about limited government. I can hear the groan, and imagine the shaking of heads, and someone thinking of how conservatives are responsible for the Patriot Act (never did like the name of that). We, all of us, regardless of our political leanings, must remember the fact that both conservatives and liberals voted for this in staggering numbers.
I want to float an idea, if I may?
I do agree with the idea of more gov’t intrusion, but AND THIS IS CRITICAL, with a check and balance of accountability, and with a guarantee of freedom. What do I mean?
I mean that if we create a system where a gov’t agency can listen to our phone calls or banking records, then the prosecutor, judge, and agent who does this is held to account. Whereby if they find no treason, or terroristic threat the information MUSt, under penalty of law (not letter of reprimand, – PRISON TIME) destroy the information and purge it from the data banks.
Also, any charge or detention (and no, I am not talking about Guantanimo ?sp) must be accountable. PRISON time to any gov’t SERVANT who deprives an innocent of liberty. And if a judge upholds this, or gives immunity to our SERVANTS, they are disbarred, and imprisoned.
In other words, and I may not be expressing myself well, and for that I apologize, if you take my freedom, and it is found I am innocent, or that you blocked me from showing my innocence, then you (gov’t official) will spend the same amount of time in prison as I would have spent.
That’s what is missing. Sure we can have people check to make sure we have no dealings with terroriests, or that we are funding them, but in the case where I am shown to be innocent …. my good name must be protected, and a signed sworn statement must be issued.
Our police and prosecutors DEMAND we abide by the law and obey suppeanas (man, my spelling is terrible, I apologize), but in the same vein, they must be answerable when my freedom is taken. No immunity to prosecution or civil suit is defensible.
I paraphrase: “the right to petition gov’t and to seek redress”
That’s accountability. If an officer deprives me of my freedom, like in this case, wherein a clear conflict of interests is, he or she must be shown how that is applicable to their freedom. They may lose their jobs or pensions? Wow, and so what? I lost my freedom due to my reporting a violation of my rights and of their conduct.
Oh, and it may surprise you to learn. I am soldier serving in Iraq (proudly!), but I want my gov’t to be my SERVANT and to be held accountable. No immunity for gov’t officials, not when they call themselves my servant, but act as my master.
I hope I have added to the discussion.
SGT [whole name withheld] , Steven
Serving Proudly in Iraq.
With sincere hopes we can find common ground
[editor: welcome aboard, Steven. Pls read comment guidelines. Normally, we’d cut a Comment this long. You [and Long Rifle — above] are commenting on a Post off the main page; so, it’s not as big a priority.]
I apologize to the editor, and did not mean any break with your rules. I should have done as you asked (after the fact, lol, but you know what I mean) and will do so in the future.
I was trying to cause meaningful discussion and to add to the dialogue. I hope that this was clear from my post.
Your rules will be obeyed and honored.
Steven — don’t be so polite! 🙂
Think of me as the master sergeant who never took another promotion because he’d miss out on too much fun. Actually, that describes one of my uncles.
Steven, It’s a shame that you are in the military with that poor attitude about the government. Long Rifle has it right. you are just another turd in the bowl of life with no where to go but down. Serious Steven, mind your business and just read the postings.
It is unfortunate, Jack, that you would not accept that the government is not an
instrument of the people it was elected and created by, and that instead would
suggest that the people are an instrument of the government, which in turn
would be entitled to rule as a matter of divine right.
You favour absolutist monarchy, but were born two centuries too late. This is
the age either of democracy or surveillance fascism.
The guy videotaped the police and it’s illegal. what more do you want to say. I dont care if Gannon was coming to complain about the police or not. He sounds like he deserves a punch in the mouth to go along with the felony charge. its always easier to complain about the police and what theyre doing when you get caught with your finger in the cookie jar. Gannon is a poor excuse for a father that should have slapped his son in the mouth years ago. but instead he was busting the chops of the police trying to do their job and arrest his punk son. good thing we are reenforcing the shitty behavior of little Gannon. J. Luis you can take care of Little Gannon and keep him out of trouble seeing as his own father cant. The Gannon’s should not have children because they cant take care of them.
“The guy videotaped the police and it’s illegal. what more do you want to say.”
It wasn’t illegal, and they dropped the charges. What more is there to say….corrupt cops are the one’s that need a punch in the mouth. Who got caught with their finger in the cookie jar? Oh, the NPD.
[editor: pls use tinyurl]
Typical, I expected you to keep my anti Gannon posting out of here.
why did you delete my posting?
[editor: pls read Comment Guidelines]
This is complete nonsense. There ought be no law against recording conversations, with or without consent. This seems to me to be a law for the protection of the corrupt and criminal. Particularly, a government official in official capacity should be able to be recorded at any time. Given the technology out there today, we should really make every police officer wear recording devices all the time, of both audio and video, which cannot be removed or turned off without deliberate effort and being quite evident that they are.
I am shure a majority of the responses on this page are cops. Unless you have been acused you don’t really understand that cops lie because it is more of a business than protecting you anymore. Businesses have cameras but you don’t see me suing tham for invation of my privacy in my credit card numbers or if I am bying rubbers. And did they throw the camera man in jail who taped the rodny king thing.