Full Version: Man arrested for videotaping cops, on his own property!
NOTE: Thread title should be "Man arrested for audiotaping cops, on his own property!"
UnionLeader.com: Michael Gannon, 49, was arrested Tuesday night and charged with two felony counts of violating state wiretap laws for not making the policeaware of the audio recording of police visits on June 23 and 26.
Nashua Telegraph NASHUA – 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.
Update from Nashua Telegraph
After reading the articles... Questions for debate:
1) Does this seem over the top?
2) If a "man's home is his castle", should these sort of wiretap laws not apply to one's own physical property?
UnionLeader.com: Michael Gannon, 49, was arrested Tuesday night and charged with two felony counts of violating state wiretap laws for not making the policeaware of the audio recording of police visits on June 23 and 26.
Nashua Telegraph NASHUA – 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.
Update from Nashua Telegraph
After reading the articles... Questions for debate:
1) Does this seem over the top?
2) If a "man's home is his castle", should these sort of wiretap laws not apply to one's own physical property?
1) Does this seem over the top?
Yes. The key phrase in the law is a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Actually, the law is poorly worded. Instead of specifying that conversations must be in private areas, the law excludes public meetings and gatherings. In other words, it is overly inclusive instead of being justifiably limited.
For example, a Florida teen was charged in 2001 with wiretapping: for taping his high school chemistry lecture!! Florida teen charged with taping class lecture
With such a broad reading of the Florida statutes, you'd think that tape recorders should be illegal.
What other purpose do such recording devices have, other than the taping of conversations, perhaps illegally?
In this case, if there really were signs posted saying: "Warning: homeland security system. Audio and video in use" then there is no expectation of privacy at all.
2) If a "man's home is his castle", should these sort of wiretap laws not apply to one's own physical property?
I won't go that far. You can't record conversations when an expectation of privacy exists. That includes if you are making plans for a crime at your kitchen table. The homeowner can't record those without consent. That makes sense to me, but if you mean recording conversations that occur in public on a man's property with signs saying you are being recorded, then I'd agree with that.
Yes. The key phrase in the law is a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Actually, the law is poorly worded. Instead of specifying that conversations must be in private areas, the law excludes public meetings and gatherings. In other words, it is overly inclusive instead of being justifiably limited.
QUOTE(Florida Code 934.02 )
"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 and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.
For example, a Florida teen was charged in 2001 with wiretapping: for taping his high school chemistry lecture!! Florida teen charged with taping class lecture
With such a broad reading of the Florida statutes, you'd think that tape recorders should be illegal.
QUOTE
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who intentionally:
(a) Sends through the mail or otherwise sends or carries any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the illegal interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications as specifically defined by this chapter; or
(
Manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the illegal interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications as specifically defined by this chapter;
(a) Sends through the mail or otherwise sends or carries any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the illegal interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications as specifically defined by this chapter; or
(
Manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the illegal interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications as specifically defined by this chapter; What other purpose do such recording devices have, other than the taping of conversations, perhaps illegally?
In this case, if there really were signs posted saying: "Warning: homeland security system. Audio and video in use" then there is no expectation of privacy at all.
2) If a "man's home is his castle", should these sort of wiretap laws not apply to one's own physical property?
I won't go that far. You can't record conversations when an expectation of privacy exists. That includes if you are making plans for a crime at your kitchen table. The homeowner can't record those without consent. That makes sense to me, but if you mean recording conversations that occur in public on a man's property with signs saying you are being recorded, then I'd agree with that.
1) Does this seem over the top?
That the gov't can record your conversations without your consent, go through your email without your consent, review your financial records, your medical records, your library books...without your consent, but if you monitor the gov't on your own property or on your own phone it's considered a felony?
Naw, that's not over the top. That's what we call a fascist state, IMHO.
2) If a "man's home is his castle", should these sort of wiretap laws not apply to one's own physical property?
I'm not sure why you can't record a conversation whether you tell someone or not. What is the point in that? Like I said, the gov't can do it so apparently it's OK, no?
If you try to use it in court, it may get thrown out. But if you try to prove that someone is doing something they shouldn't be, how else are you going to "catch them"? Hire the FBI yourself?
My local police don't have the energy to help me with my personal issues with my neighbors or whoever. If I have an irrate neighbor who continually comes to my home and berates me on my porch, why can't I tape that???
It seems pretty insane, if someone can tell me why you have to notify someone they are being taped I'd like to hear it.
That the gov't can record your conversations without your consent, go through your email without your consent, review your financial records, your medical records, your library books...without your consent, but if you monitor the gov't on your own property or on your own phone it's considered a felony?
Naw, that's not over the top. That's what we call a fascist state, IMHO.
2) If a "man's home is his castle", should these sort of wiretap laws not apply to one's own physical property?
I'm not sure why you can't record a conversation whether you tell someone or not. What is the point in that? Like I said, the gov't can do it so apparently it's OK, no?
If you try to use it in court, it may get thrown out. But if you try to prove that someone is doing something they shouldn't be, how else are you going to "catch them"? Hire the FBI yourself?
My local police don't have the energy to help me with my personal issues with my neighbors or whoever. If I have an irrate neighbor who continually comes to my home and berates me on my porch, why can't I tape that???
It seems pretty insane, if someone can tell me why you have to notify someone they are being taped I'd like to hear it.
As stated this is a “state” law so comments about the “government” tapping phones etc. do not apply IMHO. And if you read it the charge was not the tapping but doing so “WITHOUT making the cops aware” it was happening. IMO the law needs to be more specific but that is a state issue.
As far as the home as castle concept this is another issue as well. Some states don’t allow you to shoot someone who is in your house. You have to run away etc. And just try to cut down a tree (on your property) that is in a “wetland” and see what happens…..
As far as the home as castle concept this is another issue as well. Some states don’t allow you to shoot someone who is in your house. You have to run away etc. And just try to cut down a tree (on your property) that is in a “wetland” and see what happens…..
I have to wonder if a police officer working in an official capacity really has any right to expect privacy at all. I'm not talking about undercover work or something like that, but normal police work. Should this not be done out in the open? Is it not vital to a free society that the actions of peace officers (and other government officials) are held to a stricter standard than the actions of ordinary citizens?
Other recent topics here at
have made me an even stronger advocate of severe restraint of police officers than I was before. We seem to be losing some ground on this vital issue.
This does not mean that you always have the right to record every conversation with anybody in your home. I don't think you should be allowed to record a private conversation with a guest invited into your home for a social occasion without some kind of warning or consent. However, goverment officials acting in their official capacity are not guests, and their conversation with you should not be held private without your consent.
Other recent topics here at
have made me an even stronger advocate of severe restraint of police officers than I was before. We seem to be losing some ground on this vital issue.This does not mean that you always have the right to record every conversation with anybody in your home. I don't think you should be allowed to record a private conversation with a guest invited into your home for a social occasion without some kind of warning or consent. However, goverment officials acting in their official capacity are not guests, and their conversation with you should not be held private without your consent.
If the man had made the police aware of the videotaping at the time, what was there to stop them from seizing it? It seems to me this man was in a no-win situation. We have given the police so much power in some cases that we have forfeited our own. The police, except under extraordinary circumstances, are subject to the same laws we are. They're not supposed to be tin horn dictators.
2) If a "man's home is his castle", should these sort of wiretap laws not apply to one's own physical property?
It should apply, however you should be able to own as much wiretapping devices as you like. I think that you should be required to inform everyone that enters your property that you infact have these devices, and if they feel uncomfortable, either move away from the property to talk, or just not talk all together. But for the Police, you definately need to tell them that audio recording is taking place, and they will tell you to either turn it off or its not a problem, but not informing them is not a good thing, and will likely only lead to trouble.
It should apply, however you should be able to own as much wiretapping devices as you like. I think that you should be required to inform everyone that enters your property that you infact have these devices, and if they feel uncomfortable, either move away from the property to talk, or just not talk all together. But for the Police, you definately need to tell them that audio recording is taking place, and they will tell you to either turn it off or its not a problem, but not informing them is not a good thing, and will likely only lead to trouble.
1) Does this seem over the top?
in a perfect world yes anyone and everyone should be notified. But not being a perfect world the police and any official of power should be on call that anything and everything they do can be recorded. At work I think in most states we are on call that our boss can listen into our phone and view all our emails. So why should these employees of ours not be on the same notification.
As we know police corruption is alive and well. Having officers on notice when you least expect it surprise is a great tool to stop abuse, after all their word is accepted over the other persons as a matter of fact. Look at the King incident. I may be missing their side but see no downside to legally being able to tape any police officer. They do not have to take the job.
in a perfect world yes anyone and everyone should be notified. But not being a perfect world the police and any official of power should be on call that anything and everything they do can be recorded. At work I think in most states we are on call that our boss can listen into our phone and view all our emails. So why should these employees of ours not be on the same notification.
As we know police corruption is alive and well. Having officers on notice when you least expect it surprise is a great tool to stop abuse, after all their word is accepted over the other persons as a matter of fact. Look at the King incident. I may be missing their side but see no downside to legally being able to tape any police officer. They do not have to take the job.
Florida law has no bearing on this case, since it occurred in New Hampshire. The police have dropped the charges since they know this case is not winnable in court. The state has no inherent right to privacy, therefore the premise of wiretapping is false. Since when can a police officer expect to have a private conversation with anyone? 
Vindication: Police drop wiretap charges
By ANDREW WOLFE, Telegraph Staff
Published: Saturday, Aug. 5, 2006
NASHUA – Police won't prosecute a man for using his home security system to record detectives on his front porch, Nashua Police Chief Timothy Hefferan announced Friday.
Michael Gannon was arrested June 27 after he made the videotape to record conversations among detectives who were at his door looking for his 15-year-old son, who was being investigated in connection with a mugging downtown. When Gannon brought the videotape to a police station to complain that a detective was rude to him, he was arrested on felony wiretapping charges.
<snip>
In addition to dropping the case against him, Nashua police also have concluded that Gannon's complaint about the detective was justified, although the chief added that Gannon himself was "provocative" and "disrespectful." The chief declined to say what discipline the detective might face.
Hefferan also commended detectives for their "tenacity and initiative" in investigating Gannon's 15-year-old son, who was later charged in connection with the mugging. Police also found a stolen handgun inside the house, they reported, but it's not clear who had possession of it, Hefferan said.
<snip>
"Glad to hear some good news finally," he said. "I've been worried, a little scared, because they said they were going to hold 21 years over my head."
After the case became public, the chief had said he would ask a prosecutor, First Assistant County Attorney Roger Chadwick, to review the case against Gannon.
<snip>
Edited to remove fully-cited article in accordance with forum Rules. - Jaime
QUOTE
Vindication: Police drop wiretap charges
By ANDREW WOLFE, Telegraph Staff
Published: Saturday, Aug. 5, 2006
NASHUA – Police won't prosecute a man for using his home security system to record detectives on his front porch, Nashua Police Chief Timothy Hefferan announced Friday.
Michael Gannon was arrested June 27 after he made the videotape to record conversations among detectives who were at his door looking for his 15-year-old son, who was being investigated in connection with a mugging downtown. When Gannon brought the videotape to a police station to complain that a detective was rude to him, he was arrested on felony wiretapping charges.
<snip>
In addition to dropping the case against him, Nashua police also have concluded that Gannon's complaint about the detective was justified, although the chief added that Gannon himself was "provocative" and "disrespectful." The chief declined to say what discipline the detective might face.
Hefferan also commended detectives for their "tenacity and initiative" in investigating Gannon's 15-year-old son, who was later charged in connection with the mugging. Police also found a stolen handgun inside the house, they reported, but it's not clear who had possession of it, Hefferan said.
<snip>
"Glad to hear some good news finally," he said. "I've been worried, a little scared, because they said they were going to hold 21 years over my head."
After the case became public, the chief had said he would ask a prosecutor, First Assistant County Attorney Roger Chadwick, to review the case against Gannon.
<snip>
Edited to remove fully-cited article in accordance with forum Rules. - Jaime
QUOTE(Typhon08 @ Jul 26 2006, 05:04 AM) 
It should apply, however you should be able to own as much wiretapping devices as you like. I think that you should be required to inform everyone that enters your property that you infact have these devices, and if they feel uncomfortable, either move away from the property to talk, or just not talk all together. But for the Police, you definately need to tell them that audio recording is taking place, and they will tell you to either turn it off or its not a problem, but not informing them is not a good thing, and will likely only lead to trouble.
Of course the police are going to tell you to turn it off, and if they do, you have to or you're going to jail. As Victoria pointed out, there's no way for you to have any evidence of any wrongdoing by the police if this law were enforcable, which thankfully it's not. (See above post.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the obvious extension of this law is that if I videotape the police beating someone up in my own home, I could be arrested under this law if I didn't inform the officers upon entering that I have video surveilance installed.
The police, while acting as a representative of the Public's interest, should be under the expectation that every action they take needs to be justifiable under any level of scrutiny. If what they're doing is not right, they shouldn't be doing it. They work for the public, and need to be held accountable for their actions by the public.
Obviously, whether or not the recording could be admissable in court is a completely seperate issue, but it will be enough to demonstrate to the officer's superiors and community any wrongdoing.
I disagree that you must inform anyone about your home security system. The police have no more right to know than anyone else. You may disagree out of fear, but you tell me what the legal requirement is. No one is in physical danger by being exposed to a video camera. If the police can have cameras at public street intersections, then you certainly have a right to have a camera on your private property.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.