# Father arrested on charges of illegally videotaping poli



## DANIPD (Jun 30, 2003)

Father arrested on charges of NASHUA, N.H. (AP) - He went to Nashua police to complain about a detective, but ended up getting arrested on illegal videotaping charges.

Police charged Michael Gannon, 49, with two felony counts of breaking the state eavesdropping and wiretap law after he brought in a tape Tuesday showing him talking with police.

Gannon said the tape came from a home security camera and showed officers being discourteous during an interview about his 15-year-old son, who is a robbery suspect. Authorities said Gannon broke the law because he taped the officers without their consent.

Gannon's wife, Janet, says the family installed the surveillance system to protect against burglaries, and post warnings about it on their property.

But Nashua Police Sgt. Jeff Maher says the recording is a crime, even though the cameras are not hidden and officers were on the Gannons' property at the time.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

Somehow that doesn't seem right. If it's on my property and there are signs posted, you should be able to record what you want. 
What about DD's? They have video cameras, cops go in there...is it illegal for them to record the polices image without consent?
They better pull their head outta their ass otherwise they end up being MA sooner more than later.
NH Live free or die....


----------



## MAScrew10 (May 16, 2006)

A friend of mine once told me if he stops a person. He has to tell them they are being recorded. If they tell him they do not want to be recorded he has to turn it off.:fire:


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

I believe it has more to do with the audio portion of the tape, and consent...I highly doubt most business establishments actually record audio with their video.


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

In Mass.

In a nutshell, secretly hear or secretly record (audio) Felony

Completely legal for officer safety. As in the case of an undercover officer wearing a body wire.


----------



## PBC FL Cop (Oct 22, 2003)

Audio is the problem, not the video, as would normally be the case of a DD.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

You guys better start looking into most of the places that record (like the new DD's/service stations) becuase you are going to be in for a BIG surprise. All the new CCTV systems and the small camera CCTV's are set up for audio record. ALl of those web cam security systems (which are now so popular) are video and audio. Really I'm not kidding. 
What about people that use video cameras? hand helds? Is that illegal audio recording if they record something? I just think it's a bit stupid...if there are signs up, and you come onto my property...you are consenting...simple. Don't like it or don't come onto the property or say something when you do.


----------



## jasonbr (Feb 9, 2006)

I believe the law states it's unlawful to record someone withought their knowledge - not consent. Basically if i say that i'm recording you and you don't want me to - then don't say anything- or at least watch what you say because you've been fore warned! Anyways, seems like if the guy has signs up he should be in the clear - but then again it would seem like the PD should know that if i am indeed correct.......


----------



## Air Force Cop (Jan 5, 2003)

I know that Mary Lou's coffee have the new little cameras that have audio/video. No signs that I have seen, but the girls have to sign a form because of them. Is that a violation? I wouldnt have known about them unless the girls told me.


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

MGL 272-99

Offenses. 1. Interception, oral communications prohibited. 

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section any person who— 

willfully commits an interception, attempts to commit an interception, or procures any other person to commit an interception or to attempt to commit an interception of any wire or oral communication shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned in the state prison for not more than five years, or imprisoned in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or both so fined and given one such imprisonment. 

Proof of the installation of any intercepting device by any person under circumstances evincing an intent to commit an interception, which is not authorized or permitted by this section, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this subparagraph.


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

bbelichick said:


> MGL 272-99
> 
> Offenses. 1. Interception, oral communications prohibited.
> 
> ...


This also applies to the "geniuses" that try to record a traffic stop on their swanky new Cellphone's memo features.


----------



## jasonbr (Feb 9, 2006)

Score one for me!!!!

"4. The term "interception" means to *secretly *hear, *secretly *record, or aid another to *secretly *hear or *secretly *record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication; provided that it shall not constitute an interception for an investigative or law enforcement officer, as defined in this section, to record or transmit a wire or oral communication if the officer is a party to such communication or has been given prior authorization to record or transmit the communication by such a party and if recorded or transmitted in the course of an investigation of a designated offense as defined herein."


----------



## jasonbr (Feb 9, 2006)

:bnana::bnana::bnana:


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

Nice find

:BNANA: :BNANA: :BNANA:


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

All dunkin' donuts that have the color screens and the camera at the drive though record audio and video.

If you walk into a DD's look up and see if there is a color screen system with like four split windows, if one of them is facing the drive though that system records everything.
I know somebody who used to install those systems...and all are video and audio.



Air Force Cop said:


> I know that Mary Lou's coffee have the new little cameras that have audio/video. No signs that I have seen, but the girls have to sign a form because of them. Is that a violation? I wouldnt have known about them unless the girls told me.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2006)

This is an interesting case. My gut reaction is the guy can tape on his own property especially if he posts it.

This is very interesting. Are all of those abusive nanny's that are caught on tape w/sound victims?

Check out the video on www.conte2006.com .

This is a Mass case where MSP CPAC are captured on video with sound in what appears to be an illegal search.

I would think in a public place you can video/audio tape what ever you want. That there is no expectation of privacy.

Again, it seems to me that a private property owner could set up a camera to catch thieves etc...

Any real lawyers in here that could way in?


----------



## LA Copper (Feb 11, 2005)

I'm amazed at the difference between east and west coast.. We can audio tape ANY traffic or ped stop at anytime, regardless if the other person knows about it or not or if they give consent or not. Plus, we don't have to tell them they're being recorded. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when dealing with the police (a public official).

Many of our officers carry pocket tape recorders, in fact, we even encourage it. They have been very helpful when adjudicating personnel complaints when the suspect alleges that the officer called him names, etc... They've also captured spontaneous incriminating statements on tape.


----------



## quality617 (Oct 14, 2003)

LA Copper said:


> I'm amazed at the difference between east and west coast.. We can audio tape ANY traffic or ped stop at anytime, regardless if the other person knows about it or not or if they give consent or not. Plus, we don't have to tell them they're being recorded. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when dealing with the police (a public official).


I wish it were that way here. I always carry a digital recorder in my pocket, and I always tell people they are being recorded. Amazing what it does for their demeanor.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

police are exempt from the law, it's the fact that a civilian recorded the police that is at issue.
If it were the police doing the recording, this would be a non issue.



LA Copper said:


> I'm amazed at the difference between east and west coast.. We can audio tape ANY traffic or ped stop at anytime, regardless if the other person knows about it or not or if they give consent or not. Plus, we don't have to tell them they're being recorded. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when dealing with the police (a public official).
> 
> Many of our officers carry pocket tape recorders, in fact, we even encourage it. They have been very helpful when adjudicating personnel complaints when the suspect alleges that the officer called him names, etc... They've also captured spontaneous incriminating statements on tape.


----------



## LA Copper (Feb 11, 2005)

SOT_II said:


> police are exempt from the law, it's the fact that a civilian recorded the police that is at issue.
> If it were the police doing the recording, this would be a non issue.


Don't you have to tell them that they're being recorded? Like when someone calls 911 and the operator says something like: "911, this line is recorded." We don't have to tell them out this way..


----------



## O-302 (Jan 1, 2006)

LA Copper said:


> Don't you have to tell them that they're being recorded? Like when someone calls 911 and the operator says something like: "911, this line is recorded." We don't have to tell them out this way..


The short answer is yes. Generally you need one party consent or an "intercept" warrant to intercept oral or wire communications. The Police are not exempt from the statute. The only exceptions to the warrant requirement for Massachusetts law enforcement officers are for the purpose of ensuring the safety of an undercover officer, or if the officer is a party to the communication and the investigation involves a "designated" offense involving organized crime.


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

spd1997 said:


> This is an interesting case. My gut reaction is the guy can tape on his own property especially if he posts it.
> 
> This is very interesting. Are all of those abusive nanny's that are caught on tape w/sound victims?
> 
> ...


I'm not a lawyer but the only way you can record me via audio is:

1. With a Warrant
2. With my Consent.
3. You're under cover and it is for officer safety.

Like a few people have already said, it has to do with secretly hearing or secretly recording audio. If you post your property that you are recording audio and video then it is no longer secret. is it?

the proof is up to you to prove that I saw your sign. because I never did.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

Ao how does it work for the show COPS? or for the dash cams? Most of those have audio and there's no consent given prior to taping. It's the act itself that is "illegal" without consent so wouldn't you need that concent PRIOR to recording?


----------



## O-302 (Jan 1, 2006)

Believe it or not, COPS has everyone sign a release, whether it's before they enter a place, for instance a call to a residence, or after an incident that they film spontaneously...apparently they have a large percentage of compliance.


----------



## jasonbr (Feb 9, 2006)

I forget where i read it but i read that COPS can air anything that happens in public. It made sense to me because there can't be an expectation of privacy in a public place.... Maybe i'll remember where i heard that a post a follow up...


----------



## LA Copper (Feb 11, 2005)

O-302 said:


> Believe it or not, COPS has everyone sign a release, whether it's before they enter a place, for instance a call to a residence, or after an incident that they film spontaneously...apparently they have a large percentage of compliance.


Regarding COPS, they rode with me for about a month back in 1993. Unless it's changed since then, the release that people sign is only to allow their face on TV. The folks that don't or won't sign, you'll see them with the blurry thing on their face.

But you're right, I was amazed by the large amount of people who actually signed the release, although they don't have the release signed before they enter an establishment, they just do the taping and get the releases later.


----------

