Many people believe that they have certain rights that should not be infringed upon, but what about the rights not specifically stated? Leah, Josh, and myself had already had debates of the subject that if a right is not denied, then it is reserved to the people. Reading over Slashdot, I came across a story about two individuals arrested for taking photographs (or video recordings) of police activity.
The first man, Micheal Gannon was arrested because his security cameras caught an investigator in New Hampshire trying to abuse his power as an investigator. Their son was under investigation for a mugging at a restaurant, and a charge for possessing a handgun that was stolen in Vermont. The son wasn’t home, but the police had six officers outside his door. Apparently after Mr. Gannon asked the investigator to leave, the investigator continued to assert his authority past the line and into ‘abuse’. At some point during this incident Mr. Gannon did warn the police that there were video cameras on the property.
Now to add further injury, we should look at why the Gannons have these security measures. At one point, someone broke and entered their home, and proceeded to assault Mr. Gannon. Later, an individual broke into their camper that was on their property. The worst thing about this? The police responded with a “maybe you’re too rich for the neighborhood.” Who in Law Enforcement would EVER say something like that? The role of Law Enforcement is not to put the blame of what others did to the Gannons on the Gannons, but to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.
If you happen to be interested in seeing the charges/complaints by the police department there is a PDF (Acrobat Reader Required) with a scan of the charges/complaints/testaments.
Moving on to the second issue involves a Mr. Cruz. Mr. Cruz was at his home when he heard a commotion outside of his home and walked to the back door to see a line of Police vehicles on the street. He opened his phone and took a picture. After a bit, an officer went to his backyard gate and opened it, arresting Mr. Cruz. It is reported the officer said, “You should have just went in the house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures off your picture phone.” Again, what officer would EVER say something like this?
According to NBC10, the police were threatening to charge him with conspiracy, impeding an investigation, and obstruction of an investigation! In this report, there is no statement that he took a picture of the actual arrest, showing the suspect. So why would this be a problem? This issue of course is more outrageous that the first, however these are all an issue.
Why are our police officers asserting their authority to the point where they abuse it? Why do we have to defend ourselves and our rights from the police? Many people know that I intend to get into that field, however, it’s news stories like these that give the honest police officers trouble. There is absolutely no excuse for arresting someone for something reasonable! This is just as bad, if not worse than the F.A.M.A. disaster that is happening right now!
I suggest people research their rights, protect them, and use them.
18 Responses to “Law Enforcement: No Pictures Please”
- 1 Trackback on Jul 25th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
- 2 Trackback on Nov 22nd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
- 3 Trackback on Feb 11th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
- 4 Trackback on Oct 17th, 2008 at 11:16 am
- 5 Trackback on Dec 12th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
- 6 Trackback on Dec 18th, 2008 at 5:18 am
- 7 Trackback on Apr 19th, 2009 at 3:04 am
This story is incredible! Did the police release a statement about why they reacted this way? Either a denial or an apology?
Included in the news reports are pretty much all denials. They explained in regaurds to Mr. Gannon that he was being unco-operative and the fact that he was in fact in violation of New Hampshire Law (Class B Felonies, no less..)
Mr. Cruz’s arrest has no explination beyond the report I found.
Did the police have a search warrant for the Gannon property? I mean, he has every right to resist investigation on his own property if the police don’t have a warrant.
I just find this all very hard to believe.
The police did not have a search warrant at the time of the investigation on the Gannon’s son. However they did order Mrs. Gannon and her Sister-In-Law out of the house for approximately 19 to 20 hours while the police waited on getting a warrant to search and sieze the recording equipment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13774429/ check out this article on how the Nashua PD is down 15 police officers. It’s about how NH needs more policemen in general, but it addresses the Nashua police department mentioned in the police abuse article. It says ” This year, five Nashua officers retired and two officers resigned to take other positions in law enforcement, MacDonald said. Since 2003, there have been 10 resignations and 24 retirements, he said.
Of those who resigned, MacDonald said, several were young officers who left the profession, while others went to other police departments or other state and federal agencies.”
I wouldn’t blame them for leaving if police abuse is really going on in their police department. They claim that that many resignations are rather low, but I think there’s a reason that there aren’t people willing to take their place on the force aside from the relatively low salaries.
Here’s background on philly’s 35th precinct mentioned in the police abuse article also. http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/pol/181122385.html. It’s craiglist rant that talks about how flippant the 35th precinct is about domestic violence.
Of course! If the police that are working before me are giving a bad name, why would I want to put myself in a position where I’d be instantly judged as I put that uniform on, as the same kind of jerks that infringed on Gannon, or Cruz’s rights?
A point of clarification here. Gannon was arrested for the audio recordings, not the video recordings. Cruz was detained, not arrested. The Cruz story is pretty thin, and it looks like the cop lost it. Trust me, he will be held responsible for that mistake.
Gannon is an entirely different matter. Wiretap laws have been around for a long time. Gannon is in a two party state and their wiretap laws don’t really allow for public place or private property exemptions. If the audio really was recorded, it should be a simple matter to see if the cops were advised that recording was going on. I doubt the signs on the walls said video and audio recording in progress. If so, he’s in the clear. If Gannon can be heard telling everyone up front that they are being recorded (audio) then he’s in the clear. If not, then guess what, he’s guilty of his states wiretap laws. Pissing off the cops doesn’t help, and his kid being possibly involved in a crime doesn’t help either.
Did the cops behave badly in these cases? Maybe, but remember, there’s two sides to a story and you don’t hear the prosecution side until trial.
Here’s the real question to ask. Why does law enforcement get a specific exemption to covertly tape public contact, and that priveledge is not extended to the public to tape law enforcement?
As a PI, I am working for and sometimes with law enforcement. That priveledge does not extend to me. What’s up with that?
Scott, I really like that you pointed out this is only one side of the story. I find it hard to believe that these cops just out and out abused their power.
Let us know about some of the injustices of your profession. We’ll either post it or move it into our dicussion forums. I feel the same way you do about people not being allowed to tape law enforcement.
To be honest, there’s a pretty good chance in the Cruz case that the individual cop screwed up and that cop will pay the price. With the information that I have on that case, it just plain stinks. The Gannon case is a bit trickier. The way I read it, Gannon was such a pain in the ass, and such an impediment to the cops getting a hold of his son, that they decided to get him for something too. It may or may not be retaliatory, but Gannon most likely did not properly inform the cops that audio taping was taking place and is therefore in violation. He’s probably be just fine had he helped produce his son.
In any event, us citizens are more than welcome to film the cops-video only. I do it all the time and I’ve even handled fraud cases against law enforcement officers. Heck, I’ve even been caugh filming them and they’ve called the police on me. Did I get harassed you might be wondering? Nope. Now, Leah knows this, but others may not. I’m a good looking guy and well mannered. I don’t make trouble and I don’t get into trouble. I know what I can do and can’t do. (ok, the part about being good looking might be a stretch but I’m trying to make a point). I never have problems with law enforcement and I interact with them, sometimes adversarily, on a regular basis. I have investigator compatriots that ‘look’ like trouble and even have less than neutral attitudes. They get harassed frequently, but I think it’s because they are looking for a fight.
I think what I’m trying to say is that Gannon was looking for a fight and he got one. Unfortunately, it was one of his own making. I’ve read alot about this and believe me, just because you are on your property doesn’t allow you to break the law. You can’t claim it’s a public area just because it’s outside. Wiretap laws are pretty specific.
Injustices in my profession? Right now, PI’s are fighting SB1666, a bill that will prohibit us from using pretext to go after the bad guys. It will prevent us from finding deadbeat dads, serving subpoena’s and fighting fraud. We are locked out of databases that law enforcement and feds get to use, depriving our clients of due process. THOSE are injustices that we deal with. Unfortunately they come from the legislature, not the cops.
Yep, cops like that piss me off. Good article