• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Man charged after videotaping police

Status
Not open for further replies.

STiMULi

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
1,581
Location
Tucson, Arizona
Last edited:

crashcrew

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
593
Location
The Isle of Lucy
Karlis went to the Gannons’ home at about 11:30 p.m. Friday night and again at about 7 p.m. Tuesday, police reported. Karlis was investigating the Gannons’ 15-year-old son in connection with a June 21 mugging outside Margaritas restaurant, for which two other teens already have been charged, according to police reports. The boy also is charged with possessing a handgun stolen three years ago in Vermont, and resisting detention, police said.

The boy wasn’t home when Karlis went there, and the Gannons were “uncooperative” regarding his whereabouts, police reported.

The Gannons felt police were harassing the family, Janet Gannon said.

“There were six cops in my yard,” the first time police came, she said. “My husband was very upset. How many cops does it take to talk to a 15-year-old?"


.....you mean a potentially armed suspected mugger? As many as it takes
Sounds like a really nice family. I think we need more of this http://thekidfrombrooklyn.com/video_disp.asp?videoid=1067
 
Last edited:

STiMULi

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
1,581
Location
Tucson, Arizona
Still you should be able to video anything you want on your property so long as it's intent is that of security.

It is just being used an an intimidation technique.

They do sound like such a sweet neighborly family but they do have rights and one of those is to refuse access to anyone they want without a warrant.
 

Al42

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
3,485
Location
Long Island, NY, USA
Nasuah Telegraph said:
Another time, after someone broke into a camper on their property, Janet Gannon said an officer suggested they were “too rich” for the neighborhood, and should move.
I suggest that this particular officer seek a different line of work - one in which he isn't allowed out without a leash.

The security cameras record sound and audio directly to a videocassette recorder inside the house, and the Gannons posted warnings about the system
So the officer knew he was going to be taped, and he didn't ask that the recorder be turned off - that's tacit consent in any sane court.

state law said:
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.
1) You can't have any expectation of privacy on a public street. (SCOTUS.)
2) You certainly can't have any expectation of privacy where there are warnings posted that you're on camera. If any reasonable person could have seen the warnings (SCOTUS again - reasonable person) the officer has no legal grounds on which to claim that he didn't know.

Nasuah Telegraph said:
“He was just very smart-mouthed. He put his foot in the door, and my husband said, ‘Excuse me, I did not invite you in, please leave,’ and he wouldn’t,” Janet Gannon said. “We did not invite him in, we asked him to leave, and he wouldn’t.”

After the police arrested the Gannons’ sons, Janet Gannon said, they “secured” the house, and told her and her sister-in-law they had to stay out of it from around 8:45 p.m. Tuesday until about 4 a.m. Wednesday.

Police said they were waiting to get a warrant to search the house, Janet Gannon said.

“They were waiting for a warrant to seize the cameras and the tapes in my house . . . because they said having these cameras was against the law. They’re security cameras,” she said, adding, “They said they could do that. They could seize my apartment.”
I know this has been in court - I'm not sure whether it's been in the SCOTUS. But siezing a property to wait for a warrant is legally searching without a warrant, and taints any evidence found in any court in which it's precedential. I can't recall it ever being found to be justified.

I'll have to remember to stay out of New Hampshire - I might hear someone say something and he might expect that he won't be overheard. (I don't think you could have gotten arrested for that in the old Soviet Union - even while Old Joe was still alive.)

mkewman said:
what is happening to this country???
You mean the banana republic that used to be the United States? Some people are taking their example from the White House - do what you want, then claim that it's legal.
 

crashcrew

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
593
Location
The Isle of Lucy
The problem is we care so much about the rights of scumbags. Maybe if they would have just told them where their POS son was all would have been OK, instead of wanting to file complaints because the police were "harassing" them. I didn't realize doing your job is harassment, but I guess it is in our "modern" society. That's why I try to do as little as possible at work. What's the point? No matter what I do it's going to be wrong. Back in the day if the cops came to my house and said to my father "we're looking for your son, he was involved in an armed robbery" my father would have said "he did what? OK I'll turn him over to you after I'm done beating his balls off." BTW if it were your wife or daughter who was robbed at gunpoint I'll bet you wouldn't give a flying F about the perps rights...you'd want the cops to do whatever it takes to get them. But that's typical of our FACCE DOS society we now live in.


OK. let the bashing begin, I'm sure it's coming.....
 
Last edited:

tspainiv

Shelby Co DB Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
656
Location
Collierville, TN
crashcrew said:
.......Back in the day if the cops came to my house and said to my father "we're looking for your son, he was involved in an armed robbery" my father would have said "he did what? OK I'll turn him over to you after I'm done beating his balls off".
Amen to that!! My Dad would have been the one going to jail, I'd be going to the hospital!!!!
 

scannerfreak

Moderator
Database Admin
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
5,185
Location
Indiana
Al42 said:
You mean the banana republic that used to be the United States? Some people are taking their example from the White House - do what you want, then claim that it's legal.

:lol: Ya, just issue a "signing statement" and you can do what ever you want to :)
 

STiMULi

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
1,581
Location
Tucson, Arizona
This is the law they arrested him on:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm

I can't see where he did anything illegal.

Like I always say... forget the people or the incident. Stick with the law and remember whatever comes out of this, if it makes it through the court system, becomes legal presadent. Forget the scumbags and the AHOLE father. Does this meet the legal requirement for illegal wiretap?

If it does then so does (almost - depending on the audio portion) every other security camera in that juridiction.
 

Mozilla

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2001
Messages
362
Location
South Florida
Surveillance video

Though there is a lack of complete information, based on the articles and the statute. Here is the basic issue. There does not seem to be a problem with having the surveillance system. The problem is their system incorporates audio into it. The audio portion is where the problem lies. We need to see the signs that are posted in reference to this, but there is a chance that it may not say anything about audio. Also looking at the provided photo on how close he is to a street, having equipment that records audio from off a public sidewalk and a public street by a private individual in this scenario is an issue.
Most surveillance systems in large stores or chains and some samller ones do not record audio. However many gas stations and convinience stores do. I have helped on several thousand videos fom these places and have gone to some, and seen no signs at all, signs that say under surveillance, but not what type. Yet I have been to courthouses that record the court rooms , and they will have signs saying . "Courtroom audio is monitored or recorded. Please be aware and act accordingly."
The issue will have to be resolved as to what was said about the system between the officers and the owner, and what the signs said, etc.
The next time you walk in area that has video surveillance, ask yourself, while you know the cameras are there, do you expect a store to be able to listen to theconversation you are having on the sidewalk or street ?
 

myhdsport

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
45
in the act

So how would this man be treated if he had "accidentally" or "incidentally" caught an armed robbery on tape? Oh wait a second, isn't that what...., my bad, PERPS, COPS, the terminology is confusing, I sure hope the video is in color, so as to not confuse the "black and white!" Maybe it can be converted to a teaching video at the academy, that is IF it is in color!!

Dude burned his A** and got it on tape. BLAM!! Then... goes to jail, while the PERP/COP goes free!!

Immediately upon request, the COP should have stepped outside the man's property boundary and used the common sense God gave most to shut his mouth, hence the signs. and waited to see if he could still legally confront the man after he was instructed to leave!
Black and white translation: A SEARCH WARRANT! He clearly invoked his right to privacy and to protect his family, long before the PERP, I mean COP arrived, HENCE THE SIGNS!
 

STiMULi

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
1,581
Location
Tucson, Arizona
myhdsport said:
So how would this man be treated if he had "accidentally" or "incidentally" caught an armed robbery on tape? Oh wait a second, isn't that what...., my bad, PERPS, COPS, the terminology is confusing, I sure hope the video is in color, so as to not confuse the "black and white!" Maybe it can be converted to a teaching video at the academy, that is IF it is in color!!

Dude burned his A** and got it on tape. BLAM!! Then... goes to jail, while the PERP/COP goes free!!

Immediately upon request, the COP should have stepped outside the man's property boundary and used the common sense God gave most to shut his mouth, hence the signs. and waited to see if he could still legally confront the man after he was instructed to leave!
Black and white translation: A SEARCH WARRANT! He clearly invoked his right to privacy and to protect his family, long before the PERP, I mean COP arrived, HENCE THE SIGNS!
Well put!

The sound of a body slam! :)

These cops used their power to contol a situation tha could make a fellow cop look bad. I see a civil rights issue and a settlement out of court so someone can keep thier job (maybe).
 

DaveNF2G

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
Messages
9,276
Location
Rensselaer, NY
The news media nearly always approach stories with the attitude that the government is always wrong. Does anyone have an accurate and complete source of information on this case? I'd bet that some aspects of this situation are quite different from what is being reported.
 

n4voxgill

Silent Key
Joined
Dec 15, 2000
Messages
2,579
Location
New Braunfels, TX
even if you take the wife's comments at face value, she said that it wasn't until the second visit that her husband told the policeman about the system. So the first visit is certainly a violation when they took the tape to a third party, when they took it to the police station.
 

Al42

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
3,485
Location
Long Island, NY, USA
DaveNF2G said:
The news media nearly always approach stories with the attitude that the government is always wrong. Does anyone have an accurate and complete source of information on this case? I'd bet that some aspects of this situation are quite different from what is being reported.
Read the law in that state, Dave. It has nothing to do with media presentation, and it's just plain bad law. It's also just plain bad policing.
 

myhdsport

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
45
privacy in public

First I would like it noted that I would have never posted if I'd read the synopsis first. The guy actually took the tape into the police department in exchange for some pretty shiny bracelets, what an idiot! An attorney, the internet, uh..., hello, how could a person..., well without first reseaching the the angles THOROUGHLY??!!

The OFFICER'S (pardon the prior post of rant) right to a private conversation on this man's porch, no, he's in public view. He can assume or expect it's private, but I think it's on his shoulders to ensure his own privacy if so needed considering his sworn duty. In KY we must pour beer in a cup to drink it in our own front yard if visible from a public street, making most front porches "public". The way I interpret that state law as it reads from the link in this thread(in my opinion) means the following: a conversation can not be recorded without prior consent/knowledge(?) and can not be shared with anyone and it absolutely can't be used as evidence in its audio/video format.

I don't know, maybe paraphrase your own synopsis, and turn that in to the police WITH AN ATTORNEY!

I don't believe that the actual recording of the incident will even be an issue. It's kind of like it's not really a crime as long as you don't get caught. Well, unless you walk into a police department and hand over the murder weapon, I mean tape.

harleyGal,
-michelle
 

cellblock776

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2002
Messages
843
Location
St Gabriel, Louisiana
Anyone walking up to my place is going to be on video from the time they pull into the driveway. Security cameras are everywhere. Many of the Shack Photos posted here at RR have camera systems similar to the one the guy in the article was using. I find it incredable that any LEO would say that such systems are illegal. I hope these bullies in blue learn an important lesson.
 

STiMULi

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
1,581
Location
Tucson, Arizona
DaveNF2G said:
Now where did you get the idea from my posting that I would expect something like media.nasuatelegraph.com to be "an accurate and complete source of information" that might tell us something different from "what is being reported"?

:roll:

If you want more than that you will have to sit your

M.A. Criminal Justice / ACJS / CJEANYS / ISI / NACADA
Adjunct Instructor of Sociology & Criminal Justice, HVCC, Troy, NY
Butt in the court room.

If you bothered to read the header that was frickin police report.

I suggest you make some phone calls and develop your own "accurate and complete source of information" since that won't do.


Best of luck
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top