It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Weare police charge man for recording traffic stop

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Weare police charge man for recording traffic stop


un ionleader.com

WEARE – For the second time in less than a year, Weare police have charged someone with felony wiretapping for recording police activity.

William Alleman, 51, of 140 Helen Dearborn Road, was charged Tuesday with interception of oral communication prohibited, which is the state's felony wiretapping law RSA 570-A
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Sigh...The subject that just won't seem to go away.

For PETE'S SAKE, would someone PLEASE, once and for all, issue a nationwide statement to law enforcement personel and departments that it is NOT illegal to film or record PUBLIC SERVANTS doing their duties and interacting with the public, as long as the person recording is not INTERFERING with said duties?!?

Why does this seem to be so confusing? Why do people keep getting harrassed, arrested, and have their recording devices confiscated? This nonsense needs to stop!

un ionleader.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
It keeps happening because the LE departments involved have no intention of going through with the charges. They just want to confiscate the recording device. If something 'happens' to erase the recording while in their possession then that is OK too.
edit on 26-2-2011 by GTORick because: Typo



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


DD, you really have it in for the cops don't ya :-P .

But in my old home State, it was illegal to video-record a cop WITH sound, unless he is given consent. Also, in Pennsylvania there are VERY strict wire tapping, communication interception laws. Even under the most liberal rules, you are required to advise all non-consenting parties that you are going to tape them.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by RustyShakleford92
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


DD, you really have it in for the cops don't ya :-P .

But in my old home State, it was illegal to video-record a cop WITH sound, unless he is given consent. Also, in Pennsylvania there are VERY strict wire tapping, communication interception laws. Even under the most liberal rules, you are required to advise all non-consenting parties that you are going to tape them.



Not in public places. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think the so-called Supreme Court ruled that there is no expectation of privavcy when in a public place, hence the video cameras recording our every move these days.

Why should police expect privacy when we can not? This is just one more situation that makes cops think they are above the law and better than us.

I told my wife yesterday that I'm ready for another tattoo. I'm thinking of taking a picture of me flipping a bird, then have that tattooed on my butt cheek with "F**k the Government" written in for good measure.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by RustyShakleford92
 


I'm not sure how relevant this is but I'll add something pertaining to UK specifics and recording telephone calls - may as well throw it in here.

I had a nokia running symbian OS and I found an app that allowed me to record phone calls (without the little beep alerting the other party!), at the time I was being pestered by aggressive debt collectors that were mistaken, they wanted about £400 for a £60 parking charge that was issued in error (for some reason they thought my motorcycle was a blue car?)

Any way I read about the specifics of recording phone calls, simply put it is fine for an individual to record the calls without informing the other party (although informing the other party is considered polite it is not a legal requirement) - this really is more for reference purposes, the law gets more complicated with what you actually do with the recording, for instance using that recording for blackmail or intimidation etc are big no no's, using that recording as evidence can be OK, and that does get done, but your in difficult territory, and a court case that hinges on that recording could collapse very easily as that 'evidence' is fairly likely to be errm, rejected? if that's the right phrase... But recording for reference is just fine - in my particular case I simply informed the debt collectors I was within my rights to record any calls from them and that simple fact took the wind out of their sails - I could have taken things further and complained that they were using very unfair intimidation tactics, but in all honesty I won out and those vultures moved onto another victim.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Police officer shootings are up also for this year,
I think they are trying to keep control
and make examples out of a few people.

I do not see why you need to record a traffic stop.

I could see why you would record a cop beating someone or craze unlawful behavior..

Where does the line cross where you get arrested?



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hillynilly
 


You need to record a traffic stop because what if the cop decides that he wants something you have? Cops rob people all the time. Cops pull women over for BS reasons and demand "favors" of them. Police pull people over and just because someone has long hair, the cop decides that is probable cause to harrass them. There are a multitude of reasons why a person would record a traffic stop- and every one of them has to do with the fact that cops are corrupt and we need to let them know that they are being watched and we are sick and tired of being abused.

Just watch a cop sit on a witness stand and lie through his teeth. Then you will understand why literally every action by law enforcement should be recorded. They are far worse criminals than even the most vile drug lords. Why? Becasue a drug lord admits what he is, while a cop lies to your face and says he is there to protect you, while plotting your demise behind your back.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Yet, the cops can violate the same law and record you... go figure! I have a digital camera hooked up to the visor of my vehicle and connected to a laptop. When a cop approaches my vehicle and asks for license, registration and proof of insurance. I hand it to him and state, "For my safety and as potential for admission of evidence, this traffic stop is being recorded." Usually, they shrug and carry on with the stop, however, devoid the usual bullying. Once I was told I would be arrested if I did not turn off the recording device. I invited him to arrest me and asked him to cite the statute I was violating under which I would be arrested. To which he called his sergeant out to the stop who told me the same, in which I responded with same. They indicated that they were going to confiscate my equipment to which I responded that they would be hit with an illegal search and seizure lawsuit. I was sent on my way with a "Warning."



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
You got to admit, it is pretty difficult to fight against a system that can frame you in a heartbeat. No, I am not saying all cops are bad. I am one who believe most cops want to help people. However, there are bad cops. IMO, a cop who has nothing to hide would have no problem with being taped as long it doesn't interfere with his/her duty.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Its the same old case of the watchers being watched, they don't like it. TPTB much prefer to be allowed to act with impunity and anonymity ,that allows them to avoid being held accountable, which in my humble opinionm seems to be the root of many of the issues we face as a species.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
I have a digital camera hooked up to the visor of my vehicle and connected to a laptop.


There was an interesting device I saw on telly once, it was 2 digital cameras that pointed forward and behind so that it could record out of the windscreen and the rear window, it was for accidents and insurance claims, it continuously recorded something like 5 minutes of footage and then re recorded over that all day every day, but if it detected an impact it stored that 5 mins of footage - nice cheap and simple, wonder how that would work with american cops and traffic stops? It also had a button that would save the footage.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonTattooz
Not in public places. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think the so-called Supreme Court ruled that there is no expectation of privavcy when in a public place, hence the video cameras recording our every move these days.

Why should police expect privacy when we can not? This is just one more situation that makes cops think they are above the law and better than us.

I told my wife yesterday that I'm ready for another tattoo. I'm thinking of taking a picture of me flipping a bird, then have that tattooed on my butt cheek with "F**k the Government" written in for good measure.


If this is true, and I think you're right (how many times have I heard the DA on "Law And Order" say something to the effect of "He was in a public place, how can he have an expectation of privacy?"), then when confronted by a LEO who wants to arrest you for recording why isn't it enough to remind them of this? If this is an actual Supreme Court ruling, then they obviously have no legal basis whatsoever to detain, arrest or confiscate. Why is this still going on, and what can the average person do to counter these illegal activities by LEO's when they occur, before being illegally hauled off and subsequently railroaded?
edit on 2/26/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: quote, and "being illegally hauled off and subsequently railroaded"



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


Expectation of privacy in a public place.

I think that in most municipalities police do not have an expectation of privacy when performing, say, a traffic stop. However, there are a couple of recent threads here at ATS that indicate some local governments are making it illegal to record police. This is extremely disturbing to me for reasons that were already stated above. I sincerely believe that it is giving police tacit approval to abuse people- "Hey, go ahead and harrass them, we got yer back. wink wink"



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonTattooz
 


I agree. It's obviously illegal but continues to happen. What's to be done about it in general, and what immediate recourse does an individual have against LEO's when said LEO's attempt to detain, arrest or confiscate? And aren't these new local laws that are popping up everywhere completely unconstitutional? Does each municipality have to be taken to court individually, or can the U.S. Justice Department intervene?

edit: Or perhaps the Feds want these illegal laws on the books to begin with? This seems probable, with all the other illegal and unconstitutional things going on. Just a small part of the play-book?

edit on 2/26/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: clarification



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


In my personal experience there is not much that an average person can do. If you try to go up against them without considerable resources, they will just make up some BS charge against you, charge you with it, convict you of it, and send you to prison.

Someday, when I can afford it, I am going to try to take out a full page ad in the Richmond Times Dispatch and name the prosecutor, judge and police who did what they did to me. Lay out the case and accuse them of the crimes they committed. Then, challenge them to sue me for libel. They would not let the facts of my case come out because the judge is absolutely corrupt. But, if they were to try to sue me for libel, the facts would have to be admitted for that case.

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


it may seem that you americans really lost your freedom in your country...





posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonTattooz
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


In my personal experience there is not much that an average person can do. If you try to go up against them without considerable resources, they will just make up some BS charge against you, charge you with it, convict you of it, and send you to prison.

Someday, when I can afford it, I am going to try to take out a full page ad in the Richmond Times Dispatch and name the prosecutor, judge and police who did what they did to me. Lay out the case and accuse them of the crimes they committed. Then, challenge them to sue me for libel. They would not let the facts of my case come out because the judge is absolutely corrupt. But, if they were to try to sue me for libel, the facts would have to be admitted for that case.

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?


You have to break eggs to make an omelette. I say go for it. The more people that stand up and fight the better. This is, of course, not meant in any way to be legal advice.

But they must be dragged out into the light, figuratively speaking of course.
edit on 2/26/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: typo



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonTattooz
 


Ok, in my home state of New Jersey (...anticipates the jokes ...)... it is illegal to video record a police officer UNLESS you notify the officer before you start recording, and as long as there is no sound being recorded in the video (however that works).

So it is against the law, but it's a pretty sh%##y law.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Your source for that? It's not true btw. There is only one state that is still refusing to drop the wiretapping charges against someone. It wasn't NJ if I remember correctly. Others have already come out publicly stating that it's not valid when police are in public.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join