Yeah, it's a felony here in TN, apparently, to record anyone in any fashion if they've not agreed to it beforehand. Unless you're a police officer. Then you can probably stick a camera in a public toilet for shits and giggles (no pun intended) and get away with it by saying you're tracking a murderer with identifying marks on her inner thigh. :-P
It's not an ""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. "
My argument would be that the officer not onlu has no circumstances justifying an expectation of non-interception, but that he doesn't even have such a subjective expectation. HE'S RECORDING IT HIMSELF.
This one is case dismissed by any sensible prosecutor. Or by me for that matter.
If the ADA persists, I'll be glad to take the job after he's fired. Always wanted to move back to the north east.
I'm hoping Staghounds has it right, as a resident of NH, I'd hate to see our state motto go the way of "the old man of the mountains" and crumble away after years of propping it up with chicken wire.
Or suppose the citizen(I absolutely refuse to say civilian, until and unless law enforcement becomes part of the military, Ghod forbid) calls home on his cell with a handsfree, where it gets picked up by an answering machine set on unlimited recording. Jus’ sayin’.
Yeah, it's a felony here in TN, apparently, to record anyone in any fashion if they've not agreed to it beforehand. Unless you're a police officer. Then you can probably stick a camera in a public toilet for shits and giggles (no pun intended) and get away with it by saying you're tracking a murderer with identifying marks on her inner thigh. :-P
ReplyDeleteNO IT'S NOT.
ReplyDeleteNor is it in New Hampshire.
Read the Statute, no way it applies.
It's not an ""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. "
My argument would be that the officer not onlu has no circumstances justifying an expectation of non-interception, but that he doesn't even have such a subjective expectation. HE'S RECORDING IT HIMSELF.
This one is case dismissed by any sensible prosecutor. Or by me for that matter.
If the ADA persists, I'll be glad to take the job after he's fired. Always wanted to move back to the north east.
I'm hoping Staghounds has it right, as a resident of NH, I'd hate to see our state motto go the way of "the old man of the mountains" and crumble away after years of propping it up with chicken wire.
ReplyDeleteOr suppose the citizen(I absolutely refuse to say civilian, until and unless law enforcement becomes part of the military, Ghod forbid) calls home on his cell with a handsfree, where it gets picked up by an answering machine set on unlimited recording.
ReplyDeleteJus’ sayin’.