Posted on 02/25/2011 11:11:08 AM PST by lbryce
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
Police Chief Gregory Begin released few details of the case when reached for comment Thursday. The charges stem from a July 10 traffic stop, Begin said.
"He was making an audio recording of the officer during a motor vehicle stop without getting consent of the officer," Begin said.
Alleman said the charge is based on a cell phone call he made as an officer approached his vehicle.
Police considered it wiretapping because the call was being recorded by a voice mail service without the officer's consent.
Attorney Seth Hipple, of the Martin and Hipple law office, is representing Alleman as well as Carla Gericke and William Rodriguez, who were arrested on the same charge in March 2010 after Gericke began videotaping a police traffic stop. Their charges were later dropped.
"This is another example of the Weare police arresting people for recording public officials doing the public's duties in public," Hipple said.
Alleman said the incident began after he left a gathering to support Palmer's Tavern owner George Hodgdon, whose arrest days earlier for interfering with an assault investigation caused many to publicly criticize the Weare police.
Alleman said he was followed by a police officer when he left the gathering, attended mostly by members of the libertarian activist group, the Free State Project.
Alleman said he supports the group's cause but is not a member.
Alleman said he made a cell phone call as Officer Brian Montplaisir approached his vehicle.
(Excerpt) Read more at unionleader.com ...
"He was making an audio recording of the officer during a motor vehicle stop without getting consent of the officer," Begin said.
The balls on these cops.
cops have an expectation of privacy on the side of a HIGHWAY...?
Can we have sex on the side of the highway? If not, why?
Do we not also have an expectation of privacy?
Citizens or subjects?
You know, at some point this stupidity will begin to cost cities, counties and police dept’s so much money maybe they’ll get the idea and stop it...
None of these cases ever end well for the police, so why do they continue to do it?
Are they truly that dumb?
More like the nerve of the prosecutor — if he regularly declined to prosecute such cases then occifers would not dare to suggest it.
Apart from the fine points of legality, there is the obvious point of felony-flation. Keep in mind that the idea of felony evolved in law as the class of crime so evil that it would be worthy of punishment by hanging or other loss of life. Anyone can see that applying such a punishment to an offense (?) such as this fails the laugh test.
THAT's the real reason the cops are on this jihad...
Do the cops there have in car cameras with audio?
Heck, you should visit NC. Our State Highway Patrol officers have sex on the side of the highway all the time, or on some back-roads where they administer “breathalyzer” tests to unsuspecting, but agreeable, female lawbreakers.
related:
Jury Nullification Advocate Is Indicted
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2680112/posts
From reading the above it appears that they do. Therefore, if they don’t get the consent of the motorist, the cops should be arrested and prosecuted for every recording they make.
Doesn’t there have to be a wire in order to indict somebody for wiretapping? Probably a stupid question, I know.
LOL, you’re all missing a bit of context. NH is generally a rural small town affair As such not too much goes on in the way of crime, big cities excepted. Couple that (ie boredom) with raging hormones, super sized egos, badges and guns and the result is documented in the article. I’ve yet to meet a local who didn’t have his head firmly ensconced up his rear-end. We’re talking mall cop fodder here. The state animal cops rank about the same, perhaps slightly higher on the mall-cop scale.
It is the result of a corrupt legal system. Our “man-made” laws not based on Natural Law Theory and God’s Law are unjust and unconstitutional. (Holmes was the one to divorce logic and reason from the laws that is the result of removing it from Natural Law Theory which is where common sense originates.
Lawyers have divorced the laws from Natural Law Theory, something all the Founders agreed would result in political laws—laws that gave some groups power over others and would create inequality under the law. We have unjust laws, which is obvious in thousands of cases. We have created “protected” status for some—which screams unconstitutional. We have to clean up the legal system, before any of the egregious things can be remedied.
Unjust laws cannot prevail without creating chaos and revolutions. But that is what the Marxist legal scholars in the elite universities want and the types appointed by Clinton and Zero want....to create a totalitarian state where they are god and tell us what to use when we wipe our b*tts.
`This is the Live Free or Die State.
Hey, jack booted thugs.
YOU WORK FOR US.
Oh, and by the way, you’re fired!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.