Reply With QuoteIt is legal to record government employees in the course of their duty, however you'll may become threatened, arrested, and charged. However charges will likely be dropped at some point and you won't likely get convicted.Originally Posted by g17585
Thread: Recording Police Detainment |
Is it legal to record a police encounter In New Hampshire (audio, video or both)? I have looked at the laws and it is very complicated as to what is legal. I've also heard that NH is a two-party consent state but I don't know for sure. I have also seen videos on YouTube of police stop recordings so it seems legal but, again, I'm not sure.
Thank you.
It is legal to record government employees in the course of their duty, however you'll may become threatened, arrested, and charged. However charges will likely be dropped at some point and you won't likely get convicted.
Never mind, I was wrong.
Last edited by FIVETWOSEVEN; 01-23-2012 at 12:45 PM.
Please provide a specif cite to support this allegation.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid!
Attempting to always assume a POSITIVE INTENT!
If you decide to take offense at something I've said, talk with me about it and try to assume a POSITIVE INTENT!
Sometimes, IN SPITE of my efforts I do succeed in being STUPID!
Life Member NRA
Life Member GOA
2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
When are we going to RETURN to the Constitution and God?
Funny in the Maryland case they said jut the opposite. Public official in official duties has no expectation of privacy. LEOs do not always know the law.
The gentleman may wish to research what Judge Edward Tenney ruled in the William Alleman case when he was charged with wiretapping as a result of his encounter with Officer Brandon Montplaisir during the traffic stop on July 10, 2010.
Oh, and please peruse Glik v. Cunniffe.
Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-23-2012 at 11:22 AM.
You're right, that changed without me knowing. That's good to know! Sorry about that misinformation, please disregard it.
What? Ya din' do nuthin' wrong.
It's not that anything changed really, but it did finally take a court case to explain that "... exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation..." meant that unless there was an expectation of privacy then the wiretapping rule did not apply.
Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-23-2012 at 02:40 PM.
Doing a web-search for the parties involved did not produce any returns I could cite, so I wrote to Mr. Seth Hipple, the attorney involved in the case above. I was heartened by his response.
And the text of the attached:"...Mr. Unpronounceable Name,
Ah, yes, OCDO. I met many of the people involved in founding that forum when I was in law school in Virginia.
The order is public record so there are no confidentiality issues with me sending it to you. It is attached. Of course, for my own protection, I must tell you that I'm not your attorney, nothing in this e-mail is legal advice, and this e-mail doesn't create a lawyer-client relationship.
Regards,
--
Seth J. Hipple, Esq...."
I tried to copy and paste from the .pdf file but was unsuccessful, sorry.
Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 01-23-2012 at 05:33 PM.
Thank you for posting this. It is extremely helpful.Doing a web-search for the parties involved did not produce any returns I could cite, so I wrote to Mr. Seth Hipple, the attorney involved in the case above. I was heartened by his response.
And the text of the attached:
I tried to copy and paste from the .pdf file but was unsuccessful, sorry.
Posting Permissions
