Massachusetts Police Arrest Another Man On Wiretapping Charges

[Serpo]

By Carlos Miller -... (http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/carlosmiller)







A Massachusetts man is facing five years in prison after secretly recording an argument between himself and a police officer who had pulled him over for a traffic infraction.
Robert E. Mansfield was charged with felony wiretapping after he walked into the police station asking police to rescind the citation for having an obstructed license plate because of a tinted cover.
At some point during his conversation with officers at the police station, he informed them he had recorded the argument between himself and the officer.
That was when they searched his car, found two cell phones and arrested him, according to the Patriot-Ledger. (http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x633533714/Hearing-set-for-man-who-used-cell-phone-to-record-cop)
Mansfield said he had no idea it was against then law in Massachusetts to secretly record somebody’s audio, even if that person is a public official conducting public business.
But ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
Unless, of course, you’re a police officer.
For example, a group of cops in Massachusetts who arrested a man in 2007 on wiretapping charges after he had videotaped them making an arrest in a public park are seeking qualified immunity against a civil lawsuit he has filed - claiming they had no idea it was legal to openly record cops in public.
The case is currently being reviewed (http://www.pixiq.com/article/massachusetts-case-will-set-precedent) by an appellate judge after another judge denied their motion to dismiss the suit on qualified immunity.
Last week, a Massachusetts cop filed an application for a criminal complaint (http://www.pixiq.com/article/cop-claims-his-rights-were-violated-when-woman-videotaped-him) of wiretapping charges against a woman who had videotaped him taking part in the beating a citizen.
That case will be heard in court this week.
Last month, wiretapping charges against Cop Block founders Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre were dropped (http://www.pixiq.com/article/cop-block-founders-not-guilty-on-wiretapping-charges) after they were arrested for openly videotaping cops in front of a police station.
The Massachusetts wiretapping law makes it a crime to secretly record somebody without their consent whether or not they have an expectation of privacy.
Mansfield recorded the conversation on June 30. He was arraigned on August 2. He is scheduled for a pre trial hearing on October 12.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/massachusetts-police-arrest-another-man-on-wiretapping-charges

[palani]

I would suggest you pull out a notepad and pencil, turn on the recording (prior) and ask them if it is ok to record the conversation for quality control purposes. They will presume that you are a fast writer.

[Glass]

I'm fairly confident that wiretapping pertains to the interference with a carrier service for the purposes of intercepting telephone conversations..... or something to that effect. You actually have to physically tamper with the wire.

If the guy was holding a mobile phone that was recording audio to the phones memory then that is not a wiretap. If one of the mobile phones was being held and was dialed up to the other mobile phone and that phone was in some way recording then that might possibly be construed as wiretapping.

Most places with a link to the common law have codified rights on the recording of conversations. Not all states do but most. This right usually provides for the recording of a conversation between 2 parties so long as at least 1 party is aware of and gives permission for the recording to be made. So if I was party to a conversation and I recorded it and I knew I was recording it and I gave permission to record it then it would be ok. In some cases (states) both parties need to be aware and to give permission BUT not all cases.

On palani's point this would be a useful tool in a court room. This would potentially cause exsaperation, especially if you are an early case.

There is a UK Sovereign guy, who has a couple of In Court videos on the YT. He also has a video where he sits down with a Copper and records the whole thing in excruciating detail. Worth a look. The guys name is Ray StClair

[dys]

For example, a group of cops in Massachusetts who arrested a man in 2007 on wiretapping charges after he had videotaped them making an arrest in a public park are seeking qualified immunity against a civil lawsuit he has filed - claiming they had no idea it was legal to openly record cops in public.


Everybody is equal but some are more equal than others.

dys

[DMac]

The problem is that each state has it's own laws on who needs to be privy to a recorded conversation. Mass, in this example, has on the books that both parties must know the recording is in process. NY, as another example, requires only 1 person to know.

Why there is no standard for this I don't understand.

[Joe King]

The problem is that each state has it's own laws on who needs to be privy to a recorded conversation. Mass, in this example, has on the books that both parties must know the recording is in process. NY, as another example, requires only 1 person to know.

Why there is no standard for this I don't understand.

What you are asking is, why hasn't the federal gov created regulations covering the activity and then use strings tied to fed benefits to "make" the States adopt their standards?

Do you really want more regulations?

[Glass]

The reason there is no standard, I think, is because it is a common law issue not a civil law one. The original states exist in common law and the Feds do not.

Also communication is considered traffic which is what the Feds are charged to interdict. As highwaymen it is their job to intercept and impose a tax on all traffic movement. How that impacts on the OT, I'm not sure. Just using the opp to point it out.

[DMac]

What you are asking is, why hasn't the federal gov created regulations covering the activity and then use strings tied to fed benefits to "make" the States adopt their standards?

Do you really want more regulations?

Do you want more regulations?

Why is this even a law?

[Joe King]

It has nothing to do with "Common Law". The only reason we have any national standards is because of the fed gov implimenting them and tying their acceptance by the States, to their acceptance of federal benefits.

How else you going to have a national standard, other than for the fed gov to set that standard?

[Joe King]

Do you want more regulations?No.


Why is this even a law?Because the people of that State elected agents who saw fit to enact the law. Why else?

Actually, two-party wire tap laws are a good thing in that it keeps someone from recording a conversation that one of the parties may not want recorded.

The problem is that the State is mis-applying the law to cover State officials in the line of their public duty. Which by its very nature cannot be considered a private conversation.
ie like a traffic stop.

[palani]

The problem is that each state has it's own laws on who needs to be privy to a recorded conversation.

Public notice is easy. If you prefer not speaking then a custom designed baseball cap will provide adequate notice in my opinion (course that and $.10 won't even buy me a coffee these days).

http://i54.tinypic.com/5v3sjm.jpg

[Glass]

good sign. I like how it says Trespass and not Trespassing.

The right to record a conversation is not given by statute. That CL right is codified in many states UCC's but many CL principals are also codified. On the downside many are not and they usually are liberty related.

[palani]

I like how it says Trespass and not Trespassing.

Trespass is common law. Trespassing is commercial. Or so I have heard.

The "No Trespass" is a notice for any act of violence against your body as well.

[Glass]

mmm. I thought trespass was people and trespassing was livestock. Could be wrong, often am. I'll defer.

[DMac]

No.

Because the people of that State elected agents who saw fit to enact the law. Why else?

Actually, two-party wire tap laws are a good thing in that it keeps someone from recording a conversation that one of the parties may not want recorded.

The problem is that the State is mis-applying the law to cover State officials in the line of their public duty. Which by its very nature cannot be considered a private conversation.
ie like a traffic stop.


How are dashboard cameras in LEO vehicles any different that what this guy did?

[Joe King]

I'd say that there is no difference.

I already pointed out that the problem is a mis-application of the law by the police.

[Glass]

I'd say that there is no difference.

I already pointed out that the problem is a mis-application of the law by the police.

ok. I think I'm starting to get where you are coming from. thanks for sticking at it.

[willie pete]

How are dashboard cameras in LEO vehicles any different that what this guy did?

or surveillance cameras in a 7-11? ...I've seen a disclaimer sticker on the door of a "Wendy's™" restaurant that said video & audio surveillance is being used ::)