• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Open Carry Incident In Gorham, NH. Law Enforcement Involved.

yt8znu35

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
1
Location
NH
Is it legal to record in NH? If so, I would start recording whenever you carry. Good luck.
Just be aware that recording provokes police ire in its own right. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/926340-196/suspects-witness-dispute-police-version-of-july.html If you are recording audio, police in NH can arrest you on felony wiretapping. You might win the court case, but it will be an ordeal.

I recommend wording the complaint very carefully, adhering rigidly to the facts pertaining to their actions. Acknowledge officers who, although wrong to hassle you in the first place, were otherwise polite or at least not rude. If your complaint comes across as a raving assault on the character of the department, it will not get far.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
JRD, you did fine. Only one comment: You could have told them you do not voluntarilly consent to giving them your ID, when you gave it to them. I am not saying don't give it to them, just that you do not voluntarilly do so. You were doing nothing wrong, so there was no legal reason for them to demand it.

A full blown argument would not have helped you in the situation you were in. Good job.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,884
Location
Granite State of Mind
The speed limits driving through Berlin can drive you crazy, there is a 2 lane stretch of road which is posted at 35 MPH and going through other zones drop to 25mph. Seems kind of slow in some areas. Anyways i got pulled over by the State Police going 42mph in a 30.
The 40 mph limit on 16 between Berlin and Gorham (I know, not technically "between" them), on a wide flat straight road with four lanes, and two wide breakdown lanes, is outright ridiculous.

There are lots of ridiculously low speed limits throughout NH.
 

WCrawford

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
592
Location
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
United States v. King

I'm having some difficulty finding this case (too many US v King(s)), what year was this case hard?
 

doobie

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
233
Location
, ,
JRD, you did fine. Only one comment: You could have told them you do not voluntarilly consent to giving them your ID, when you gave it to them. I am not saying don't give it to them, just that you do not voluntarilly do so. You were doing nothing wrong, so there was no legal reason for them to demand it.

A full blown argument would not have helped you in the situation you were in. Good job.

You are under no obligation to ID yourself to police in New Hampshire unless you are driving. Only IDd myself the first time (it was 3 officers and me with my back on the bridge to the merimack in Concord; didn't want to have a fall) when I've been stopped OCing; the 7 or 8 times since; I've refused to ID myself.
 

jrd929

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
53
Location
Hampton, New Hampshire, United States
The 40 mph limit on 16 between Berlin and Gorham (I know, not technically "between" them), on a wide flat straight road with four lanes, and two wide breakdown lanes, is outright ridiculous.

There are lots of ridiculously low speed limits throughout NH.

That's for sure, I usually do 5-10 mph over the limit, and have passed by many cops who don't even bother to flash a light. Even if the limits were higher, I've been stuck behind many people who don't pay attention to the speed limit signs and do 10+ mph less than whats posted for no reason (ie construction, weather, etc)
 

jrd929

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
53
Location
Hampton, New Hampshire, United States
You are under no obligation to ID yourself to police in New Hampshire unless you are driving. Only IDd myself the first time (it was 3 officers and me with my back on the bridge to the merimack in Concord; didn't want to have a fall) when I've been stopped OCing; the 7 or 8 times since; I've refused to ID myself.

Yeah, this has certainly been a learning experience for me. I'm sure I'll go through it again eventually, but I'll know what to do when the time comes.
 

jrd929

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
53
Location
Hampton, New Hampshire, United States
Just be aware that recording provokes police ire in its own right. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/926340-196/suspects-witness-dispute-police-version-of-july.html If you are recording audio, police in NH can arrest you on felony wiretapping. You might win the court case, but it will be an ordeal.

I recommend wording the complaint very carefully, adhering rigidly to the facts pertaining to their actions. Acknowledge officers who, although wrong to hassle you in the first place, were otherwise polite or at least not rude. If your complaint comes across as a raving assault on the character of the department, it will not get far.

I doubt they can legally arrest someone for recording during a stop so long as they know they are being recorded.
 

doobie

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
233
Location
, ,
I doubt they can legally arrest someone for recording during a stop so long as they know they are being recorded.

Don't be so sure.... people have been.....that doesn't mean it goes to trial....they'll drop the charges before that happens....
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,884
Location
Granite State of Mind
I doubt they can legally arrest someone for recording during a stop so long as they know they are being recorded.

Emphasis on legally. Police have, not infrequently, arrested people for recording during traffic stops and other encounters. I can't recall anyone actually being convicted, and such arrests haven't been ruled illegal so far as I know (and aren't likely to be), but the arrests do occur, even though the black letter of the law doesn't support charges.
 
Last edited:

railway

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
1
Location
United States
Recording in NH

I don't know if it's legal to record in NH. I have not thought about filing a complaint, and have never done so before. Also excuse me if this is a dumb question but what do you mean by FOIA?

Jon

From my understanding (suggest double checking my info to be sure) It is legal to record in NH, prvided at least one of the parties being recorded (this being yourself) is aware of it.
 

doobie

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
233
Location
, ,
From my understanding (suggest double checking my info to be sure) It is legal to record in NH, prvided at least one of the parties being recorded (this being yourself) is aware of it.

what technically is legal to do vs. what the police arrest and charge you with are completely different animals. In bold; from the definition...it's technically legal to audio record if someone doesn't have the expectation of privacy; holding a video camera up to someone's face and telling them you are audio recording; pretty much negates any expectation that oral communications are not subject to interception....

570-A:1 Definitions. – As used in this chapter:
II. "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.

570-A:2 Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited. –
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person:
(a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication;
(b) Wilfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:
(1) Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in telecommunication, or
(2) Such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication, or
(3) Such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on premises of any business or other commercial establishment, or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment; or
(c) Wilfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph; or
(d) Willfully uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph.
I-a. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without consent of all parties to the communication, the person knowingly intercepts a telecommunication or oral communication when the person is a party to the communication or with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication, but without the approval required by RSA 570-A:2, II(d).
 

Rattrapper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
218
Location
Swanzey,NH, ,
Now you have a First Circuit Court of Appeals case dealing with Boston Police. I don't have the cite, it is on Northeastshooters.com. That provides for recording public persons in public places. Where they have no reason of privacy. New Hampshire is under, The First Circuit Court of Appeals.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,884
Location
Granite State of Mind
Now you have a First Circuit Court of Appeals case dealing with Boston Police. I don't have the cite, it is on Northeastshooters.com.
The case is Glik v. Cunniffe.

It's not a criminal case; all charges were dismissed. It's a civil case, where Glik is suing Boston PD and several officers individually. The officers moved to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court rejected that argument, and the officers filed an interlocutory appeal. The 1st District panel agreed, and stated that the right to openly record in public places was so well established that police who violated that right did not have immunity from lawsuits and civil damages.

If the police don't appeal further, the case now goes back for the actual trial (which was on hold pending the appeal for dismissal).
 

ArmedFatherOf2

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
6
Location
Manchester, NH
Last i checked, when an officer pulls you over, they don't inform you to the status of their dash cam. and many of the officers them self don't know weather it is operational or not... yet if the dash cam happens to be on they can use it in court as evidence, there for if you are recording, and inform the LEO that you are doing so for your own protection, and his (or her's). then i believe they would have no problem with it since there is a chance that if it is a traffic stop everything might already be in the process of being video & audio recorded, without either parties knowledge...


not sure if this is the best wording but i am sure everyone gets the point i am making
 

jrd929

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
53
Location
Hampton, New Hampshire, United States
"I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication...."

So basically if I'm going to record, I have to tell the officer, or make the device clearly visible.
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
"I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication...."

So basically if I'm going to record, I have to tell the officer, or make the device clearly visible.

You would have to ask his permission before recording, otherwise it could be a felony in progress, if I read that cite right.

Also, I suggest contacting a few people from this site about FOIA requests, namely User. He's an attorney down here in Va. who deals mainly with 2A issues. I think some lawyers would draft and send letters like that pro bono, or very minor charge. He can make sure it contains neccessary language to make sure you actually get the info you want, not the info they want you to have, and word it very succintly and proffessionally.


Edit: so it turns out I can't spell professionally right, I geuss I am practicing my double tap...
Sent using tapatalk
 
Last edited:

MR-B

New member
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
2
Location
NH
Wtf.

I live in the Gorham area and am appalled at this incident.
The police had no reason to approach you. They admitted they know they activity is legal and didn't care. File a lawsuit!!!!!!!! Police have no immunity when not performing their duties. Stopping people illegally is NOT one of their duties.
 

doobie

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
233
Location
, ,
Last i checked, when an officer pulls you over, they don't inform you to the status of their dash cam. and many of the officers them self don't know weather it is operational or not... yet if the dash cam happens to be on they can use it in court as evidence, there for if you are recording, and inform the LEO that you are doing so for your own protection, and his (or her's). then i believe they would have no problem with it since there is a chance that if it is a traffic stop everything might already be in the process of being video & audio recorded, without either parties knowledge...


not sure if this is the best wording but i am sure everyone gets the point i am making


" II. It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for:
(j) A uniformed law enforcement officer to make an audio recording in conjunction with a video recording of a routine stop performed in the ordinary course of patrol duties on any way as defined by RSA 259:125, provided that the officer shall first give notification of such recording to the party to the communication. "

If they don't give you notification they may also be guilty.


"I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication...."

So basically if I'm going to record, I have to tell the officer, or make the device clearly visible.

" II. "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. "
 
Last edited:
Top