Natick, MA makes strides in the area of subjective law enforcement.

Sep 21, 2009 12:05

A few weeks ago, a Mr. Chi Quang Truong had the misfortune to discover the city of Natick, MA considers use of an audio recording device [such as any cell phone capable of voice memos (or calling voicemail)] sufficient for being charged with "possessing a device for wiretapping". In his case, it was a cheap Olympus digital voice recorder ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 6

zarex September 21 2009, 16:49:54 UTC
The Massachusetts wiretapping laws are absolutely horrid. But in this case, it's the ugliness of the law, and not the fault of the police. Per the law, they had every right to add this charge, since he was already violating wiretap laws in the first place. It has nothing to do with the town or the police.

Unless someone uses their cell phone, etc. for surreptitious recording, they won't be charged with a violation. But if they do, you can bet they'll be charged.

(The wiretap law should definitely be changed, or thrown out by a court, but there is unfortunate precedent here, and it will take a lot).

Reply


dusc September 21 2009, 17:58:25 UTC
I know they had the right. But, AFAIK, they are the first police to exercise it for hardware like this.

My concern is the subjective aspect. Since this device has been accepted as a "wiretapping device" because it can make voice memos, they no longer need to wait for voice memo devices to be used to make a criminal charge for possession of ... a new ipod Nano (the one w. voice memo), which wont happen unless they feel like it.

I guess we're safe as long as we don't get any cops mad at us, have friends on the force, or flee the state. How's the Rt 93 commute?

Reply

zarex September 21 2009, 18:49:57 UTC
It's far from the first time, I'm sure, but I'm pretty confident that it was always when the device was used illegally.

There's no prosecutor in the world that would be willing to bring charges against someone for mere possession of such a device, and I doubt (even in MA) there's any cop dumb enough to try it. He'd be laughed right out of court, once you point out that everyone in the room is guilty of the same charge.

This really isn't worth worrying about at all.

Reply

dusc September 21 2009, 19:33:45 UTC
Now, I can't get rid of the image of Alan Shore (Boston Legal) pointing that out in a court room.

I'm very entertained that I'm tired enough to be on this side of this conversation. The 12 day work week is not my friend.

Reply


sunspiral September 21 2009, 18:29:11 UTC
The piling on of as many ridiculous charges as possible seems to be part of the game that "law enforcement" plays. This is only one of the reasons my children have been raised to distrust cops.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up