Man charged after videotaping police

[KC]

June 29, 2006 - NASHUA – A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man’s sons.

Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon’s wife, Janet Gannon, and police reports filed in Nashua District Court.

Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective’s consent.

The Gannons’ son, Shawn Gannon, 18, is charged with resisting detention and disorderly conduct, and his wife also was cited for disorderly conduct, she said.

Janet Gannon said the family plans to hire a lawyer, and expects to sue the police department.

The couple’s 15-year-old son also was arrested, charged as a juvenile in an unrelated robbery case, according to police reports and Janet Gannon.

The Gannons installed a video and audio recording system at their home, a four-unit building at 22-28 Morgan St., to monitor the front door and parking areas, family members told police. They installed the cameras about two years ago, buying the system at Wal-Mart, Janet Gannon told the police, according to reports filed in court. The Gannons have owned the property, which is assessed at $382,700, for the past three years, city records show.

Janet Gannon spoke with The Telegraph by phone Wednesday afternoon, before going to bail out her husband. She said they installed the system in response to crime in the neighborhood, and at their house.

“We’ve had two break-ins. One guy came right up our stairs and started beating on my husband, and we called the cops,” she said. Another time, after someone broke into a camper on their property, Janet Gannon said an officer suggested they were “too rich” for the neighborhood, and should move.

The security cameras record sound and audio directly to a videocassette recorder inside the house, and the Gannons posted warnings about the system, Janet Gannon said.

On Tuesday night, Michael Gannon brought a videocassette to the police department, and asked to speak with someone in “public relations,” his wife said and police reported.

Gannon wanted to lodge a complaint against Karlis, who had come to the family’s house while investigating their sons, Janet Gannon said. She said Karlis showed up late at night, was rude, and refused to leave when they asked him.

“He was just very smart-mouthed. He put his foot in the door, and my husband said, ‘Excuse me, I did not invite you in, please leave,’ and he wouldn’t,” Janet Gannon said. “We did not invite him in, we asked him to leave, and he wouldn’t.”

After the police arrested the Gannons’ sons, Janet Gannon said, they “secured” the house, and told her and her sister-in-law they had to stay out of it from around 8:45 p.m. Tuesday until about 4 a.m. Wednesday.

Police said they were waiting to get a warrant to search the house, Janet Gannon said.

“They were waiting for a warrant to seize the cameras and the tapes in my house . . . because they said having these cameras was against the law. They’re security cameras,” she said, adding, “They said they could do that. They could seize my apartment.”

Karlis went to the Gannons’ home at about 11:30 p.m. Friday night and again at about 7 p.m. Tuesday, police reported. Karlis was investigating the Gannons’ 15-year-old son in connection with a June 21 mugging outside Margaritas restaurant, for which two other teens already have been charged, according to police reports. The boy also is charged with possessing a handgun stolen three years ago in Vermont, and resisting detention, police said.

The boy wasn’t home when Karlis went there, and the Gannons were “uncooperative” regarding his whereabouts, police reported.

The Gannons felt police were harassing the family, Janet Gannon said.

“There were six cops in my yard,” the first time police came, she said. “My husband was very upset. How many cops does it take to talk to a 15-year-old.”

Karlis didn’t know about the security camera until his second visit, when Michael Gannon told him to “smile” for the camera, police reported.

Janet Gannon said her husband explicitly warned officers of the camera, later adding “smile,” as a joke.

“I heard him say it,” she said. “He said, ‘Gentlemen, there’s a camera right there.’”

According to police, however, Janet Gannon told officers she didn’t remember her husband warning police about the security camera.

Police reported that Gannon “has a history of being verbally abusive” toward police, and that after his arrest, he remarked that the officers “were a bunch of corrupt (expletives).”

www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121

[KC]

Family says it plans to sue Nashua police over arrest

June 30, 2006 - Nashua – The wife of a man charged with breaking state wiretapping laws after recording a police detective on a home security camera said the family plans to hire a lawyer to sue the police department for “unprofessional” behavior.

Nashua police arrested Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., Tuesday night and charged him with two felony counts for violating the state wiretap law after he used electronic devices to record Detective Andrew Karlis without the detective’s consent. The detective had been at the couple’s home investigating their teen sons’ roles in a June 21 robbery.

Janet Gannon said Karlis showed up late at night on several occasions, was rude to family members and refused to leave after he was asked to.

“He (Karlis) made several rude remarks about Mike being a disabled vet and about the taxes we pay on the house,” Janet Gannon said. “He (Karlis) had also put his foot in the door as Mike tried to close it and we asked him to leave, but he wouldn’t.”

Karlis didn’t know about the camera until his second visit to the home, when Michael Gannon told him to “smile” for the camera, according to police reports. But Janet Gannon said that her husband was joking when he told Karlis to smile because he had already clearly warned them that there was a video camera.

“The first thing he said, and he said it very clearly, ‘Gentlemen, there’s a camera right there,’” Janet Gannon said. “And there are signs posted on the side of the house and on the shed that say, ‘Warning: homeland security system. Audio and video in use.”

According to police reports, though, Janet Gannon said to officers that she didn’t remember her husband warning them of the security camera.

Michael Gannon also “has a history of being verbally abusive” toward Nashua police, according to police reports. And after he was arrested, Gannon said the police officers “were a bunch of corrupt (expletives).”

Police also cited Janet Gannon for disorderly conduct Tuesday night. She said they had sealed off her home for hours as they waited for a warrant to search the house for additional cameras and tapes.

www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Family+says+it+plans+to+sue+Nashua+police+over+arrest&articleId=f594a86a-8840-4460-ba30-5f4b144109a0

[KC]

It seems "video" is ok, but not "audio?"

Why is it ok for police officers not to tell citizens on traffic stops, that there being recorded on audio? Do police officers have to tell people at police stations that they are being recorded?

Nashua police are nothing but pansies.

[Mel]

I am Mike Gannons sister, And I am tring to get him a real good lawyer who is not afraid to take on cityhall. He needs our help!! please if anyone can help out he is looking at 21 years in prison if the city wins. I also ask if you help funding this please do so! he needs the legal and financial help to take this to the top. so they cant do this to anyone else

[KC]

Mel said:

I am Mike Gannons sister, And I am tring to get him a real good lawyer who is not afraid to take on cityhall. He needs our help!! please if anyone can help out he is looking at 21 years in prison if the city wins. I also ask if you help funding this please do so! he needs the legal and financial help to take this to the top. so they cant do this to anyone else

One would think that the law wouldn't apply to a "man's castle." No one should assume that they would have privacy on someone else's property. Besides he did have signs posted on his "own" property stating he was recording.

I'm still curious to why police officers don't have to notify someone, that they are being audio tape on traffic stops?

What would the "plea agreement" consisted of, if he would have taken it? "See next post below."

[KC]

July 30, 2006 - NASHUA – Police offered Michael Gannon a tempting way to resolve the wiretapping charges against him, but he turned it down, Gannon said Wednesday.

Gannon, 39, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested June 27 on felony wiretapping charges, accused of using his home security system to record conversations among detectives who were investigating his 15-year-old son in an assault case.

Gannon said his lawyer, public defender Don Topham, told him that prosecutors had offered to drop the felony charges if he would plead guilty to a misdemeanor of tampering with one of the videotapes. Police offered a 30-day suspended jail sentence, Gannon said.

Though Gannon could face prison if convicted of a felony, he said he couldn't bring himself to admit any wrongdoing.

"I'm fighting it," he said. "Give me a break. They got nothing, so they're offering something."

After Gannon turned down that deal, a police prosecutor, attorney Kathleen Brown, dropped all charges against Gannon on Wednesday, but said his case will be sent to the Hillsborough County Attorney's office for further prosecution.

"It's going to be presented to a grand jury," Brown said.

After Gannon's case was publicized earlier this month, Police Chief Timothy Hefferan said he had asked First Assistant Hillsborough County Roger Chadwick to review Gannon's case and decide what charges, if any, were warranted. Neither Chadwick nor Hefferan could be reached Wednesday for an interview.

Gannon appeared in Nashua District Court on Wednesday for a probable cause hearing, which never took place.

Gannon had been arrested after he brought a videocassette to the police station, saying he wanted to lodge a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, police said. Gannon said the tape, recorded by his home security camera, contained evidence that Karlis was rude to his family.

Gannon had set up cameras outside his home, a four-unit apartment building, to record video and audio in response to threats from a former tenant and incidents of vandalism, his wife said. A sticker on the outside of the building warns of the recording system.

Karlis and other officers went to Gannon's home repeatedly last month while looking for the Gannon's 15-year-old son, who was implicated in a late-night mugging downtown.

Police charged that Gannon violated state wiretap laws by recording officers without their knowledge while they were standing on his front porch.

The charges stem from the audio portion of the recording, not the video.

Under state law (RSA 570-A:2), it is a crime to use any sort of electronic device to eavesdrop on or record conversations without the consent of everyone involved. It's a felony to record other people's conversations, and a misdemeanor to record one's own conversations without the other person's consent.

Gannon and his wife said Gannon warned the officers of the security camera, telling them to smile for the camera.

But Gannon was charged, and police confiscated the security system. He was freed on $10,000 bail after his arrest.

Police charge that Gannon also tampered with the videotape, but Gannon said he simply copied portions of different recordings onto a single tape, to better show police what he wanted them to see.

www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060727/NEWS01/107270105/-1/business

[KC]

You might check these guys out, maybe they can point you in the right direction.

Link: www.eff.org/

[WaTcHeR]

08.06.2006 - NASHUA – Police won’t prosecute a man for using his home security system to record detectives on his front porch, Nashua Police Chief Timothy Hefferan announced Friday.

Michael Gannon was arrested June 27 after he made the videotape to record conversations among detectives who were at his door looking for his 15-year-old son, who was being investigated in connection with a mugging downtown. When Gannon brought the videotape to a police station to complain that a detective was rude to him, he was arrested on felony wiretapping charges.

The case attracted attention around the world, as news spread via the Internet. The Telegraph and city police received scores of phone calls and e-mails condemning the charges.

In addition to dropping the case against him, Nashua police also have concluded that Gannon’s complaint about the detective was justified, although the chief added that Gannon himself was “provocative” and “disrespectful.” The chief declined to say what discipline the detective might face.

Hefferan also commended detectives for their “tenacity and initiative” in investigating Gannon’s 15-year-old son, who was later charged in connection with the mugging. Police also found a stolen handgun inside the house, they reported, but it’s not clear who had possession of it, Hefferan said.

Gannon, 39, expressed relief.

“Glad to hear some good news finally,” he said. “I’ve been worried, a little scared, because they said they were going to hold 21 years over my head.”

After the case became public, the chief had said he would ask a prosecutor, First Assistant County Attorney Roger Chadwick, to review the case against Gannon.

On Friday, after conferring with the prosecutor, Hefferan said he decided to drop the matter.

“It’s the same sense that I had early on when I first learned of this, the morning after it occurred,” Hefferan said. “It wasn’t a real good feeling that I had for it . . . . We felt it would be extremely difficult to convince a jury of this.”

While police believe Gannon had violated state wiretap laws, Hefferan wrote in a statement announcing his decision, police and prosecutors concluded the case wasn’t strong enough to bother prosecuting.

Gannon’s cameras recorded both audio and video, and a sticker on the side of his Morgan Street home warned that persons on the premises were subject to being recorded. Police had charged that Gannon violated state wiretap laws by recording officers without their knowledge while they were standing on his front porch.

It is a crime under state law (RSA 570-A:2) to use any sort of electronic device to eavesdrop or record conversations without the consent of everyone involved. It’s a felony to record other people’s conversations, and a misdemeanor to record one’s own conversations without the other person’s consent.

Gannon said detectives came to his home late at night and refused to leave when he asked them to do so. He took a videocassette to the police station as evidence, saying he wanted to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, whom he said was rude.

Police have investigated Gannon’s complaint and concluded it was founded, Hefferan said. Hefferan said some action would be taken, but he couldn’t discuss it because the detective has already been publicly identified.

“I have sustained the complaint, and believe one of our detectives did not afford a member of the public the level of courtesy that they expect and deserve, regardless of how provocative, uncooperative or disrespectful that individual may have been to the officer during the same encounter,” Hefferan wrote.

Gannon disputed that he was rude to police, saying he simply asked them repeatedly to leave and used vulgarity only when they ignored his request.

“I told them get the FUCK out of my house,” Gannon said, adding, “I don’t see how me saying ‘Goodnight, gentlemen’ about 40 times is rude.”

“All I did is file a complaint, and I end up going to jail . . . They put my family through hell,” Gannon said. “I’m not saying my kids are perfect, but the way they came on, they acted like my kids killed the president or something.”

Gannon was released after his wife posted $10,000 bail. Before opting to drop the case, police offered a plea deal, Gannon had said: a 30-day, suspended jail sentence if he admitted to a single misdemeanor charge of evidence tampering.

Gannon refused.

“I felt that I did nothing wrong, so I wasn’t guilty,” he said Friday.

After Gannon turned down that deal, a prosecutor said his case would be sent to the Hillsborough County Attorney’s office for further prosecution. But Hefferan’s decision Friday ends the case.

Gannon appreciated the numerous phone calls he received from people offering their support, “people saying they backed me and all that.”

“But at the same time, I’m facing all these trumped charges, running scared,” he said. “I was more worried about the 21 years than anything else.”

Gannon said he hopes police will return and reinstall the security cameras, which they seized from his home during a search after his arrest.

“They broke them off the mounts and ripped the wires right out of the wall,” Gannon said. “They took it, they can return it, that’s my feeling.”

Hefferan said police will return Gannon’s equipment. He has yet to determine whether police can make public a copy of the videotapes, however. Because the recording is technically illegal, he said, it would be a crime to distribute it.

“I’m not sure whether I can do that,” Hefferan said.

The state wiretap law notwithstanding, Hefferan said citizens and businesses have the right to set up security systems that include audio recording, but they must post clear, obvious notice to warn anyone within range. The “obscure little sticker” Gannon had posted on the side of his house wasn’t enough, Hefferan said.

www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060805/NEWS01/108050086

[WaTcHeR]

watcher said:

In addition to dropping the case against him, Nashua police also have concluded that Gannon’s complaint about the detective was justified, although the chief added that Gannon himself was “provocative” and “disrespectful.” The chief declined to say what discipline the detective might face.

A citizen was rude to a public servant? Oh boo fucking hoo!

watcher said:

“It’s the same sense that I had early on when I first learned of this, the morning after it occurred,” Hefferan said. “It wasn’t a real good feeling that I had for it . . . . We felt it would be extremely difficult to convince a jury of this.”

The cops knew that he might could beat the rap, but not the ride. I hope they have his record expunged.

[WaTcHeR]

Custody dispute leads to wiretapping charge


08.25.2006 - A Yarmouth Port man faces wiretapping charges after allegedly taping a Yarmouth police officer who had responded to a child custody dispute.

Sean K. Prunty, 38, of 4 Summer St., Yarmouth Port, faces two counts of possession of a device for wiretap and two counts of unlawful wiretap following Tuesday's arrest.

According to police, shortly after 9 a.m. that day Yarmouth Police Officer Christopher Van Ness responded to a child custody dispute at Prunty's Yarmouth Port home. There, Van Ness met with Prunty, who said that he had recently been served with divorce papers and was seeking police assistance as to the whereabouts of his two children.

Police say that, while discussing the matter, Prunty began yelling at his mother-in-law in an attempt to force her to report the location of his children. Van Ness then restored order to the situation and told Prunty that the matter was a civil one and to seek assistance from an attorney.

At that point, say police, Prunty told Van Ness that he had secretly recorded the entire conversation with a small tape recorder hidden in his pocket. The officer responded that such actions were illegal and Prunty shut off the device.

Van Ness then returned to police headquarters and, with the assistance of Yarmouth Police Sgt. Francis Hennessey and Yarmouth Police Detective John Fallon, obtained both an arrest warrant for Prunty and a search warrant for Prunty's home.

Yarmouth police arrested Prunty at 3 p.m. and seized the original recording as evidence. While there, police say, officers discovered a second, activated recording device in a different pants pocket. Police also seized that as evidence.

Prunty was scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday in Barnstable District Court.

www2.townonline.com/barnstable/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=562076

[WaTcHeR]

watcher said:

Custody dispute leads to wiretapping charge


08.25.2006 - A Yarmouth Port man faces wiretapping charges after allegedly taping a Yarmouth police officer who had responded to a child custody dispute.

Sean K. Prunty, 38, of 4 Summer St., Yarmouth Port, faces two counts of possession of a device for wiretap and two counts of unlawful wiretap following Tuesday's arrest.

According to police, shortly after 9 a.m. that day Yarmouth Police Officer Christopher Van Ness responded to a child custody dispute at Prunty's Yarmouth Port home. There, Van Ness met with Prunty, who said that he had recently been served with divorce papers and was seeking police assistance as to the whereabouts of his two children.

Police say that, while discussing the matter, Prunty began yelling at his mother-in-law in an attempt to force her to report the location of his children. Van Ness then restored order to the situation and told Prunty that the matter was a civil one and to seek assistance from an attorney.

At that point, say police, Prunty told Van Ness that he had secretly recorded the entire conversation with a small tape recorder hidden in his pocket. The officer responded that such actions were illegal and Prunty shut off the device.

Van Ness then returned to police headquarters and, with the assistance of Yarmouth Police Sgt. Francis Hennessey and Yarmouth Police Detective John Fallon, obtained both an arrest warrant for Prunty and a search warrant for Prunty's home.

Yarmouth police arrested Prunty at 3 p.m. and seized the original recording as evidence. While there, police say, officers discovered a second, activated recording device in a different pants pocket. Police also seized that as evidence.

Prunty was scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday in Barnstable District Court.

www2.townonline.com/barnstable/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=562076

Again I will say that If it's in the home of the person recording, then it's none of governments or police officer business.

[interesting]

just another situation where if the parents would have been responsible when it came to raising THEIR kids and teaching them NOT to be criminals nothing would have happened at all because the police would have never needed to be there in the first place.

[WaTcHeR]

You know there is such a thing called "innocent until proven guilty?"

[ny2cc]

I am a good friend of this gentleman in Yarmouth Port. It is unfortunate for him that this law is actually in existance. The story goes, his wife, Xxxxx Xxxxx, filed for divorce and made false allegations against him in her court filings to gain custody (I believe perjury charges will be brought against her). She would travel for business and during her travels, rather than leave the children with thier father, would leave them in charge of her unstable mother. When the children would come outside, they would run to thier father and the unstable mother in law would say things like 'Get away from that man, he's no good, he's a no good bum and uses drugs...etc.. etc' (FYI_In-law said the same thing to the officer so Sean had a hair folicle done and it came back clean) My firend got tired of these things being said in front of his kids and decided to tape the in-law saying these things in front of his children in order to have her removed from there lives. One night, in-law left with 7 & 2 year olds and returned the next day without them, my friend went over to ask where they were and she said "I am not telling you a 'f'-in thing. he called the cops, tried to show paternal interference and was arrested. This law was NOT created to punish a good father from trying to save his children from a sick woman like this, it is solely for corrupt polititions and such to protect them from prossecution. It is also in place to stop people from being black-mailed. he is just fine... still going to court but what judge in the world would want a convition like this in their record. Rumor has it, he may get a CWOF. FYI- convictions on things like this have been overturned in Fed Appeal due to the fact that it violates a persons right to protect themselves when "when life, liberty or property is threatened, or to preserve sanctity of home" (BEABER V. BEABER)

[double standard]

Excuse me, "interesting", why is it that when a police officer breaks the law, it's different than when a citizen is accused of a crime? The police confiscated the video equipment to protect themselves. It's called "theft". Also, why do they have the right to arrest the whole family when only one family member is accused of a crime? It's called "kidnapping". Since when do they have a right to tell you what to do on your own property? Your kind of thinking is the reason why our government is slowly but surely taking away our rights and is becoming a police state. This is not what our founding fathers wanted for our country. Also, why is it ok for police officers to be rude, but when the favor is returned, the officers accuse the citizen with "having an attitude"? It is not against the law to be rude. If that were the case, most officers in this country should be behind bars.

[KC]

Texas - Was the arrest of Daily News photographer Nick Adams during Mardi Gras a big deal? We think it was, and here’s why.

We frequently get complaints from people who claim to have been roughed up by the police during Mardi Gras. Most of the people making the complaints admit they were drinking. Most of the time there are no witnesses to back up their version of events.

Sometimes they do have witnesses, but we check out the story and it just doesn’t add up. Most times we wind up with the word of one unreliable witness against the word of police officers. When that’s all there is, we don’t publish a story.

Some people will accuse us of picking on the police in this case. The fact is, we hear a lot more stories about police abuse than we take seriously. We don’t go screaming to press every time somebody with 14 burglary convictions claims he was cuffed too tightly.

We know from long experience and close association that most police officers are good people doing a difficult job.

We also know from long experience and close association that police officers sometimes do wrong.

Nick Adams wasn’t drinking at Mardi Gras. He was doing his job, taking photographs for the newspaper. His version of events is different from the two versions of events so far offered by the police. His is more believable than either of the police versions.

One police report says he tried “several times to shove past officers” to take a picture. He already was taking pictures when a League City police officer threw him to the ground.

He didn’t need to get past the officers and didn’t try to. Adams says his first interaction with the officer was having his camera shoved back into his face and being ordered to stop taking pictures.

He said he backed up when the officer shoved him and that the officer followed.

What he didn’t do was stop taking pictures. He and you and anybody else has a right to take pictures in a public place whether the police like it or not.

What happened after Adams was arrested makes us wonder. While the police had custody of him and his digital camera, they deleted two pictures he took just before being arrested.

Somebody also took photographs with the camera inside the temporary holding area police set up during Mardi Gras.

In other words, police tampered with and otherwise used his personal property without his permission while Adams was in jail.

We wonder what was going on with the cell phones, credit cards, check cards and automobiles of people arrested that night.

Were the police making temporary use of them, as well?

Police Chief Kenneth Mack said such behavior would be unusual and against policy.

We think it was outrageous and illegal and it makes us wonder what other policies and laws and civil rights were being violated that night.

news.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=9701fb35835ae31a