October 31st, 2013

PINAC Video Producer Charged with Felony Wiretapping for Recording Interview with Police Spokeswoman 99

By Carlos Miller

Two weeks after having his case dismissed for photographing a Nike commercial set from a public sidewalk, Taylor Hardy learned he was being charged with a felony for audio recording a telephone interview with the media spokeswoman of the Boston Police Department.

Angelene Richardson, Director of Media Relations for the Boston Police Department, claims she was unaware she was being recorded and was surprised to discover the video of their conversation on Youtube.

The video he posted online, which has received less than 100 views, begins in mid-conversation and doesn’t reveal much except that Richardson was clueless about the story that Hardy was calling about; a PINAC story in which a Boston police detective shoved a man recording him while threatening to arrest him for felony battery on a police officer.

Obviously, the 2011 landmark Glik decision, in which the Boston Police Department paid a man $170,000 after arresting him for on wiretapping charges for recording them in public, hasn’t sent the message, even though it makes it very clear that public officials can be recorded in their public capacity.

The Massachusetts wiretapping law, however, makes it illegal for people to secretly record other individuals, even if they don’t have an expectation of privacy, so that is what they are vying for here.

Here is a Facebook conversation between Taylor and I from August about whether he had secretly recorded her. Taylor is a journalism student who produced the video of myself, Joel Chandler and Jeff Gray announcing our partnership and plans to produce several more videos for us in the future.

Screen Shot 2013-10-31 at 1.50.05 PM


I never bothered posting the video in the article because it didn’t provide any new information other than the public information officer was clueless to a video that was going viral, which is the customary response from a police flack.

But I see no reason why Hardy would have lied to me about having informed her when I was just looking out for his best interest.

Hardy called the detective in charge of the case today, inquiring as to whether they had recorded the entire conversation between him and Richardson, which would not only prove Hardy’s innocence, but would make the whole issue moot.

But the detective neither confirmed nor denied they had an audio recording of the conversation, which leads me to assume they probably do.

The case is reminiscent of the 2012 case of Cop Block founder Adam “Ademo Freeman” Mueller in which he was convicted and sentenced to three months in jail for calling school and police officials for an interview without informing them that he was recording.

But Mueller’s video, which he posted online in its entirety, clearly showed that Mueller had not informed them he was recording, not that he ever claimed he did.

His defense was that public officials should not have an expectation of privacy while working in the public capacity, which makes sense, except the jury didn’t see it that way.

In this case, the burden of proof lies with the Boston Police Department to prove that Hardy recorded the entire conversation without informing Richardson – who should expect to be recorded anyway as media spokesperson for the department.

But if the only evidence they have is a portion of the conversation that Hardy posted online, they really don’t have much.

The complaint that Hardy received today, posted below, states that he must attend a hearing on November 14. He spoke to a Boston attorney today who informed him that he didn’t have to show up, but that would lead to a trial.

Hardy, however, is considering flying up there for the hearing to try and get his case dismissed without having to go to trial.

Maybe we can call or email Richardson to persuade her to drop the charges against Hardy considering she should assume all her conversations with reporters are on the record unless otherwise stated. Her listed number is (617) 343-4520.

Maybe we can build up an entire collection of recorded conversations with her. After informing her, of course.


Taylor Hardy charges copy-1

Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.

To help support the blog, please click below to make a donation or purchase Photography is Not a Crime apparel on PINAC Nation.

  • Jeffrey Marcus Gray

    I’m calling her and i’m recording the call!

    • Charles D Bingham

      I don’t have a setup to record yet but I called anyway. I was surprised that a live person answered and wasn’t sent to voicemail. I spoke to Officer Grant, she sounded defensive. She said she was unaware of the article and situation. I referred her to the photography is not a crime website. She said only specific lines are recorded and that when they answer the phone they are required to verbally state that it is being recorded. She was also very interested to know if I was a reporter. I told her I was a concerned citizen.

      • Elliott Whitlow

        EVERYONE is a reporter..

        • Charles D Bingham

          I agree a concerned citizen has the same rights as a reporter but I don’t get paid to be a reporter. She didn’t state her understanding of what a reporter is.

          • PINAC Video Producer

            @cdbingham:disqus did she say that line was being recorded?

          • Charles D Bingham

            She said that line at that moment was not being recorded.

    • AlexW

      If 10 people call Officer Moore, we can learn…

      If he is “not ok” with recording.
      The he has a pattern of not speaking on the record,
      Then not informing beforehand is necessary for public interest to obtain public information.

      If he is “ok” with recording
      Then asking is a formality since he is often ok with it.

      If he is “sometimes ok” and “sometime not”
      Then his complaint is subjective.

  • Pepe Billete

    I just sent an email to her. Honestly, this is dumb… Wow she got recorded by phone… ohhhhh watch out, she just gave top secret information… NOT!

    • Difdi

      If you don’t like the law, challenge it in court or lobby for a new law to be passed.

    • tinynot

      “top secret”? no way, she doesnt even have TOP SECRET clearance! WOW, she in big trouble now, damn, she got caught with her panties down! squirt squirt!!! and your 1000% correct, this is very dumb indeed, misuse of the judicial system, now then, can anyone say that three times with a straight face about this crap, and…without puking?

  • ray brown

    What part of First Amendment and reasonable expectation of privacy do these people not comprehend. Didn’t Glik teach them anything? I can’t believe that state and local governments can’t comprehend that the Feds are not going to say it’s “okay” to prosecute citizens for making one party consent audio recordings of anything they may hear with their own ears. You don’t need a public official’s consent to exercise your First Amendment rights. I suppose it might be common courtesy to let someone know you’re audio recording but Federal Courts could care less.

    • Difdi

      Glik does not apply to secret recordings, only to recording openly. The police claim they did not give permission and were not notified that the phone call would be recorded, therefore it was done secretly.

      • ray brown

        Reread Glik. The First Amendment allows on party consent audio recording. The court clarified that right in this case specifically to recording police in public but make no mistake your Constitutional rights don’t stop at the “welcome” mat. Massachusetts law ignores this not to mention reasonable expectation of privacy which can’t be legislated out of relevancy.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          Difdi’s correct. Ray, you are misreading Glik.

        • jonquimbly

          All-party state, isn’t MA? If he didn’t notify the other caller, the spokesperson, he’s probably in nick.

  • ray brown

    What state was this conversation recorded from?

    • Carlos_Miller


      • Charles D Bingham

        I am confused why he is being charged under Massachusetts law when this was an interstate phone call. Wouldn’t this fall under federal jurisdiction?

        • Carlos_Miller

          I had the same question. They have a weak case. They’re just trying to intimidate.

          • Peacefulstreets Lewiscounty

            While I agree they have a weak case, it’s an uphill battle to get this into a federal court, costing time, money and aggravation. People get railroaded all the time with interstate phone recording cases.

            I’m in Washington, used to be a 1-party state. Statutes were changed (2010 I think) making it a 2-party state. I should be free & clear recording across state lines, *even if* I’m calling another 2-party state. Unfortunately it’s not a test case I have the resources to undertake.

            I don’t even bother trying to record within the state anymore. All I get is a defensive pissed off refusal. If I’m going to record, I do it in person.

            It does need to be changed and standardized. ’till then, learning experience…

          • Difdi

            Washington isn’t exactly 2-party. It would be more accurate to say all-party. But for Washington law, continuing to talk after someone notifies you that a recording is being made constitutes consent.

            Many states have Long Arm statutes, which allow a state to extradite people who unlawfully harm their residents without actually setting foot in the state.

  • ray brown

    Federal courts don’t like answering Constitutional questions unless they absolutely must. Most likely they will reiterate that the only standard for audio recording is whether or not recorded parties must have a reasonable expectation of privacy-something know one has if they can be heard by the naked ear. I think that’s what the US Supreme Court was trying to convey when it refused to review ACLU v Alvarez. But until the law changes Massachusetts must uphold their recording laws-quixotic it may be.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      no, they don’t

    • Elliott Whitlow

      But the question is does their law even apply, the “offense” was conducted interstate, so how does THEIR law apply. If he was IN MA when it happened they have a case, but they know his address in FL so that’s gonna be a stretch.

      • Difdi

        Many states have what are called Long Arm statutes. The idea being that if you unlawfully harm one of their citizens without actually setting foot in the state in the process, they can still reach out and grab you. Typically, the accused is extradited to the state in question to stand trial there under their laws.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          Long arm statutes refer to jurisdiction in civil cases. Criminal cases have to be committed within the jurisdiction of the state. For phone calls, typically that means that one of the parties (either the victim or the suspect) have to be in the state.

          • Difdi

            Good to know. Which makes me wonder how the heck someone can wind up being charged with a crime in Massachusetts for a crime they didn’t commit there, for an act that wasn’t a crime where they did it.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Ah, but they did commit it in Massachusetts, even though they were physically in Florida. See Commonwealth v. Adelson, 666 N.E.2d 167 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996), review denied 670 N.E.2d 966 (Mass.). If one party “reached into” the state to commit the offense, the state has jurisdiction. That particular case was on a fraud charge, but the same principle applies.

            See also Haigood v. State, 814 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. App.–Austin 1991, pet. ref’d) (telephone communication occurs when and where call is received); Davis v. State, 43 A.3d 1044 (Md. App. Ct. 2012) (interception occurs at both the location of the sender and the location of the receiver, if either is in state, jurisdiction is established).

            Like I said, I haven’t found a case directly on point for Massachusetts, but almost every state follows the above principles.

          • Difdi

            The problem is that the state where the recording was physically made is one-party consent. The recording is legal there.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            No, the problem is that the state where the phone was answered is a two party state, and it doesn’t matter what the law was in Florida.

          • Difdi

            Mr Hardy claims that permission to record was granted. If that were true, wouldn’t it then follow that lying to cause him legal trouble would be prosecuted in Florida?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            On what criminal charge?

            The other problem would be jurisdiction. Richardson’s report would have been entirely in Massachusetts.

  • rick

    Public records request on all phone call records +/- 15 minutes from time Hardy’s call was made. I’m sure they record all emergency calls (exception written into the law for emergency providers), maybe they automatically record everything else too.
    Good luck.

    In hindsight have secondary recorders and make sure they are running prior to picking up the phone.

  • Truth For Students

    The person who made this recording was lazy and quite simply dumb. He and everyone on this board and in this game know the police are looking for any and every reason to arrest and jail them.
    Why would you intentionally put a video on the internet without CLEARLY getting the required notification in there ?
    And all over what ? A stupid phone call to some lady that wasn’t involved in anyway, no control over anything and doesn’t care one bit about the events ?
    Well, now he has a felony rap to beat and will end up spending a lot of money and time out of his life over something so meaningless as a phone call to some inconsequential lady.

    • Carlos_Miller

      Rather than criticize, we all should take this as a learning lesson.

      But also an opportunity to challenge laws that are outdated or questionable considering it involves a public official.

      • Truth For Students

        You can make it a learning experience and also be critical at the same time.
        These are very serious charges and no one reading this should have a false sense of indifference.
        As far as learning something from this…..my advice is to never record phone conversations…PERIOD.
        I see various people doing it on Youtube and quite frankly I don’t see how it serves any purpose.
        We already know that the bureaucrat who answers the phone at a police department or other agency isn’t going to provide any meaningful information or sympathize with the caller who is reporting some abuse by PD.
        Pick and choose your battles wisely and comply with the law in every way shape and form. Failure to do so may result in a long expensive trial and prison.

        • Carlos_Miller

          Screw that advice. We should record all conversations with public officials. We just need to tell them we’re doing it.

          We need to let them know we’re not afraid to document what they say.

          • Truth For Students

            To each is own. Are you donating to this guys defense fund ?

          • Carlos_Miller

            We got lawyers involved already. We don’t waste time with that.

          • tinynot

            although you could very well be wasting your time posting a reply to TRUTH FOR STUDENTS, i happen to think and believe he is a TROLL for THEM! either that or a moron all on his/her own!

        • Voice-Of-Concern

          While it is a serious charge, it is not a serious violation, which by no means is proven.

          As I asked you earlier, WHAT HARM was caused by this recording? It can hardly be contended that the public official reasonably believed that what she was saying was confidential.

          Absent actual harm, how would one differentiate the charge from Official Harassment?

          • Truth For Students

            Harm and damages are irrelevant.

          • tinynot

            TfS, fact is, you are “irrelevant”. class is dismissed, you may now leave….and please dont come back! but before you leave, are you a ESQ.? just asking.

  • Rusty Gunn

    When you screw up this bad, expect to pay the price.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      What are you talking about? what are the damages here?

      • Difdi

        Damage? What does that have to do with it? The guy violated a law by doing exactly what the law prohibits, or at least that’s what he’s accused of. He says he had permission, the other person on the phone says he didn’t. Unless there is evidence showing the other person is lying, he has a problem.

        If it comes down to his word versus a cop’s, he’s going to lose. And it would have been so EASY for him to have done it right. If he HAD done it right, he’d be in the clear.

        • tinynot

          on a court of LAW, the COPS dont always win. so saying that you know the COP will win has no basis in fact. try again. i never did see your answer yet, you an ESQ.? just asking. this would explain why you do not need facts to back up anything you have said so far!

          • Difdi

            What is wrong with you that causes you to freak out at people so hard?

          • PINAC Video Producer

            @Difdi:disqus are you a Lawyer? If you please sit down somewhere. Your 2cents don’t count

          • Difdi

            Perhaps if you and others had default modes other than asshole, we’d get along better.

            Personally, given the quality of your post, I wouldn’t even value your opinion as high as two cents.

  • ray brown

    I don’t think he has anything to worry about. Massachusetts can huff and puff but it’s the Fed’s opinion that counts in the end. Common sense tells you that a law that makes it a criminal offense to make a one party consent audio recording of a public employee conducting official business not to mention an offense to record a suspected assailant without his permission shows the state is lacking in comprehension of Federal standards.

    • Flashing Scotsman

      Common sense tells us you’re right. But when did common sense ever enter into the argument in a courtroom?

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      Hardy’s charged with a felony and faces up to 3 years in prison.

      I don’t think that ‘not to worry’ is good advice under those circumstances.

      Federal “standards” do not preempt state law here.

      • Dan

        “Stiff upper lip, lad” is good advice, be prepared for a slog.

        In Massachusetts the sentences handed down for felony wiretapping vary with the severity of the wrongdoing.

        In circumstances where the violation is greater and the defiance is stronger, there have been cases where sentences of 5 years in the Massachusetts state prison system. There are also fines imposed of up to $10,000.

  • Happy_Tinfoil_Cat

    I wish there was a penalty for filing knowingly false charges. If the cops have a recording, and he stated he was taping, the cops should be charged with harassment/violation of his 1st amendment rights/filing a false police report/something. If the cops don’t have a recording, they have no proof he didn’t tell them. Innocent until proven guilty. Whichever DA brought this case without sufficient evidence should be fired.

  • Difdi

    Some states require that a telephone recording must capture the warning that the recording will be made. Even in states that don’t require it, it’s just good sense to do so. Only a fool doesn’t, because it often opens you up to exactly this sort of trouble.

    Do it right or don’t do it at all.

  • Elliott Whitlow

    I’m curious, how does MA law even apply? Or even FL law? Regardless of their law regarding two party consent, this was across state lines, wouldn’t FEDERAL law apply and doesn’t FEDERAL law trump state laws that conflict? Federal law is single party consent. I don’t see jurisdiction.
    Having a little trouble here.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      In most cases on phone calls, so long as one party is in the state it is sufficient to give the state jurisdiction, as to criminal law. There is a twist here though, as two separate federal courts have ruled that out-of-state recording of calls made to a Massachusetts number do not violate the state wiretapping statute, at least at far as tortuous conduct (civil law). See Pendell v. AMS/Oil Inc., CIV.A. 84-4108-N, 1986 WL 5286 (D. Mass. Apr. 30, 1986); and MacNeill Eng’g Co., Inc. v. Trisport, Ltd., 59 F. Supp. 2d 199 (D. Mass. 1999).

      There is nothing directly on point that I found, but I didn’t spend a lot of time looking either.

  • John Doe

    18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) (AKA: One party consent law) For Boston in particular: Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) http://ccrjustice.org/Glik-v-Cunniffe

    • Difdi

      Glik didn’t overturn the portion of the law that forbids secret recordings, which is exactly what the accusation here is.

  • Tijuana Joe

    Careful, didn’t Ademo go to jail for this, and isn’t he now a convicted felon?

    • Difdi

      He’d call himself a political prisoner, mind you.

  • Pingback: Police ignore the 4th. Amendment will conduct random bag searches along the Red Sox world series parade route |

  • Janet Innes-Kirkwood

    How come the NSA or law enforcement is not being charged with felonies when they use telephone data that was obtained accidentally and without legal basis in recreated cases such as they are doing in these shared task forces when they are going after that money and cars?

    • matism

      Because they are Only Ones. And you are not.

      • Janet Innes-Kirkwood

        Oh, just clarifying the fact that there is a disconnect in legal reasoning that undercuts the whole basis of one law for all. However all public workers should have little reason to expect privacy. They do remind me of cell phones….. This woman was a spokesperson. So what did he get? Her speaking…

  • jwalsh

    Just made my 2nd phone call….1st for Jeff Gray and now this one.

  • Tijuana Joe

    Prosecutor forgets about the critical Jiminy Glick desicion


    • Difdi

      You mean the Glik decision where the court basically said “Oh of course you can record where there is no expectation of privacy, but if you record secretly or without permission where there IS an expectation, you’re utterly screwed”?

      Like, say, how a telephone conversation has an expectation of privacy?

  • Dan

    Reach out to those who are involved.

    Complainant Name – Police Detective – Moore,Nicholas G. #98633
    Main Number 617-343-4270

    Boston Police Dept
    Capt. John Davin
    Email: davinj.bpd@cityofboston.gov

    Mass Legislature
    Robert A. DeLeo Speaker of the House

    Therese Murray President of the Senate

  • Dan

    Sadly he’s been charged with “Interception of Oral Communications” – https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99

    BS all the way. The concept that a conversation between a citizen and a public employee, doing the public’s business falls under the Massachusetts “wiretapping” laws, is a reach at best.

    The wiretapping law is frequently invoked where citizens audio record police officers in the course of their duties. There are entirely understandable reasons for someone to want to do this, but police across Massachusetts have demonstrated their hostility being recorded by bringing felony wiretapping charges against the individuals.

    Egad a conversation was openly recorded, and utilized for public dissemination via Youtube.com, you going to jail boy.

    I’d be a bit more concerned that my CY2012 earnings would be personally disseminated, rather than in general such as:

    Boston Police Department – Earns Report CY2012

    Located at: http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/Boston%20Police%20Department%20Employee%20Earns%20Report%20CY2012_2_tcm3-36349.pdf

    Page 42 of 53

    Lists the following information:
    Name: Richardson,Angelene
    Department: Boston Police Department
    Title: Exec Sec (B.P.D.)
    Regular (Salary) $57,143.07

    Retro: $344.52
    Other (Pay) $1,605.49

    Overtime: $17,632.52
    Total Earnings: $76,725.60

    How/why does an Executive Secretary earn $17K in overtime?

    Interestingly you can find what the Complainant officer N. Moore earns per year as a detective, Page 35 of 53. As well as Capt. John Davin Page 13 of 53.

    Nice to see that all these public employee’s are well above the Estimated median household income of 2011: $49,081 (it was $39,629 in 2000)

    • Difdi

      From what I can see here, unless he can prove the officer in question DID consent to the recording, he will be going to prison. Why? Because he actually DID break the wiretap law.

      It’s not being misapplied, it’s not a case of contempt of cop resulting in trumped up charges. This is what the law is intended to prevent.

      • ray brown

        He doesn’t have to “prove” anything. However the state must “prove” he wasn’t excercising his First Amendment right to make one party consent audio recordings of public employees acting in an official capacity, state law notwithstanding.

        • Difdi

          Yes, that is how it works on paper. Unfortunately, in practice the way it works is that the word of a police officer is considered trustworthy by the courts with no other evidence, while the word of a journalist is inherently suspect.

          So the public information officer will get up on the stand and testilie that they did not give permission, in a two-party state, for a recording to be made. The defendant will insist the officer is lying and there was consent, but his recording got cut off and failed to record it.

          And then the court will take the officer’s word over his on what that gap in the recording means, and that recording will become evidence against him and will send him to prison.

          He has essentially convicted himself here by posting a flawed recording online. Without the flaw, it would exonerate him. But with the flaw and the way the system works, it will fall under the category of ‘anything you say may be used against you in court’.

  • Ian Battles

    If they show up in court with a recording of the whole call, Taylor Hardy should press charges against them for wiretapping!

  • ray brown

    I hope you don’t think your First Amendment right to make one party consent audio recordings of public employees acting in their official capacity is limited to public spaces. If one has a First Amendment right to publish a recording what makes you thing they don’t have a right to collect it. The only standard the Feds are concerned with is if speakers have a reasonable expectation of privacy. States have a habit of ignoring that. Using your logic the Feds would uphold a conviction for audio recording a crime without an assailant’s consent. I realize it’s a nuisance to be charged like this but if the state expects to “win” they’ll have to convince the US Supreme Court that the lady had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    • Difdi

      Just one problem with your theory: A telephone call is not in public. A telephone call DOES have an expectation of privacy.

      • Happy_Tinfoil_Cat

        I’m wondering if using a speakerphone is considered wiretapping. Or a party line. Or one of those super-loud phones for the nearly deaf. In the end, I don’t know that a police public relations officer would spew out confidential info to some random caller, if that makes any difference. Off to short some Polycom stock…

      • tinynot

        privacy over an unsecured line, you a goof, moron or Fing, what? and anyway, this is a public relations person in that PD? this is a joke and all them in BOSTON area, or where ever this jackass COP works, they are all laughing their damns asses off at our expense. fact is until we all do something about it, the JUDICIAL system in the USA, and the COPS make up the law as they go!

        • Difdi

          By that standard there are no laws at all. Just because the government breaks the law and is too corrupt to police itself doesn’t abolish the law.

          If the best argument you can think of to refute my post is to call me a moron, then you’ve already lost so badly there really was no point in even clicking Post.

          • tinynot

            i think there may be some hope for you yet, well unless you were being sarcastic? have you ever been arrested, ever been thru the judicial system at all? civil or criminal? if not, your talking out your butt, and i am the one wasting my time with the likes of you! argument, this is no argument, i was stating facts, as i see it! fact is currently the USA is lawless as i have stated, the PIGS/JUDGES make it up as they go! this is a fact that I, and CARLOS, have been witness to! [you stated that "A telephone call DOES have an expectation of privacy." I and others i am sure would love to know what you base that on! And have you ever heard of the U.S.CONSTITUTION? if not, then i am truly wasting my time "clicking reply"] and oh ya, while we are going there, everyone that gets ON-LINE also has an expectation of privacy! oh hell yes, now that is a good one!

          • Difdi

            Carlos can prove you’re wrong about judges making it up as they go. If they did, he’d be writing his blog from a cell where he would be serving time for the crimes he did not commit.

            As for your views about privacy and the expectation thereof, you sound like an NSA fanboy. Why do you consider privacy to be one of those imaginary things police/judges make up to hurt people?

            Calm down, you write like you’re mentally unstable. You’re freaking out for no apparent reason, making wild accusations against anyone who even slightly disagrees with you, acting just like those pigs you despise.

  • ray brown

    I’m quite aware of Mr Hardy’s predicament. Depending on if Florida is a all party consent state regarding phone calls I would be concerned that Florida would jump on the bandwagon because the “crime” was committed at place of origin and destination of call simultaneously

  • ray brown

    Is the lady stating she wasn’t acting in an official capacity. As far as being a “civilian” is a parking enforcement officer working in public a “civilian”?

  • ray brown

    Glik applies to First Amendment recordings “secret” or otherwise.You don’t need anyone’s knowledge or consent to exercise your Constitutional rights. Why can’t people comprehend that. All party consent states have disregarded this and reasonable expectation of privacy in enacting such inane statutes and now the Feds are getting to the point of “correcting” states. That’s why the Supreme Court didn’t review ACLU v Alvarez. I may not be a lawyer but anyone should understand that.

  • Jim Morriss

    Ummm I have NEVER called a police department that the call WAS NOT recorded. The standard “this call may be recorded…” Should apply bloth ways. Just as you should assume you are being recorded when you walk out in public, when your calls go out in public you should assume they are being recorded. I try very hard to never say anything incriminating on the phone. Except when I have nuclear material and need instructions for my terrorist islamic cell on where to plant the bomb. I feel safe writing that because I know no government agecy is reading this….

    • jonquimbly

      That may be a useful point for Hardy’s defense. If he can subpoena info about that PD’s telephone recording system, and get a copy of the recording they made, it might help.

  • ray brown

    You have to stop thinking in terms of law that disregard reasonable expectation of privacy. In public, private, in person or on the phone if you can hear it with your own ears you may one party consent audio record. State laws that prohibit one party consent audio recording-public or private are antiquated and your’e seeing their last gasps in Mr Hardy’s situation.

  • ray brown

    Is there any law that says Mr Hardy couldn’t stream the call live and someone view and stream it live. Modern technology runs circles around state recording laws. Is it against the law even in Massachusetts to allow a third party to listen in on a call. Is a cell phone a wiretapping device?

  • Pingback: Boston Police Accuse me of Witness Intimidation; Threaten to Charge PINAC Readers with Same | Photography is Not a Crime: PINAC

  • tinynot

    privacy over an unsecured line, you a goof, moron or Fing, what? and anyway, this is a public relations person in that PD? this is a joke and all them in BOSTON area, or where ever this jackass COP works, they are all laughing their damns asses off at our expense. fact is until we all do something about it, the JUDICIAL system in the USA, and the COPS make up the law as they go! argue with the facts all you all want, this crap will not stop until WE put a stop to it.

  • ray brown

    I just think that state officials should think twice about insisting the First Amendment a reasonable expectation of privacy doesn’t matter to the Feds. I’m all for Federalism but the US Constitution trumps state law.

    • howard

      yes it does, by leaps and bounds, but the people of the USA, this great nation do not understand this concept. that was the main reason for that document. people really need to wake up, and get up to speed, and it is not difficult, i did. and if i did, how difficult can it be. if i am able to do something, anyone is able too! i am humble and all that. i am sure not the smartest, but i sure as hell aint the dumbest either!! LOL RAY, part of what THEY are doing, is keeping us fighting. and fighting amount ourselves, & over things we should be agreeing upon. trust no one, and have enough brain power to check things out for yourself, RAY, i do not think i am asking too much from them, ya think? time for the sheeple slaves to wake up!

  • ray brown

    Are you telling me citizens don’t have a First Amendment right to make one party consent audio recording of public officials on the street, in a building in person or telephonically? You do understand that Mass law is a non issue in Federal Courts because it ignores Constitutional and expectation of privacy issues. No telling how far the state will drag this out till cooler heads prevail. The state has to keep up appearances till the Feds finally make it clear that reasonable expectation of privacy and non criminal purpose of recording. As I mentioned before you seem to agree it would be criminal for a victim to make a one party consent recording of a suspected assailant. It would be a violation of Mass. law.

  • ray brown

    You do realize that a one party consent audio recording made by the victim of a reasonably suspected assailant would be inadmissable in a Massachusetts court. Massachusetts disregards reasonable expectation of privacy that’s why they prosecute one party consent audio recordings of public employees. Don’t tell me you weren’t aware of that. This is what the hullabaloo is all about in the Hardy recording. Get with the program.

  • Pingback: I'm Facing 10 Years in Prison for Posting Police Media Spokeswoman's Work Contact Info on PINAC | Photography is Not a Crime: PINAC

  • Pingback: Charged For Contacting The Government? | Raised On Hoecakes

  • Pingback: Boston Police Arrest Student on Wiretapping Charges for Video Recording Them | Photography is Not a Crime: PINAC

  • Pingback: Blogger Taylor Hardy Facing 5 Years in Prison for a Phone Call | 3percenter.org

Javascript is currently disabled. This website functions better with Javascript. Please enable Javascript in your browser.
Internet Explorer is out-of-date. Please upgrade your browser or install Google Chrome Frame for an improved web browsing experience.
%d bloggers like this: