I’m Facing 10 Years in Prison for Posting Police Media Spokeswoman’s Work Contact Info on PINAC


It started with a very clear-cut case of police intimidation against a man trying to video record Boston police conducting an investigation in broad daylight last August, in which an overbearing detective pushed and shoved the videographer away from the scene, threatening to arrest him on felony battery on a police officer when the video shows he was the one committing battery on the videographer.

I was one of the first sites to post the video, which ended up going viral, setting the stage for what would become an intense campaign of police retaliation against Photography is Not a Crime – perhaps because I had posted the main number to the Boston Police Department at the bottom of the story, which allowed readers to contact them to show them we are paying attention.

Call floods to government agencies is a common tactic we have used here on PINAC after videos have emerged showing complete abuse of authority against citizens exercising their First Amendment rights to record.

As annoying as it may be for public officials, we have a right to petition the government for redress of grievances without fear of retaliation.

At least in theory.

The day after I posted the video, PINAC crew member Taylor Hardy, a 25-year-old journalism student from Miami, called a Boston police public information officer for comment on the incident involving the videographer, Jay Kelly, recording the conversation on his iPad.

Boston police spokeswoman Angelene Richardson said she had not seen the video of the overbearing detective, so the conversation was useless to me, and I didn’t bother posting it on PINAC, even though Hardy had posted a portion of their conversation on his Youtube channel.

And that led to Richardson discovering the video and filing a complaint against Hardy for illegal wiretapping, claiming he had never informed her he was recording, a felony charge that can land him in prison for five years.

The only problem for them is that their only piece of evidence is a portion of a conversation Hardy had posted online, which he had since removed. He didn’t even include her name in the video, which had received less than 100 views when it came across Detective Nick Moore’s desk last month.

And the burden of proof lies on them, so unless they recorded Hardy’s entire conversation, which would make the whole violation of a two-party consent law argument moot, they will be hard-pressed to prove he didn’t advise her he was recording upon her answering the phone, which he, if fact, did, as you can see from our Facebook conversation below from August 14.

Screen Shot 2013-10-31 at 1.50.05 PM


So again, it becomes another clear-cut case of police intimidation against citizens who are simply trying to hold them accountable, just as Jay Kelly was trying to do in the above video when he was pushed and shoved away from the crime scene while being threatened with felony arrest.

When Hardy informed me had received the notice of complaint from the Boston Police Department, ordering him to attend a hearing in front of a magistrate judge, I wrote about it on this site, encouraging readers to call Richardson and ask her to drop the complaint.

Screen Shot 2013-11-01 at 10.07.48 PM

After all, as a media spokeswoman, she should understand that all conversations with the media, unless other stated, are on the record. In fact, she should insist reporters record her comments to ensure accuracy.

That led to numerous PINAC readers calling Richardson, which obviously is something that unsettles this public information officer, suggesting that perhaps she is in the wrong line of work.

And that led to Detective Moore filing a criminal complaint against me for witness intimidation, which I received Friday and is posted below, claiming that I caused Richardson all kinds of pain and grief because I posted her publicly available work contact info on my blog.

He also threatened to charge any readers who called her, making me think that perhaps the Boston Police Department is recording all incoming calls because how else would they gather the evidence to charge my readers for witness intimidation?

So again, we are treated to another clear-cut example of police intimidation, an indicator that they would stop at nothing to retaliate against the website that exposed one of their detectives intimidating a citizen from video recording him in public.

And this is rather telling considering the Boston Police Department dished out a $170,000 settlement to Simon Glik last year, a Boston attorney who had been arrested on wiretapping charges after he video recorded cops making an arrest in a public park.

It was the landmark Glik vs Boston decision in 2011, which led to the settlement, that firmly established that citizens, especially in Boston, have the right to record police.

In fact, Boston police proclaimed in January 2012 that the arresting officers used “unreasonable judgement” when arresting Glik back in 2007, a complete 180 degree turn from their previous stance that police were just doing their jobs when they arrested Glik for recording them in public.

So it’s not surprising that they would get upset when another one of their officers used unreasonable judgement while trying to intimidate a citizen from video recording him in public, one who apparently didn’t receive the Glik memo, or more likely, decided to ignore it altogether that day.

And it’s not surprising they would get even more upset when I would publicize that video for the world to see, just as they were putting the embarrassment of Glik behind them – especially when I published the  main phone number to the Boston Police Department at the bottom of that story,  which resulted in numerous calls.

So we shouldn’t be surprised that they would come after Hardy with the same wiretapping charge they arrested Glik on back in 2007, even though Hardy did tell her he was recording as well as the fact that she should expect to be recorded anyway as media spokeswoman.

The video, which did not contain her name anywhere, was viewed by less than 100 times when Detective Moore began investigating.

So for police to claim she was distressed about the video is highly dubious.

While it’s true the two cases are different, considering Hardy was in Miami when he recorded Richardson through the telephone as opposed to openly video recording during a press conference, there is no doubt she was acting in the public capacity as a public official, disseminating information of public interest.

Furthermore, a 1991 case in which reporters from a Pennsylvania newspaper recorded a telephone interview with a murder suspect in Virginia, publishing the transcript of the interview in their newspaper, was dismissed when the district attorney determined the suspect did not have an expectation of privacy considering he was talking to newspaper reporters who made it clear his comments were on the record.

So hopefully, the district attorney who oversees this case will determine the same, considering it is Richardson’s job to talk to reporters who intend to publish her comments.

The Massachusetts wiretapping statute makes it a felony to secretly record anybody, even if they do not have an expectation of privacy, but the Glik decision gave a rather broad description of what constitutes “secretly.”

It has also made clear that “actual knowledge” can be proven by “objective manifestations of knowledge” to “avoid the problems involved in speculating as to the [subject’s] subjective state of mind.” Id. at 340-41. Moreover, the court has noted that “actual knowledge” does not require that there be any explicit  acknowledgment of or reference to the fact of the recording. Id. at 340 (“[T]he person recording the conversation [need not] confirm the [subject’s] apparent awareness by acknowledging the fact of the intercepting device.”). 

The above passage is in reference to citizens who record police in public by holding a phone in their hands without informing them they are being recorded, instead of hiding the phone in their pocket and giving no indicator they are recording.

So even if Hardy did not inform Richardson that he was recording, the fact that she is a police public information officer who was talking to a member of the media about a matter of public interest, knowing her statements would most likely be disseminated to the public, should be enough to meet the “objective manifestations of knowledge” burden spelled out in the above passage.

The other question that needs to be answered is would the Massachusetts wiretapping law even apply to Hardy, who was in Miami when he recorded her?

And for that matter, would the Massachusetts witness intimidation law apply to me when I was also in Miami at the time I published her work contact info, which is available on the police department’s own website?

Screen Shot 2013-11-09 at 5.52.46 PM


Wouldn’t that raise the stakes to the federal level, where the laws are written a little differently?

And if they take witness intimidation so seriously, why wouldn’t they go after the detective in the video who was clearly intimidating a witness from observing and recording a criminal investigation?

We know the answer to that last question. They would never go after one of their own for breaking the law.

Just last week, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino named a popular police commander named William Evans as interim commissioner of the department until they permanently fill the position.

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans
Boston Police Commissioner William Evans

The Boston Globe describes Evans as a man who prefers to win citizens over through respect rather than intimidation, a trait that has obviously not trickled down through the rest of the department.

Menino also praised Evans for his role in the 70-day occupation of Dewey Square by Occupy Boston in 2011.

Rail-thin and affable, Evans won over many of the protestors, giving out his cellphone number and eventually getting theirs.

“Our motto is to kill them with kindness,” he said at the time. “You can talk your way out of anything. We don’t need sticks out. We don’t need helmets on.”

The department’s hands-off strategy was cited as a factor in the relatively peaceful way police later dispersed Occupy protestors.

As it is, Hardy and I are scheduled to attend a hearing this Thursday in front of a Boston magistrate judge, most likely Lawrence McCormick, who will determine if there is enough probable cause to proceed with an indictment.

Knowing how the justice system will almost always side with police, we can pretty much bet this will happen, meaning Hardy and I have to prepare for an epic legal battle that is most likely going to cost thousands of dollars in legal fees. We’ve been talking to various attorneys, including Simon Glik, and they all advise to pretty much wait until the indictment goes through (please help us by donating).

All because we were trying to hold police accountable.

Again, this is nothing but a clear-cut case of police intimidation.

At the risk of getting slammed with more felony charges, I am posting the publicly available email and phone number to Mayor Thomas Menino ( 617.635.4500) as well as the general line to the Boston Police Department ( 617-343-4633) where you can ask to be directed to Commissioner Evans to see if they would like to weigh in on the issue.

Boston PD Complaint2


About Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller is founder and publisher of Photography is Not a Crime, which began as a one-man blog in 2007 to document his trial after he was arrested for photographing police during a journalistic assignment. He is also the author of The Citizen Journalist's Photography Handbook, which can be purchased through Amazon.

Check Also

Stephen Matakovich

Pittsburgh District Attorney to Refile Charges Against Acquitted Cop who Attacked Teen on Video

The Pittsburgh police officer who was acquitted this week on assault charges when a surveillance …

  • kyle

    Please, retain an attorney… This is too important to screw up by not having the expertise and experience dealing with prosecutors who care little about you…
    Make no statements, with or without your attorney present. I pray you have not said too much already.
    And, with your attorney, obtain through disclosure all the shit you can. Because you’ll use it when you sue their asses!

    • Paschn

      Wise comment. To carry this rot even further, I would suggest and would donate to, any effort you folks come up with to educate the ignorant denizens of their power using Jury Nullification. The founding fathers were very clear in describing it’s value in ending “legal” tyranny as it’s playing out in this dying republic. We can, in reality, stop this filth in their tracks…… Cop commits a crime? guilty, special treatment? not hardy….citizens arrested/tried? illegal /tyrannical law? Not guilty….Tax evasion? illegal wage-tax law. Not guilty… unconstitutional. State(s) want to leave a corrupted, foul federal Union? No problem….

      • Proud Grandpa

        Great concept, Paschn, for jury nullification. This feature of democracy has actually been censored from discussion in some courts and when activists tried to tell prospective jurors at or near the court house, the courts had them arrested.
        Yet jury nulling is a key concept of democracy. Of course it can be misused to cover up actual crimes if the jury wishes. That depends upon the will and the integrity of the people.

    • inquisitor

      I would agree not to post publicly any details about the actual case that could be used as testimony or evidence against you.

      But please post on the general developments concerning the case that do not put you at risk.

    • Ian Battles

      Mills v. Alabama (1966): Gathering information about public officials that can readily be disseminated serves a 1st Amendment purpose of promoting the free discussion of government practice.

  • inquisitor

    Will you be able to video record? With permission from the clerk?

    • Peacefulstreets Lewiscounty

      Though courts are a public forum, the laws and rules recording are at the least a quagmire. Permission to record needs be sought from the sitting judge. :/

      • inquisitor

        I have been to court where the permission granted to record proceedings was posted on the door of the courtroom and in the hallway. And that is all that was necessary.

        I have been to courts where one is directed to the clerk of the court in order for one to give notice of their desire to record in the courtroom and getting permission from the clerk that it is okay to do so. And that is all that was necessary.

        I have been to courts where paperwork has to be filled out and it requires the approval of the sitting judge.

        But the first two examples can, at their whim, be negated by a sitting judge prior to or during proceedings unless you have gotten specific permission by the judge to do so. The can call it like they want. So if it is posted that it is okay to do so or that the clerk was consulted, the judge could just nullify those procedures unless you had specific permission from them.

        • eric friday

          Have they forgotten about that pesky 1st Amendment? I do not think petitioning a government official for a redress of a grievance can be witness intimidation.

          • Proud Grandpa

            What if the gov’t official is a witness to a crime? In that case, the pesky 1st Amendment must be balanced against other rights like due process.

          • Dreamthenact

            The first amendment will prevail. The city could remove the employee from the position if they were concerned. Moreover, telling someone that they violated the first amendment is not the same as telling them they better lie or not show up in court. There will be elements to the alleged crime that must be proven.

      • Amicus Curia

        That’s correct–the judge (not the clerk) has absolute control of their courtroom and is given wide latitude to exercise it. Permission from the judge to bring a camera, along with the conditions for its use/placement, must be sought by members of the press. If it’s YOUR case (you being the defendant), typically said permission will be denied. It’s best to have one of your homeboy photojournalist pals seek the permission and cover it. Witnesses will not be allowed to act as reporters during the trial.

        • inquisitor

          Good advice for Carlos not to make the request but have a “friend” journalist make the request.

  • Boffin

    I hope people are contacting the local boston media outlets to get them to cover this.

  • Fotaugrafee

    I agree, I would clam up now & seek legal advice if this is getting that serious. Publishing more & more of this stuff online, you’re just showing your cards in the event they REALLY have something on you. You’re building their case for them, if indeed they can make something stick.

    • Heisenberg

      Make what stick, they are trying to do this to Leon Rosby in LA. How is the officer an witness to the ‘crime”. I am confused how she can be a witness to anything.

      • Amicus Curia

        LEO’s are witnesses to many statements/circumstances surrounding many crimes. They’re put on the witness stand and under oath. If their public affairs officer didn’t witness a crime or the circumstances surrounding it, and has no material information about it, then they’re probably not a witness. But people calling a public official/employee just to annoy them could be charged with harassment. Calling to remonstrate over a miscarriage of prosecution is different, but if the party being called is a material or the complaining witness, I’d steer clear. It could easily hurt the defendant more than help them.

    • Gabernasher

      The case of commenting on how ludicrous the whole situation is, pointing out how NOTHING he did was illegal? Oh that’s right, bend over and take it, be a good citizen.

      • Fotaugrafee

        Uhhhh, no, in the legal world dumbass, they call it “right to remain silent”, and most attorney’s would advise you to exercise it.

        Or we can be a fucking hero Gabe, and do it YOUR way. I’ll watch you swinging from the gallows with a tear in my eye…stunod.

        • Gabernasher

          So now I’ll be hanged for believing in our freedom of speech / the press?

          • Proud Grandpa

            Gabernasher, ignore the troll calling himself Fotaugrafee. He/she posts insults to stir up fights with newbies. The old timers ignore him.

          • Fotaugrafee

            Sure, if you’re freedom of speech involves screaming “fire” in a crowded theatre, which apparently it does in your limitless interpretation of the First Amendment.

          • Gabernasher

            Giving out publicly available information is far from screaming fire in a crowded theater…why do you even use the internet if you feel speaking ones mind is a violation of the law?

          • Kaemaril

            People incorrectly paraphrasing Oliver Wendell Holmes have a lot to answer for …

          • Brad Wesley

            You really should read this: http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/

            Before you ever utter the phrase “yelling fire in a crowded theater” again

          • http://paul-robinson.us/ Paul Robinson

            You’re misinterpreting the decision. The Supreme Court decision stated that one could be punished for *falsely* screaming fire in a crowded theatre. Screaming “fire” in a crowded theatre – or pulling the fire alarm, which amounts to almost the same thing – when there really is a fire is probably a good idea. If you saw the curtains on fire, pointing at the fire and screaming “fire!” is not a crime. It is the false statement that is illegal. And only if it can be expected to cause a panic. Christopher Hitchens once did it from the stage in a crowded theatre to point out that even falsely yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is not a crime if it will not cause a panic. It is the causing of panic for false reasons that creates a crime. Calling in a bomb threat where there you know there is no bomb is a crime; reporting when someone makes a bomb threat, even if you think they’re lying, is not. (Calling in a bomb report when you have reason to believe there is one is not a crime either.)

          • tiny

            TROLL BE GONE! and you be the troll! {BTW- is there an update on this post that i missed while i was busy
            being hung by ^^^^^^^^ mr fart face!

  • Const

    What actions will PINAC, Carlos, and Hardy take after these charges are dismissed attempting to chill their 1st Amendment right to freedom of the press?

  • Headly Westerfield

    Are you obligated to appear, Carlos?

    Will you appear, obligated or not?

    Will you be foolish enough to telegraph what you are going to do?

    • Guest

      It sounds like he’s once again planning on voluntarily traveling to another State to help government officials put him in a cage. It’s bizarre. You would think he would understand by now that if there is no warrant for his arrest he shouldn’t even be thinking about going there.

      • Tijuana Joe

        Yeah, fuck that noise. Let them make the next step. I bet they’re all bark and no


    • Guest

      Carlos should not go. He should not tell them he’s not going. He shouldn’t speak to them at all. If the Boston police call him, the first and only thing he should say is, “I’m exercising my fifth amendment right to remain silent,” and hang up the phone.

    • Proud Grandpa

      Wiley Carlos! Just possibly his attorney and he have worked out a cunning plan. Perhaps this whole threat to appear is an attempt to call the bluff of the Boston DA. The end goal is a lawsuit.
      Will the Boston DA be stupid and take the bait? Based upon Carlos’ actions and words, the Boston DA and friends will look like cowards and lose face for backing down. In the macho world of law-breaking cops and mafia thugs, respect and honor mean everything.
      I am not saying that the DA or all Boston cops break the law or have a criminal connection. Am pointing out that it just looks suspicious. And Carlos’ wiley attorney could be crazy… like a fox!

      • jcfromnj

        Hmmm…I like when a plan come’s together…perhaps this should be a LARGER EFFORT buy all the posters on this site to put up or shut up. A lot of us and a few of them so to speak. Boston is that far from NJ. My guess is that they will fold it there is too much attention from outside. There is an old saying that it far better to have a Camel pissing out of the tent than in…

  • runfayalife

    I just called the mayor’s number and the woman that answered the phone said that if a number is publicly available, then any member of the public can all it. When I asked if I could be charged with witness intimidation for calling a public number, she clammed right up …

    • https://www.youtube.com/user/KizoneKaprow Kizone Kaprow

      I totally believe your little fable. You really called her, and she clammed right up!

      It’s almost as if…SHE HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE!

      • Seamus Ruah

        Or she is a $cientologist.

  • Peacefulstreets Lewiscounty

    Doesn’t the charge of witness intimidation apply to witnesses who are or may be called to testify in a matter before the court? What current case would this public affairs officer be called to testify about?

    • inquisitor

      There were some interesting comments made regarding witness intimidation on a previous thread concerning this story…


      • Peacefulstreets Lewiscounty

        Thanks much. Found the thread, very informative. :)

    • Truth For Students

      Its simple. Hardy is charged with secretly recording a conversation with the lady. The lady is therefore a witness.

      • Proud Grandpa

        Got it. Okay that makes sense now. And Carlos is somehow a threat to her for revealing her contact information? I can see how the DA could attempt a weak case. Sounds pretty desperate.
        Bet the DA folds.

  • Jbroyles

    I would have to believe that the calls at the police station are being recorded. Consent only needs to apply once. If she knew they were recording their side of the conversation, she’s consented to being recorded and therefore the requirement has been met. It’s time for FOIA requests to the Boston PD.

    • inquisitor

      Hopefully Boston Police Commissioner William “Nosferatu” Evans will be more than happy to oblige.


    • Amicus Curia

      I’d think that’d normally work except the Mass. law moots ‘expectation of privacy’. Still, their courts have taken the term ‘secret’ to new limits. Under ordinary circumstances in most states, if the party knows the call is being recorded (on their end, let’s say) they have NO expectation of privacy. One possibility is to place the call on speaker phone with the sounds of lots of others in the background so the other party knows the call isn’t “private” and the others could testify they saw the recorder, so it wasn’t ‘secret’. Normally, a public official has no expectation of privacy because phone calls placed/taken on a government phone are recorded/logged and are subject to public disclosure. Many cases arising from ordinary workplaces tested whether an employee has an expectation of privacy on their employer’s phone. The Supreme Court has said they don’t–not in e-mail, fax, or phone calls. Whether the other (non-employee) party does, is another issue I’m unaware of being resolved. So we (the public) are their employers. I wouldn’t think public officials/employees are entitled to ‘privacy’ on OUR phones while speaking to US!

      • Jbroyles

        My argument goes beyond a traditional expectation of privacy argument in that I believe it could be argued an employee that has knowledge that their employer is recording a phone call and continues to participate has given actual consent to their voice being recorded. Consent should not need to be given more than once. In the circumstances you described, employers were recording their employees without prior notification and therefore relied on and expectation of privacy argument rather then implied consent. If the media spokesman was aware that the calls were being recorded, her voice couldn’t be captured secretly as she already knew it was being recorded. She had given implied consent for the recording to take place.

      • Whodat

        Lol, just FOIA the NSA for the call log, they got the entire thing.

        Expectation of privacy. HAHAHAHAHA


  • triumph110

    From now on Carlos should just link the website where we can contact the office. Then say something like … Here is contact info if you ever need it. That way they can’t say he directed us to call or email.

  • Turnip Truck

    Stop talking about this case until you get an attorney. The Boston ACLU can probably help you find someone:


  • Truth For Students

    You would think such a liberal city like Boston would have more respect for 1st amendment rights.
    I once heard Deval Patrick give a speech about “human rights” and how important they are so maybe the governor will commute Carlos’s sentence if convicted.

    • Proud Grandpa

      Liberals are the worst violators of free expression. Political correctness = censorship.
      If you like civil rights, don’t vote Democrat.

      • pete

        Yes, because the democrats approved of torture and holding US citizens in America in custody without access to an attorney. Or wanting to deny women their reproductive freedoms, or gays the right to marry. Ya, vote republican because we all know they are the “freedom” party. Please. This is such nonsensical BS.

        • Proud Grandpa

          Homosexuals are not able to marry each other and that is only natural and good. In time the errant rulings will be corrected and homosexual sins made illegal again…. Either that or HIV will cure homo false marriages.
          As for baby murdering and other perversions, these are more reasons to vote against leftwing extremists. I support freedom and civil rights. That is why I vote against liberals and democrats.

          • Kaemaril

            What truly despicable sentiments are on display in the first paragraph.

  • ray brown

    I have nothing but complete respect and admiration for police officers who do a sometime thankless job. In the case of Massachusetts my concern is that the police are placed in the middle of a situation that could quickly be remedied by asking the state Attorney General’s office to issue an opinion as to what role, notwithstanding 272-99, that the First Amendment and reasonable expectation of privacy may play in making one party consent audio recording. I find it hard to believe Boston PD and prosecutors involved cannot comprehend that your First Amendment right to make one party consent audio recordings of public employees acting in their official capacity is not left out on the sidewalk. I realize the Feds will set the record straight in time but why wait? Personally I think the Mass law is just fine and mirrors Fed law perfectly. I believe it’s just being misread. Using some peoples logic, in Massachusetts it’s a crime for a victim to make a one party consent audio recording of a reasonably suspected assailant. Do people in Mass entertain the idea that’s legislative intent. That’s why there are standards of legislative intent, letter of the law, crime to fit the punishment- and my favorite- What would Judge Judy say?

    • Difster

      Having COMPLETE RESPECT for cops is just plain stupid.

      • tiny

        100% correct sir! and anyone, does anyone know what that even means? LOL

    • Proud Grandpa

      Great post, Ray. I also have great respect for police. I believe the vast majority are honorable and honest. God bless them!

      • Proud Grandpa

        Ray, as to the reason why the MA Atty General has incorrectly interpreted the law, I suspect this is just politics as usual. He is probably under pressure from the unions (police and public employees) and he may be trying to save the ego and reputation of the cops involved. Who knows?
        I respect cops and DAs, despite the errors and sins of a minority.

  • Name

    You are facing ten years because you tried to change the testimony of a witness. It makes no difference if she is a lying cunt. If there are criminal charges pending, you should NEVER contact a witness trying to change the outcome of a case. This was very stupid on your part Carlos. I am on your side, but you left yourself open to this. You should know better. I wish you luck.

    • Carlos_Miller

      I never contacted her.

      • Name

        I’ll give you that, but you did try to get others to do it for you. You specifically said that you were trying to get her to drop the charges. I would take this very serious if I were you.

        • Guest

          It’s not a crime to try to get her to drop the charges.

          • tiny

            your right, and that dumbass that said it was, or could be is an idiot. making, asking a question, illegal. that would be a can of worms or what? what some seem to be missing is, she is the MEDIA contact for them? NO? yes, she is. for her to use the judicial system like she is, is illegal and Carlos should file a complaint here in south fla. against her!!! how about that? anyone think about that, YES! it is indeed illegal for anyone in her position to use the JUDICIAL SYSTEM for this BS. fact is they are bluffing, this could be the very reason the LAWYERS said for them to wait for the indictment? ya all think, DUH?

        • harry balzanya

          He said maybe. A question and a order are clearly two seperate things.

        • Carlos_Miller

          I’m going to fight this all the way. Fuck those cops.

          if you think I’m not going to take this serious, then you obviously don’t know me.

    • tiny

      your an idiot, go away!

      • Proud Grandpa

        You may disagree with someone, but do not try to censor his/her freedom of speech. Name is welcome to post her as long as Carlos allows it. Name was courteous and direct, not rude or offensive.
        Welcome to the website. I appreciate reading your views. Am unsure of the legal issues you raise, but they merit a good discussion.

        • Kaemaril

          “Do not try to censor his/her freedom of speech”.

          Oh, irony.

  • Mi – Friend of Miller

    I’m a huge fan of you Carlos, but this is a crazy situation.
    I do not believe that the Richardson can “drop” a complaint of wiretapping.
    In most states, Felonies (murder, etc, wiretapping) cannot be “dropped”. If someone stole my car, and I file a police report, find out who did it, and then decide I don’t want them going to jail, I have no power one way or another to influence the case.
    Their lawyers basically believe that you asking Richardson to drop the complaint is like asking someone with information on a murder to not share the information with the police.

    • Proud Grandpa

      I do not believe that the Richardson can “drop” a complaint of wiretapping.
      In most states, Felonies (murder, etc, wiretapping) cannot be “dropped”.
      Does anyone know the law in MA? Is it impossible for the DA to drop a charge? I believe the DA can decline to prosecute at will.

  • harry balzanya

    Share: On this page


    Word Browser

    Advertisement (Bad banner? Please let us know)

    may·be   (mb)


    Perhaps; possibly.

    n. Informal

     An uncertainty: There are so many maybes involved in playing the stock market.

     An uncertain reply: It’s better to receive a fast and honest no than a drawn-out maybe.

    You clearly used the word maybe stating a question not a order or a request. Words have meaning you never asked anyone to do anything. A question and a order are two seperate things. Sue the fuck out of these thugs. Maybe you could sue the fuck out of these things thugs. See the difference. When it comes to consent and the law the police love to play games. Get a lawyer

  • Chris

    wonder why the detective didn’t sign the complaint?

    • Guest

      One reason is probably because Detective N. Moore is a traitorous piece of filth.

    • Chris

      I guess the point I am trying to make, if the complaint is not signed, then is it a duly sworn document?

  • Amicus Curia

    Cops resort to trumped up charges when they have no other avenues. It’s very common. But, the video clip reveals a photojournalist using unprofessional language and style. The cop is in the wrong, but why make yourself less sympathetic by responding to a jerk in kind? The press has no more rights, per se, than any other citizen. They also have no less. The police may demand a citizen stand clear of an ongoing arrest for public safety reasons. It’s discretionary on the part of the copy as to the distance. I didn’t hear the journalist mention the Glik case. He should have, along with its significance. The public has a right to know what’s going down in its public spaces. The police have the right/duty to preserve public safety as well as their own. Reporters should speak/behave professionally instead of like they have a chip on their shoulder or are trying to antagonize police.

    I’m no fan of poorly trained police who abuse their authority. I’ve been to trial defending the right to photograph more than once. Still, the police have a dangerous job to do, despite their poor training. Try not to make yourself look as badly trained as they sometimes do.

    • Proud Grandpa

      Amicus Curia writes:
      the video clip reveals a photojournalist using unprofessional language and style. The cop is in the wrong, but why make yourself less sympathetic by responding to a jerk in kind?
      Proud GrandPa agrees and quotes this good advice for photogs:
      Keep your mouth shut
      We’ve all seen the videos of cops violently arresting somebody, only for the person holding the camera to be shrieking hysterically that they’re pigs or that they’re going to end up on Youtube or that the person they’re arresting didn’t do anything illegal.

    • jcfromnj

      Good balance of views…..but so far there is no legal barrier to bad language and acting clownish. None of it rises’s to” the fighting words” standard. FY is still permitted as free speech……

    • Peacefulstreets Lewiscounty

      While I agree with your general premise, and conduct myself professionally when filming, I’ve not been in Carlos’ shoes. So I can’t predict how I’ll react when slammed up against the wall merely for recording; nor what comments or exclamations I may make when witnessing extreme abuse.

      I’d also point out that while LEOs do face unknown and potentially dangerous situations, their constant protestations about the severity of that danger are regularly overstated. A simple search will illustrate the statistics.

      “Reporters should speak/behave professionally instead of like they have a chip on their shoulder or are trying to antagonize police.” Respect is earned, and only works if it’s mutual. In my experience, even many peaceful encounters are an exercise in inequality as LEOs exhibit an attitude of superiority; vassal addressing serf.

  • AnonyÓðinn

    There is a 7th Circuit decision upholding the right to record police that the US Supreme Court refused to review, with the legal upshot being that it is now legal to record on-duty police officers in every state in the country. If you posted such a video and were challenged by local law enforcement for what you have done (in court or elsewhere) press your case in court (with competent legal counsel). You will win, and profit.

    • jcfromnj

      In Federal Court right now on that…You need to take a hard line on all this if you plan to stay in the game. It’s been two years in the making, but so much fun that I can’t imageine NOT doing this. I LOVE my Job !!! I see what the lagal team has to say about posting anything about the case.

    • io-io

      There are decisions in the 1st, 7th, 9th and 11th Circuits on this now. However, these only address video taping not recording phone conversations. Recording phone conversations across state lines, defaults to the more restrictive state, and has been a legal issue for a much longer time, and settled law for the most part. That said, he – Carlos, is not charged with wiretapping, but rather imitation of a witness, something altogether different – that the Circuit Court cases do not address. Carlos’ associate is accused of wiretapping.

      • AnonyÓðinn

        One might expect that the ‘intimidation of a witness’ charge could potentially be used to chill 1st Amendment activity, though the 1st Amendment as utilized by the courts includes certain protections for the recording process, if I understand it correctly. However, it seems that on appeal, it is likely that the use of the ‘intimidation of a witness’ bit in such a case could potentially be found to have a chilling effect by some judge who may be willing to overturn any prior decision which would uphold the charge of ‘intimidation of a witness’, however, it is hard to say how the case might evolve, so this is speculative ~ but I sense that officers in a public space are fighting a losing battle if they are trying to keep the public from recording them {here, there, and everywhere}.

    • Kaemaril

      “There is a 7th Circuit decision upholding the right to record police that the US Supreme Court refused to review, with the legal upshot being that it is now legal to record on-duty police officers in every state in the country. ”

      IANAL, but I was not aware that a 7th circuit decision was binding on every other circuit, even if SCOTUS declined to review it. Was that understanding incorrect?

  • dennis baker

    Boston police spokeswoman Angelene Richardson

    would have had to swear to the information , the base element of the Criminal Charge, perhaps they had another police person swear to the information as investigating officer. Either way Perjury is the correct avenue to challenge the entire prosecution process, and seek criminal counter charges and civil redress.

  • hardh8

    I would donate, as I respect your campaign against the growing police state. I believe this campaign is very courage and important for Americans freedoms. But since your organization/site seems to have a one sided bias. A campaign against Republicans when it comes to politics. I afraid that’s not going to happen at this time. IF I were to see your organization go after DEMONrats I’d definitely reconsider.

    • Proud Grandpa

      As a Republican and conservative evangelical Christian, I am usually suspicious of liberal activists. This suspicion, however, does not preclude my cooperation and teamwork on common values such as photography rights.
      My biggest personal reservation about PINAC is not so much with Carlos’ politics or with drug users on CopBlock etc. but with the loonies who actually advocate violence against police.
      I believe it is a true statement that the biggest threats to freedom of speech and press and religious speech come from the liberal left and Democrat Party. The Libertarian, Constitution Party, and Republican Party have been far more supportive to free speech.

      • Proud Grandpa

        And you notice how the worst violations come from Democrat-controlled cities and counties. There is a reason for that.

        • Voice-Of-Concern

          Sigh.. Your bigotry is showing again

          • Proud Grandpa

            It is not bigotry to state an inconvenient truth: The worst of these violations come from cities and states controlled by liberals and Demcrats.

          • Wandering_Bard

            The Constitution is an apolitical document. Left and Right have nothing to do with it.

            Everyone can leave their petty Republican / Democrat blaming at home, because protection of rights are a bigger issue than health care or government spending.

            Lewis Black said it best: “The two party system is like a bowl of shit, staring into the mirror at itself, yelling ‘Fuck you!’ ‘No, Fuck YOU!'”

            So everyone quit parroting your party slogans and rhetoric, and start looking at the bigger picture.

          • Proud Grandpa

            Bird wrote:

            The Constitution is an apolitical document. Left and Right have nothing to do with it.

            Proud GrandPa replies–

            The constitution can be violated by left or right. That has everything to do with it. The left liberals have a history of repeated violations of free speech. Conservatives and libertarians, however, prefer freedom of speech and hate political correctness.

            Because I value freedom, I never vote Democrat.

          • Wandering_Bard

            You’re right – the constitution can be (and is) violated by both left and right.

            I’m not going to argue politics with you, because I personally think the entire two-party song and dance is a joke.

            My point is that blaming the country’s problems on one group or the other is ultimately counter-productive – they’re BOTH flawed, and so concerned with pushing their respective political agendas that they just see the Constitution as an obstacle.

            Blaming “Libtards” or “Rethuglicans” just distracts from the real problem: a government that has become so flawed, so convoluted, and has so grossly perverted the fundamental ideals of this country, that is barely even a shadow of its former self.

            Truly examine the candidates you vote for. Read their legislative history, and their voting record. Vote for men and women whose ideals match your own. Vote for someone because you BELIEVE in what they represent, not because of the color of his tie.

          • Flashing Scotsman

            Which is precisely why I’ve been a card carrying, dues paying member of the Libertarian Party for nearly three decades. The Republicrats are the ones that have things all screwed up.

          • Wandering_Bard

            You are missing the point.

            It’s not just the Republicans, or Democrats… it’s then entire party system. Any political party.

            When you shoehorn people into a political party, they make decisions and parrot rhetoric along partisan lines, and stop thinking for themselves.

            It becomes yet another “Us” vs “Them” mentality, and only serves to alienate and polarize.

          • Flashing Scotsman

            Unless, of course, there’s a party that has respect for the law.

      • Carlos_Miller

        PINAC does not advocate violence against police officers but it does maintain a very open forum in the comments section, which brings out a lot of strong opinions.

        Although I rarely delete comments, I have deleted comments in the past that call for violence against cops.

    • Carlos_Miller
    • inquisitor

      A baseless accusation of bias.

    • Paul Weiskel

      Only against republicans? He is going after the Boston police… the heart of liberal politics. Mayor Menino has shaped the BPD as part of his democrat vision for the last two decades. This IS going after democrat machine in Boston that includes the BPD.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      it’s not Republican vs Democrats issue. It’s Constitutional Rights vs Bullies with Badges.
      It’s Transparency & Sunshine is Good vs Secrecy & Hidden Agendas are good.

      Bullies can come from any background. So can crooks.

    • Kaemaril

      “IF I were to see your organization go after DEMONrats I’d definitely reconsider.”
      Something tells me you’re not legitimately wanting to see an unbiased website.

  • http://www.jugarjugar.net/ Jugar Jugar

    Indeed, the confusion then. People just do not fuss to cause more attention than the story there’s nothing to be done about the

  • tiny

    there is no way they would say or do anything to me that would get me to go up there on my own to do one thing, put me into the JURISDICTION of the great state of boston! i can hear that conversation now. state attorney from BOSTON calls FLORIDA counterpart!
    “someone down there in south fla. disrespected one of our pigs up here. would you please place them on the next flight to BOSTON. thank you for you anticipated cooperation in this matter!”
    i wonder what the response would be, DUH?
    fact is, BOSTON has no “subject matter jurisdiction” in this case. CARLOS, by any chance when those lawyers said that perhaps you should wait for the “indictment”, did they mention those words? if they did not, get another lawyer. [i happen to think that BOSTON police media “person” needs to be fired, and placed in prison for this crap! and that is what it is, crap.] fact is, those “charges” will be dropped! perhaps BOSTON is jealous of our great weather. that could be it? let there be tons of winter snow that bury BOSTON this year, i hope! i wonder if it illegal for me to “petition god with pray”? maybe i should ask JIM?

    • tiny

      i just posted that to my FB page/wall. i hope that boston police bitch sees that, maybe she will file a complaint? well screw her and her complaint, she can stick it where the sun dont shine!

    • Proud Grandpa

      wonder if it illegal for me to “petition god with pray”?
      If you serve the people on city council, then the Supreme Court will answer your question soon!
      Ironically the US Supreme Court begins each session with this prayer: May God Save This Honorable Court.

      • Flashing Scotsman

        Well, at least it started out to be an honorable court.

  • ray brown

    I’m not sure providing the government phone of a government employee to address a grievance is witness intimidation. Wouldn’t it be like contacting a congress person. However in this case a person directly involved in a complaint is being contacted-the lady felt victimized-that may or may not be true the Boston PD and prosecutor see it that way. If someone wanted voice their concern people not directly involved in the case should be contacted. Perhaps Mr Miller should have been more knowledgeable about who to contact. The state would have to prove he intended that others were going to intimidate the lady-if they even did. The question also arises why wasn’t the lady informed in her training that citizens have a First Amendment right to make one party consent recordings. That right cannot be abridged by an individual state’s law. That state’s law’s are allowed to exist by virtue of the US Constitution after all.

  • io-io

    In doing some reading, I think that you are going to be hard pressed on this. If they received 100 calls, they will probably try to charge you with 101 counts of intimidation at 10 years each.

    This is their response to anyone recording police (a warning if you will), and covering up their own intimidation tactics. All you have to do is to go back and watch the aftermath of the marathon bomber search in Watertown. Essentially the Constitution was suspended and de-facto martial law was declared – no search warrants issued, just barging into your home. Watch the videos of the armored vehicles in the streets and the armed police going from house to house pulling homeowners out of their homes at gunpoint, hands up and shoving them down the street. Also remember – nothing was done about this – it was all forgotten about very quickly.

    You need local newspaper and TV coverage in Boston to fight this – along with a good attorney.

    Don’t be surprised if during the hearing – they might find you a “flight risk” – as you are from out of state, and just might not come back, once you are indicted. Bail on a large pile of counts could be pushed very high – essentially putting you on “ice” till the trial in a year or so.

    • kerfuffle

      How do they conclusively link call to carlos. Given that the contact info is publically posted by the bpd.. the chain of evidence is mighty weak

      • io-io

        The DA can indite a ham sandwich – as the saying goes. At this time, they can pile on the charges not worrying now about having to prove anything. This is not the trial, the Judge is suppose to look at everything to determine if an indictment is warranted which is part of the process that will lead to a possible trial. Everything up to the trial is jockeying for position and offering a plea bargain. Agree to 5 years in the slammer with “Tiny” (giving you a real break here due to over crowding), or 1010 years (or what ever large number) if found guilty at trial. This is designed for you to cop a plea so that they will not need to go to the trouble of having to dig up the evidence and go to trial. Also, they want to keep the meter running on your legal bills, bleeding you dry, so that you will cop a plea.

        They will just count up the calls that they have recorded and say that the area codes are from across the country, obviously they were spawned by the website postings. They will say if the initial post was not made – then the calls would not have been received.

        Not a lawyer – not giving legal advice.

        • kerfuffle

          I have never bought “indite a ham sandwich” claim. Grand juries are made of people… Who not always agree with the DA

  • https://www.youtube.com/user/KizoneKaprow Kizone Kaprow

    “I’m facing 10 years in prison…”

    You haven’t even been indicted, but you’re “facing” 10 years in prison? “Facing” is not the same thing as “getting,” of course, but don’t let that stop your unabashed panhandling for donations. Further, when you play anti-cop, anarchist-propaganda games and encourage your puppets to harass other individuals (the fact that they are government workers is irrelevant), then you must accept the risks involved. If justice is on your side, then you have nothing to worry about, right?

    “Knowing how the justice system will almost always side with police, we can pretty much bet this [indictment] will happen…”

    Oh, I see. The “system” is rigged, and The Man is out to get you. I’ll assume that you and your readers favor dismantling the American justice system and replacing it with…what, exactly?

    • inquisitor

      Did anyone notice the distinct smell of sour cunt begin to waft into the immediate vicinity?

      • https://www.youtube.com/user/KizoneKaprow Kizone Kaprow

        It’s the smell of echo-chamber disinfectant. But don’t let that stop you from addressing my comments, if you can. Or are you only capable of repeating prehistoric and ineffectual insults?

        • inquisitor

          I do believe it was your insults that were being addressed.

          What department do you work for?

          • https://www.youtube.com/user/KizoneKaprow Kizone Kaprow


          • Flashing Scotsman

            Unable to answer questions, I see. Just toss out crap, then act like we’re idiots when we throw it back at you. Seems a bit trollish.

    • Guest

      “Oh, I see. The “system” is rigged, and The Man is out to get you. I’ll assume that you and your readers favor dismantling the American justice system and replacing it with…what, exactly?”

      With police, DAs, prosecutors and judges that honor their oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States.

    • Carlos_Miller

      The maximum sentence for intimidating a witness is ten years.

      And yes, when you try to hold police accountable, the risks involved include getting arrested on baseless charges.

      Trust me, I’ve been there before.

      And yes, the system is biased to side with cops, which is why so many cops hate video cameras because they capture the truth, making it more difficult for them to create their own truth to present to the court.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      Anarchist? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

      Ummm… Did miss Civics class, when you went to school? If so, let me help you out. In the United States, we have a Foundational Document called the Constitution. The Constitution is the basis for our system of laws. The Constitution has several Amendments. The First Amendment covers several basic rights, including Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. The third paragraph of the above article SPECIFICALLY cites the First Amendment.

      Far from being an anarchist, Photography Is Not A Crime is a place that very specifically uses the Freedom of the Press (First Amendment), to expose anti-Constitutional repression of Speech by various governmental agencies.

      I suspect you have confused the term “anarchist”, with the term “Unpatriotic boot-licking coward”.

      Then you close out with the 100% straw man “I’ll assume that you and your readers favor dismantling the American justice system and replacing it..”

      Sheesh, I don’t know what agency you are with, but are an embarrassment to them.

      • https://www.youtube.com/user/KizoneKaprow Kizone Kaprow

        “Ummm…boot-licking coward…I don’t know what agency you are with…”


        • Kaemaril

          Nice bit of selective quoting you’ve got going on there.

        • Flashing Scotsman

          I’ve never seen anyone connected with this site promoting the overthrow of our system of government. More like making the government obey the law. You know, THE law. Otherwise known as the Constitution.

  • Dreamthenact

    “and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    There are a number of legal arguments that can be raised here. Don’t neglect the simple assertion of first amendment rights. If the city did not want an employee to be possibly influenced by public opinion, they should have removed her from her position, and asked her not to read or watch any news coverage related to the matter. She is a representative of the government and therefore subject to criticism by the public.

    The law in MA is unconstitutional as to recording public figures. If you are going to have the fight with them go for the whole enchilada. Make sure you challenge their wiretapping law at the same time. There will need to be a test case at some point to change it. This looks like a pretty good test case. Try to have all the issues combined so they don’t exclude from consideration the facts that led to your public first amendment activities to have citizens express their displeasure with the government, that is to call the city and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  • http://www.miamisocialcon.com/ Karla Campos

    Keep up the good work Carlos Miller, the world needs more people like you.

  • https://ethanglover.biz/ Ethan Glover

    Defend and protect? Nope, cops are there to fill quotas and fulfill personal revenge missions.

  • Joshua B.

    “If he stayed at home and carried on with his normal life he would be a thousand times superior to these people and could get any of them out of his way just with a kick.”

    Franz Kafka – The Trial

  • Ian Battles

    I made an uneventful phonecall today, expressing my displeasure with the recent events and that, after seeing her information on PINAC and verifying it by checking Google (took less than 5 seconds), I felt I had to call and voice my concern.

    I’m looking forward to my my Witness Intimidation warrant. It’ll be tough to make that charge stick, given the amount of pleases and thank yous I used.

    You guys gonna come to Connecticut and get me? I’m waiting.

    • https://www.youtube.com/user/KizoneKaprow Kizone Kaprow

      You appear to be a martyr in search of martyrdom. Good luck with that.

      • kerfuffle

        You appear to be a troll in seach of an audience (yawn)

  • IcedTeaParty

    I like the part where everyone posts as though Carlos doesn’t have any idea how to handle this.

    We got your back, Carlos.

    • Guest

      I think he has the wrong idea. From his latest writing it seems that he’s decided to go.

  • ray brown

    I’ve asked various Massachusetts government offices what unit of measurement is used to determine the distance from the curb where one’s First Amendment right to make one party consent audio recordings of public employees acting in an official capacity are diminished to the point where it’s a crime to make such recordings. In case a recorder is out of state I asked if a Rhumb line or Great circle is used.

  • Ron

    The cops clearly have too much time on their hands. Has crime dropped so much that the cops are bored shit-less and have to go around looking for something to do? Clearly they have nothing better to do.

  • Ken

    You would think that with all that is going on with “police accountability” that they would be forced to learn how to deal with the public in a manner that would protect them from loosing their careers. I hope to God that these Government Bullies get what is coming to them, with a HUGE loss to their financial well being.

  • lcuvillier

    Tyrants. They are like cockroaches – when you expose them to light, they run for cover.

  • Kirk Mcquest

    He’s in Miami, they are in Boston. I think I would ignore it they aren’t going to spend the time and money to have him brought there forcefully.

  • http://guymanningham.com/ Guy Manningham

    This shows that we have no control over our “public servants.” – GuyManningham.com

  • Oregon CopBlock

    Called and recorded my first attempt at getting an explanation to this BS… http://www.facebook.com/oregoncopblockers

  • JdL

    I see that some commenters are advising you not to publish this kind of information. This may be good advice from a legal standpoint (IANAL), but from an open information standpoint, it sucks. I fail to see why legal threats against you by the criminal government thugs in Boston must be kept secret. Please do seek legal advice, Carlos, but keep the information coming if at all possible! And again, thanks for everything you do to expose official malfeasance.

    • Proud Grandpa

      What has worked in other civil rights venues is for either the attorney to make the statement about his client or for a non-profit, religious and educational group unrelated to the trial to issue a report.
      That allows information to reach everyone without legal detriment to the client. Smart move if Carlos really must share information. Just a kindly suggestion that has worked in the past.

  • Wandering_Bard

    Fight the good fight Carlos, and thank you.

    Thank you for constantly putting yourself on the line to fight for the First Amendment.

  • Skeptical

    If somebody posted my phone number to a blog and told a bunch of people to call me and tell me off and a bunch of people stared doing it, then I would consider that to be harassment. Definitely intimidation. Wouldn’t you?

    • anirprof

      He posted an official phone number for the PUBLIC RELATIONS office, that was ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S WEBSITE!

      This was not a personal phone number. If you went to the BPD website, and wondered, “who should I call to ask a question about an incident?”, the BDP’s own website would direct you to that same number!

      I’d be like someone with a complaint about about UPS, posting on his website that anyone else who wanted to comment to UPS should call 1-800-PICKUPS.

  • http://www.twitter.com/whatanassami @WhatAnAssAmI

    Well, next time, don’t harass government officials, or anyone else for that matter, genius. Posting phone numbers is just wrong, whether the numbers are posted elsewhere or not, and especially when you do it with the obvious intent of harassing/scaring people as I feel you did here.

    People like you amaze me, really. You think you have a right to photograph and bother government officials and then post it on the Internet. If you don’t like the government, move to Pakistan.

    • anirprof

      He posted an official phone number for the PUBLIC RELATIONS office, that was ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S WEBSITE!

  • sp

    Who cares if you’re ‘allowed’ to film them… what kind of person insist on being in the way of a police investigation? Jesus, leave them alone. If you really have that much time to stand there and video everything then you really need to get a life/job/friends.

    It seems as though you’re all jerks. Telling a cop to go fuck themselves? These men and women put their lives in danger every day and you can’t respect them enough to give them space and let them get their jobs done? Pathetic.