Re: audio surveillance public place

More | Report Post

Thank you for your advice.You have been very helpful.I will be sure to keep you
informed on how this nightmare pans out.I have a very very good defense lawyer.He
is very good friends of my family.We all grew up together and some went to
college together. In any event,this sort of thing is a real nuisance to people as
you know.The problem is that these situations can escalate and get out of hand
like it has already. My lawyer is suppose to write a letter to the police
explaining why these people should be arrested and should HAVE BEEN arrested
already. I will let you know the outcome,thank you again dor your help and
advice.On 5/12/08, -- wrote:
> On 5/12/08, Tony wrote:
>
> Tony:
>
> You need a lawyer, one that will deal with this. Advice on this board may do
> you more harm than good. The laws of your state control this matter and you
> need an attorney that practices in your state to handle this matter. Please
> find an attorney that can help you. If the police have threatened to arrest
> you it is time to stop talking to them and have a lawyer settle this for you.
>
>
>
>
>> First,I want to thank you very much for your very helpful advice.This is a
>> very terrible nd absolutley unbelievable situation that we are in.The police
>> are litterally letting this lady and her husband old children to clearly
>> break the law and are doing nothing to stop them.In fact ,the police are
>> actually encouraging and facilitating them bye letting them get away with
>> it.They were the ones to actully advise her to put up avideo camera.Mot sure
>> if they told them to put up audio.Nevertheless,We feel like we are in a
>> terrible nightmare of some kind or like the twilight zone.YEs ,getting bck to
>> what they said they overheard while I was INSIDE MY House was that I wanted
>> to R.pe there daughter! I never ever said or even use that word!!Ok so than
>> the cops tell her to send out her tapes and get them "ENHANCED" mto see if my
>> voice can be herd on them,WHILE I WAS INSIDE MY HOME!They should have
>> arrested her right than and there for eavesdropping,no? Than the onesided
>> worthless cops tell me that I canbe and MOSt likely be arrested even if the
>> tapes come back "garbled" because they wrote a sworn statement saying that
>> they herd me saying that word! I never said that word nor even ever mentioned
>> any names that day.My mother was here with me and also I have my OWN audio
>> and video camera set up inside one of the bedrooms that can record everything
>> I siad inside the house as well as video of my drivway.Did this just for this
>> eason,to protect myself against there fabrications! The cops have not ask me
>> my side of the story.Are they just going to come and arrest me?This is very
>> bad!I come from a very large and well respected family.I do not know what
>> they could arrest me for but if it something to do with like sexual
>> things,that is defamation/slander etc..,no?What can I do in the meatime? I
>> have called the cops on this,one sargeant spoke to me but after that it seems
>> as though they are not taking my calls.This is too much! So, what complaint
>> can I make?Eavesdropping?Bye the way,they are saying they were on there front
>> lawn working when they said they herd this and the cameras that have the
>> audio are mounted at least 50 feet back from my hise NOW!! The cameras use to
>> be right at the edge of there property on the road shooting directly at our
>> house.Someone must have adivsed them that there clear intent was to harrass
>> us so they moved the cameras back. I did and do have pictures of when the
>> cameras were very close! Thanks again,On 5/10/08, -- wrote:
>>> First I want to say that you should listen to what your attorney says
>>> regardless of what I say.
>>>
>>> It does not sound as if you said anything illegal even if what they say
>>> you said were true. For words to be illegal, you would have to be making
>>> an imminent threat of harm or be acting in a conspiracy to commit a
>>> crime. Insults are not a crime neither is a lustful expression uttered in
>>> a place of privacy.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, your neighbor is clearly violating the law of your
>>> state.
>>>
>>> ---- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189a (2008); Eavesdropping: Class D felony.
>>>
>>> ---- (a) A person is guilty of eavesdropping
>>> ---- when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping or
>>> ---- mechanical overhearing of a conversation.
>>>
>>> ---- (b) Eavesdropping is a class D felony.
>>>
>>> A recording device is considered a "mechanical overhearing" as defined by:
>>>
>>> ---- § 53a-187. Definitions. Applicability.
>>>
>>> ---- (2) "Mechanical overhearing of a conversation"
>>> ---- means the intentional overhearing or recording
>>> ---- of a conversation or discussion, without the
>>> ---- consent of at least one party thereto, by a
>>> ---- person not present thereat, by means of any
>>> ---- instrument, device or equipment.
>>>
>>> Now there may be some argument that since the recording device was in
>>> their possession they were "present thereat." Nevertheless, you have a
>>> strong case of eavesdropping against them. The very word "eavesdropping"
>>> comes from the ancient practice of standing under the "eaves" or the
>>> overhang of a house and listening to a conversation inside the house.
>>> This is exactly what they are doing with their recording equipment.
>>>
>>> One way to thwart their recording equipment would be to place a small fan
>>> on the side of your house facing theirs with some plastic strips attached
>>> to it or a small wind chime. The very slight noise will mess up their
>>> sensitive microphone and mask your conversation inside the house. You
>>> won't even hear the fan noise inside your house.
>>>
>>> In the long run however, you must put a stop to these people with the
>>> law. Filing a lawsuit for harassment against them is good for starters.
>>> Also, file a criminal complaint with the police and the state attorney
>>> general. It is creepy to feel threatened in your own home by prying eyes
>>> and ears. Stop them with the law -- it should be on your side.
>>>
>>> On 5/10/08, tony wrote:
>>>> Thank you for answering me : I actually do not know what these wackos
>>>> are accusing us of but this latest flas accusation is that I was inside
>>>> my home working one day I was on and of the tellphone as well as cell
>>>> phone speaking to work related people all day. My mother was at my hosue
>>>> with me all day also. These people call the police 3 days later saying
>>>> that I was calling them white tarsh and trailor trash and that I wanted
>>>> to .... there 40 year old no attractive at all daughter!Regardless,I
>>>> would never ever say that about a very attractive lady anyways! I will
>>>> not write the word becasue I do not ever use that word.They are
>>>> fabricating and writing absolutely lies and putting this in sworn
>>>> statements.I believe that they told the police that they overherd me
>>>> saying these things and that are sending out there audio video cameras
>>>> tapes to be enhanced to try and see if they are actually on there tapes!
>>>> Well, it will not be on there tapes becue I never ever said that about
>>>> there daughter. I do have an attorney.He is actually a very good defense
>>>> attorney.This is not the most important case to him,understandably.What
>>>> do you think? I really appreciate your help very much.Thank you
>>>> again,tonyOn 5/10/08, -- wrote:
>>>>> On 5/10/08, tony wrote:
>>>>>> Well it has gotten worse! These crazy people are claiming that I had
>>>>>> aid something while inside my home one day.I was working at home
>>>>>> with the radio on and with a friend there.I was on and off the phone
>>>>>> all day.Well 4 days later the police show up at my door saying these
>>>>>> people said I said something very bad and offensive to me and my
>>>>>> family! Terrible! Well,they are investigating this! They told me
>>>>>> that they both made a sworn staemnet to this false allegation and
>>>>>> also they are sending there audio tape which they have on 9 cameras
>>>>>> toward my house out to get enhanced .The police tell me that even if
>>>>>> the audio comes bnack "garbled" i may still be arrested becaus eof
>>>>>> there sworn statements to this false allegation!Remember,I was
>>>>>> INSIDE my hosue when they are claiming they overherd what they are
>>>>>> lising to what they said I was saying! CAn this be happening? First
>>>>>> of all., I NEVER SAID WHAT THEY SAID I SAID! Second, I was INSIDE MY
>>>>>> house.Thirdly,why did they wait 4 days later to call the police? Can
>>>>>> you help me with your advice?Thank you.On 4/04/08, -- wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/04/08, Tony wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is it legal for our crazy neighbor across the street to have 9
>>>>>>>> audio+video cameras pointed in our childrens bedroom windows as
>>>>>>>> well as ALL the windows of the front or our home?They are AUDIO
>>>>>>>> equipted and tape our conversations from our front yard,garage
>>>>>>>> and also INSIDE OUR HOME! We have called the local police and
>>>>>>>> they have viewed as well as listened to these tapes and they
>>>>>>>> tell us it is NOT illegal! We live in Connecticut. Can anyone
>>>>>>>> shed some light on this for us? Thanks...Tony
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony:
>>>>> You need to get a lawyer. As I wrote to you before, (see below) using
>>>>> a device such as a camera/audio recorded that can hear/see into a
>>>>> place where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy (like inside
>>>>> your house) is a felony in your state.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, even if neighbors committed a crime in recording you inside
>>>>> your house, the recording might be admitted as evidence in court
>>>>> against you because it was not the government who did the illegal
>>>>> snooping. Your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search
>>>>> and seizure only apply to government acts. If your neighbor breaks
>>>>> into your house and searches it -- and finds 10 pounds of drugs -- if
>>>>> he turns the evidence over to the police, it can be used against you
>>>>> even though he might also be prosecuted for breaking and entering.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are your neighbors accusing you of drug activity or what?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Connecticut has a fairly strict “eavesdropping
>>>>>>> statute. “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation”
>>>>>>> (see definition below) is a felony in Connecticut.
>>>>>>> If a person uses a recording device hooked up to a
>>>>>>> sensitive microphone, that is illegal unless they
>>>>>>> have the permission of at least one person involved
>>>>>>> in the conversation. The people being eavesdropped
>>>>>>> on must also have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
>>>>>>> If you are in a public place like a store you probably
>>>>>>> don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
>>>>>>> However, if you are in your house and speaking in a
>>>>>>> voice that could not be heard beyond the boundaries
>>>>>>> of your property without the assistance of a
>>>>>>> “mechanical device” then you do have a reasonable
>>>>>>> expectation of privacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The audio recording you described is clearly a
>>>>>>> violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-187 (2008) [Eavesdropping]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> § 53a-187. Definitions. Applicability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (2) "Mechanical overhearing of a conversation"
>>>>>>> means the intentional overhearing or recording
>>>>>>> of a conversation or discussion, without the
>>>>>>> consent of at least one party thereto, by a
>>>>>>> person not present thereat, by means of any
>>>>>>> instrument, device or equipment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> § 53a-189. Eavesdropping: Class D felony.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) A person is guilty of eavesdropping
>>>>>>> when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping or
>>>>>>> mechanical overhearing of a conversation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (b) Eavesdropping is a class D felony.
>>>>>>> ******
>>>>>>> Connecticut law appears to deal with video recording
>>>>>>> under its Voyeurism law. See below. The video
>>>>>>> recording you described may be illegal under Conn.
>>>>>>> Gen. Stat. § 53a-189a. I found one case where a
>>>>>>> conviction and lawsuit followed an act of video
>>>>>>> voyeurism. See below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189a (2008) [Voyurism]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> § 53a-189a. Voyeurism: Class D felony.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) A person is guilty of voyeurism
>>>>>>> when (1) with malice, such person knowingly
>>>>>>> photographs, films, videotapes or otherwise
>>>>>>> records the image of another person (A)
>>>>>>> without the knowledge and consent of such
>>>>>>> other person, (B) while such other person
>>>>>>> is not in plain view, and (C) under
>>>>>>> circumstances where such other person has
>>>>>>> a reasonable expectation of privacy, or (2)
>>>>>>> with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual
>>>>>>> desire of such person or any other person,
>>>>>>> such person knowingly photographs, films,
>>>>>>> videotapes or otherwise records the image
>>>>>>> of another person (A) without the knowledge
>>>>>>> and consent of such other person, (B) while
>>>>>>> such other person is not in plain view, and
>>>>>>> (C) under circumstances where such other person
>>>>>>> has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (b) Voyeurism is a class D felony.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Case law on voyeurism:
>>>>>>> Wilderman v. Powers, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1001 (Conn. Super.
>>>>>>> Ct. 2007)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On August 5, 2005, Gregory Powers, without the plaintiffs'
>>>>>>> knowledge, entered the plaintiffs' property, approached
>>>>>>> the window of the bathroom, and photographed or attempted
>>>>>>> to photograph Lisa Wilderman in a partial state of undress.
>>>>>>> While outside the bathroom window, Gregory Powers struck the
>>>>>>> bottom of the window with his camera, and as a result, Lisa
>>>>>>> Wilderman became startled, and noticed the camera and hand
>>>>>>> holding it. She contacted police, which resulted in the
>>>>>>> arrest of Gregory Powers that evening with the camera in
>>>>>>> his possession, hiding in the woods across the street from
>>>>>>> the plaintiffs' home.