UPDATE: Out Of Control Police in Nashua, NH. Man arrested for filming own property

You don’t really expect cops to know anything about civil rights or civil liberties, do you? Or care?

Can I add some fuel?

If this was Ann Coulter, you’d all be asking for her head! And the conservatives would be asking for a date!

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

No duh, what do you expect him to say when you lock him up for putting up security cameras on his own home, when you might not come across favorably on them. sheesh.

Let’s not make too much of this.It’s more of a unintended consequence or misreading of a reasonable law.

Just because it’s one’s “own house”, it does not mean you should have a right to videotape everything that goes on in it. People should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even on another’s private premise.

Yes, a lot of these laws were created to stop the creeps who videotape, without consent, others going to the bathroom, having sex, etc, so the purpose is a good one.

No Lou, if you’re on my property in plain site I have every right to videotape you. This isn’t about the expectation of privacy like when you’re in the bathroom. If you’re on my property, my lawn, my front door, there is zero expectation of privacy.

I also happen to be a freelance photojournalist…would they have confiscated my camera and images if I had shot them while they were on my property? I mean, this is news isn’t it? What if I were across the street shooting this while they were hassling someone else?

Does this also mean that if there was another Rodney King type incident in New Hampshire, the person videotaping the beating would be arrested?

I was really curious whether the police got a search warrant to search the house for other cameras and tapes as mentioned by the wife. What Judge would sign a search warrant to confiscate a camera from a private residence. While I couldn’t find out if that happened, I did come across a comment by a police Sargent.

Maher said that security cameras on private property are not illegal, but the person being videotaped needs to be notified. Maher noted the Nashua Police Department uses cameras in its booking area, but has a large sign informing people they are being recorded.

Maher also explained that Gannon’s alleged taping is different from when television crews or members of the media might record police investigating a crime scene, because there is an expectation that might happen.
“There certainly is a kind of awareness in a public place that you are being recorded,” he said. “This was not the case.”

http://tinyurl.com/le2gk

Hmmm, do I note a touch of hypocrisy there?

First, there were signs posted as well as being given a verbal notice.
Second, cameras from a television station (as do journalists) have no special privilege compared to private cameras.
Third, that would mean that anytime someone used a camera in public, they risk committing a felony because they might capture someone without their permission.
Fourth, requiring the permission of a vandal or thief would defeat the whole purpose of having a security camera.
Fifth, there was no expectation of privacy; the conversation was not privileged or confidential and took place between at least three people. The conversation took place outside the front door which is right next to the sidewalk.
Sixth, if any New Hampshire police have cameras in their cars, then they too would be breaking the law.
Seventh, does the notice in the police booking room allow for anyone to ask that the camera be turned off?

For the city’s sake, I sure hope they can settle quick. If this goes to court, expect to pay more.

I have a feeling that the DA in this case is going to drop everything. Not that they actually have a case. But that doesn’t stop the police from hassling these people like they did.

See, it’s a total pain in the ass to the people involved. The police can arrest, confiscate, intimidate all they want…doesn’t mean that they’ll actually press charges. Especially if they’re in the wrong. But that still doesn’t alleviate the fact that the guy WAS arrested and hassled. Sure, he’ll get his stuff back and even get an “apology” maybe….but underneath it all they’ll be saying they can screw with him anytime they want and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

#15: Ah, those must be aimed at crooked, violent and stupid cops, right?

all the cops I know that are ready for retirement…shudder to think what will happen when the “young’uns” start being alone on the streets. Seems the ME generation raised a whole lot of self centered, egotistical, morally corrupt kids……now clothed in cop clothes.
It’s weird how A Clockwork Orange was a 70’s view into the future.

Isn’t this the same town where they’re trying to take the Suprem Court justice’s property by eminent domain(after he said that was ok for cities to do).

not being up on New Hamshire law……I can’t say about the *audio* part. But the video part is perfectly legal and since it’s a private residence, they really aren’t required to notify the public thay they may be video tapped.
I hope Nashua has a good insurance company for city screw up payouts, because Mr. Gannon is about to become a very wealthy man.

Even the police can’t legally claim *ingnorance of the law*, they will go down.

actually….there is no constitutional *right to privacy*. There can be privacy laws passed, but no *right* to privacy, implied or otherwise.

This discussion and the comments herein are prima facie evidence that sometimes it better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and confirm it. Lots of gratuitous commentary with very few facts.

1. In NH, it is a class B felony to AUDIOTAPE a conversation without the consent of the people being recorded wherein the person making the recording is not a party to the conversation (regardless of whether or not notifications are posted). (BTW – Mr. H Fusion – NH law contains an exemption for law enforcement officals in the course of their duties as long as the party being recorded is notified – such as during vehicle stop and in booking areas.)
2. Mr. Gannon was arrested for recording a private conservation between 2 police detectives who were standing on his porch outside his house. (Detectives who were at his house by the way because there was an active arrest warrant for his son for armed robbery, and neighbors had observed the juvenile going in and out of the house numerous times during the week he was being sought. Mr Gannon should have also been charged with hindering apprehension.)
3. Additionally, a stolen firearm was recovered during the search of the residence. (Hope it wasn’t your house that broken into and your gun that was stolen and used to commit a felony.)
4. BTW – The “crooked, violent, stupid cops” that you refer to are the same ones who will rush to your home without thinking twice about whether or not they will ever see their loved ones again when you call from your upstairs bedroom about the noise you just heard downstairs and you don’t possess the testicular fortitude to go investigate it yourself.

Audio interview with Mr. Gannon:
http://freetalklive.com/files/gannon.mp3

NPD phone: 603-594-3500

Lastname and first initial @pd.ci.nashua.nh.us
Cheif Timothy Hefferan:
HefferanT@pd.ci.nashua.nh.us

Search warrant and police report:
http://media.nashuatelegraph.com/assets/search_warrant.pdf
http://media.nashuatelegraph.com/assets/gannon_synopsis.pdf

Detective Karlis was the guy on th video tape, and the guy Mr. Gannon wanted to complain about. Detective Karlis is the guy who executed

the search warrant.

Most disturbing is the fact that the police secured the house around 9PM June 27, right after they arrested Mr. Gannon, and would not allow

anyone in untill they got a search warrant and searched the house from 2:30-4:00AM.

They had to wake someone up to the the search warrant, and their was no doubt in their mind it would be issued, as they pre-emptively

secured the house. VERY DISTURBING. The only reason I can think of to do such a thing is because the police did not want the video to

make it to the media.

The guy who issued the warrant at 2:10AM:

Hon. Thomas E. Bamberger
TBamberger@courts.state.nh.us
Firm: State of New Hampshire Nashua District Court Concord
Address: 25 Walnut St. P.O. Box 310
Nashua, NH 03060
Phone: (603) 880-3333
Fax: (603) 883-9612

Long Rifle–

“Sniper – You obviously did not read the affidavit.”

Yes I did. But it only tells one side of the story.
Did you notice how it did not mention that Mr. Gannon wanted to file a complaint?
You sound like you have some inside knowledge. Thanks for playing

You obviously did not read/understand the RSA. It was not “oral communication” as defined by the RSA.

“Just because someone is aware that they are being videotaped does not mean that they are aware they are being audio taped. That is the crux of the matter.”

I would say it does not even matter in this case. The police had no expectation of privacy, and if they thought/think they did, they are mistaken. And even if consent was needed, signs are posted. The “I didn’t see the sign” excuse doesn’t work on the police….unless you are another police officer, I guess.

“Additionally, the statute explicitly states that all parties being recorded must give their consent, which was not the case here.”

For “oral communication” as defined by the statute, which was not the case here.

“There is plenty of case law regarding situations where people in public areas, e.g. – a phone booth–can have a certain expectation of privacy, which is why law enforcement agencies are required to obtain wiretapping/ eavesdropping warrants in such situations, such as listening in on two parties having a conversation on a park bench.”

Please point me to the case law in NH regarding this situation….standing on some one’s front porch, with signs posted, and the recording device in plain view.

Right, if the police want to ease drop on some one, they need a warrant. That is what the law is about. That is why it is titled wiretapping and ease dropping. This was not a public area. It was Mr. Gannon’s front door/porch, an area he has a right to monitor. If he was to record two people talking about how they would mug him, and he took the tape to the police, would they charge him Mr. Gannon with a crime? It is common to monitor both video and audio at the entrance to one’s home. Anyone who thinks they have an expectation of privacy in that situation is mistaken. Are the Nashua police going to arrest everyone with an intercom system? I would like to know if the police rang the door bell, then had their “private” conversation, or did they have the conversation then ring the door bell?

“Just because you assert that the conversation was not private, does not make it so.”

Just because you or the police assert the conversation was private, does not make it so.

“While it is common to have video surveillance in today’s world, it is not common to have AUDIO monitoring,”

No, it is very common. I would say it is more common to have audio monitoring at one’s front door.

“BTW – Police routinely secure premises and vehicles while obtaining the necessary search warrant paperwork in order to prevent the destruction of physical evidence.”

I can’t believe the police were worried about destruction of evidence. They had a copy.

Does this only happen after an arrest?
How often does this happen to some one’s home in NH(deny entry overnight)?
I find this practice very disturbing, and unconstitutional. I thought police could only detain someone and their vehicle for about 20 mins.
If police have enough reason to secure a vehicle or premises, that should be probable cause to search without a warrant.
What happens if the warrant isn’t issued?
Or do police just always assume it is a sure thing these days, just a matter of filling out the paperwork?
Does the judge even look at the search warrant paperwork, or just sign it?

How often does it happen at 9PM at night, and prevent a family access to their home until 4AM, even to get a key to a camper on the property?
How often are search warrants granted in the middle of the night(2:10AM) in the Nashua District?
What was the emergency in this case?

“A more detailed check of the incident will show that there where only two juvenile detectives working the night of the incident and that the other was tied up handling Mr. Gannon’s son. That left Det. Karlis to prepare the search warrant paperwork. Sorry, no conspiracy here.”

Well, this incident had nothing to do with juvenile detectives, other than Mr. Gannon wanted to complain on them, and the video tape would have been of them. Mr. Gannon is 49, so it is *very* strange that a juvenile detective would have anything to do with the arrest of him that night, or the search warrant paperwork. The arrest of Mr. Gannon has nothing to do with his sons. He was arrested by Officer Charles Macgregor If the NPD had a code of ethics in place, the handling of his arrest would be a violation of the code. Code would prevent the officer involved in an alleged crime from investigating any part of it. Conflict of interest. Sorry, but it does not look good for the NPD or Hon. Bamberger. But you are right. I don’t know the whole story, or what happened, or why it happened.

from earlier post:
“Detectives who were at his house by the way because there was an active arrest warrant for his son for armed robbery”

His 15 year old son?
Wouldn’t those records be sealed because of the age?

“3. Additionally, a stolen firearm was recovered during the search of the residence.”

When was that search warrant executed?
Wouldn’t those records be sealed because of the age?

Also, was anyone outside of the NPD allowed to watch the police do the search?
It would be pretty easy to say the police planted the gun if they did not allow anyone to watch them do the search. The news articles say the family was not allowed to return until 4AM, the last thing logged in was at 3:45AM.
Why not allow the people who live in the house to watch the search?
Why was Mrs. Gannon cited with disorderly conduct, and at what time?

Contrary to your belief, I have read/looked at/listened to every thing I can find on this matter.

PS. All my interactions with the NPD have been positive. I lived in Nashua for a few years. The NPD issued my first CC permit. Police will always be needed. Being a police officer carries a lot of power and responsibility. There will always be people who will try to get and abuse that power. Those people need to be found quickly, and prevented from abusing that power. It will make people distrust police, and in order to do their job effectively, police need the support of the people. I want to be able to call the Nashua PD when I need their help. I know most of the guys there are good, but just one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. I don’t want to be afraid of the bad apple showing up. And the bad apple may be good 99% of the time. But any abuse is not acceptable when you have the state issued authority to take some one’s life.

Sniper, sorry for the tardy response. Work comes first. Where do I start? Glad you picked up on the items I referred to that were contained in the article and the police reports that were posted on-line. Sorry, no inside info.

Re: court cases, I refer you to US v. Katz, specifically Justice Kaplan’s concurring remarks (which discusses governmental prohibitions against intercepting communications, and which were used as the basis for the regulations contained in Title III of the Omnibus Crime Bill, which covers both governmental and private interceptions.) BTW, NH’s definition of “oral communications” was taken directly from the OCB. Harlan stated: “There is a twofold requirement…[F]irst, that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable’”. The subjective expectation thus represents a question of fact, while the objective expectation represents a question of law.

WRT “oral communication”, the first element of the subjective requirement is satisfied as long as the parties communicate with spoken words (as is the case here). To satisfy the second element of the subjective requirement, the parties to the conversation must exhibit an actual expectation that their communication will not be intercepted. If the parties had no reason to that Mr. Gannon utilized audio surveillance, it follows that they would have an expectation that their conversation was private. Unless they conversed in a loud or otherwise distracting manner, they would also exhibit an expectation that their conversation would not be overheard by others nearby. The parties involved determine the subjective portion. The court will decide the objective portion, should this case go to trial.

So let me get this straight. Your legal theory is that the oral communication between Det. Karlis and another detective was not private because Det. Karlis had no expectation of privacy because he knew that he was being audio recorded on Mr. Gannon’s front porch, and thus there was no expectation of privacy. If this is correct, then you must also believe that that if Mr. Gannon’s allegations are true, that Det. Karlis was knowingly rude while cognizant of the fact that his actions would be recorded and could be used against him in a formal complaint to the department. Having lived in Nashua, you must know that NPD has a reputation for eating its own, and that the administration is no friend to the rank and file cop, (having disciplined officers in the past as a result of complaints, up to and including termination). Furthermore, for your theory to be correct, Det. Karlis must have perjured himself in a sworn affidavit, and another detective must have filed a false report when he interviewed Mr. Gannon’s wife and wrote that she did not recall her husband advising the officers that they were being, at a minimum, audio-taped.

Take a look at the photo in the Nashua Telegraph article. The small sticker on the electrical meter box is the only posted notification of electronic surveillance of any kind. Directly behind Mr. Gannon is the porch on which the detectives were standing when the incidents took place. The camera with its built in microphone was mounted up in the eve of the porch roof. Not necessarilty hidden, but not necessarily in plain view either. Notice the proximity of the porch to the sidewalk. Does Mr. Gannon have a right to record the conversations of passersby, which is certainly what his sysyem was capable of?

Having worked for over 20 years in the security field, particularly in the area of assessing and developing protection plans for federal installations, and having been in hundreds of retail businesses and thousand of private residences, I have never seen a security system in NH that recorded audio external to a facility. Not saying that they don’t exist, but they are certainly not as prevalent as you purport, and if they do exist, they are probably illegal. BTW – an intercom system is not what I am talking about here.

Regarding your implications to some sort of conspiracy as to how the search was conducted, police procedures are based on the following:

Federal and state law
Federal and state court decisions
National accreditation standards
Officer safety concerns

Your feelings on how NPD handled the search in this case are whole irrelevant. If a department fails to follow procedure, it leaves itself open to lawsuits and the possibility of having a case dismissed. Judges are on call and available every day after normal court hours in order to handle emergency restraining orders, and search and arrest warrants, etc. Once it has been determined that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and that evidence of that crime might be in a particular location, that location is secured until a warrant is obtained. If no probable cause exists to issue a search warrant, then the police cannot make entry in the premises and the premises is released. A warrant is issued for an address, thus the whole residence was subject to search, not just certain rooms. For officer safety reasons and chain of custody regarding evidence, non-departmental persons are not allowed to be present during a search. It’s common sense. Think about it.

The warrant was applied for because Mr. Gannon stated that he had more tapes in his house and the instrument of the crime of which he is accused, the surveillance equipment, was also there. All are evidence and need to be secured.

Time is not necessarily a factor in search warrants, only warrantless stops – e.g. motor vehicle stops, Terry frisks. The detectives had to interview everyone involved, obtain statements, write the reports, prepare an affidavit, contact the judge, fax him the paperwork, allow him to review the paperwork, have him sign it and fax it back, execute the search warrant, and secure and tag evidence. The Gannon’s are lucky that it only took until 4 AM. No different from any other search warrant.

BTW, if you read the police reports posted on-line, you while see that Det Karlis was ordered by a supervisor to prepare the search paperwork. The person with the most first hand information about an incident routinely is the one who will prepare and swear to the affidavit. Juvenile detectives regularly assist the criminal detectives and vice versa when one division or the other is short-handed. Just out of curiousity, are you accusing th e police of planting evidence?

“Why was Mrs. Gannon cited with disorderly conduct, and at what time?”

She was cited the afternoon her son was arrested after creating a scene in public while her son was being walked back to the cruisers after a lengthy foot chase. She refused request to stop yelling and swearing. She could have been arrested, but she wasn’t. She was cited before he husband complained. Additionally, her other son was also cited for similar behavior at the same time. Unfortunately, when the officer tried to hand him the summons, he refused to take it and then started to run away. He was subsequently caught and arrested for resisting detention

Anything else I can answer or clarify for you?

Does anyone expect those walking GED’s with guns to know anything about civil rights. If they had any other education, they would be working somewhere else. Everytime cops is on TV, it’s a constant abuse of authority.

Be it a family of saints or sinners, these dipwad detectives were out of line.

Long Rifle
Regarding your implications to some sort of conspiracy as to how the search was conducted, police procedures are based on the following:
Federal and state law
Federal and state court decisions
National accreditation standards
Officer safety concerns

You missed the most important procedure the police must follow. The Constitution. Regardless of what the legislated law is, it must pass Constitutional muster.

The Police didn’t follow procedures in this case, and that is where your whole argument fails. The Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans the right to be secure in their persons, houses, effects, and papers. The Police violated the Fourth Amendment by deciding that
1)they did not have to leave when asked to.
2)the investigating detective could trespass by putting his foot in the door
3)deciding the personal effects were illegal even though the effects were for the protection of the house and non intrusive to any other person.
4)searching the entire house even though the police were advised where the tapes, cameras, and recording equipment was located.
5)securing the house for five hours until a search warrant could be obtained. While the police may secure the premises for a reasonable time, five hours stretches the imagination of reasonable and seven hours for items they already knew the locations of. There is also no evidence that the items were asked for without a warrant being issued.

Then, to top off their obvious Fourth Amendment mistakes, they posted the son’s name, age, and the fact that he was wanted for committing a criminal offense in violation of Juvenile privacy. It would have been so easy to simply black out the child’s name, address, and offense.

If you want us to see something in a picture, post a link to the picture. Detective Karlis’s statement is already suspect as he is the one that Mr. Gannon had made the original complaint about, thereby destroying any presumed neutrality. By ignoring Mr. Gannon’s complaint that Detective Karlis had not left when asked and subsequently put his foot in the door to hold it open then negates the rest of the objectivity expected of the Police. For a reference, refer to your National Accreditation Standards. To swear out a complaint without reasonable knowledge is a felony. By ignoring Mr. Gannon’s proper complaint about a criminal action and asking the subject of the criminal complaint to prepare a search warrant crosses the line. There can not be an expectation of reasonable knowledge when the document preparer and supervisor have shown an unreasonable action of bias.

Your complaint about the camera notice is a irrelevant. It was in plain view and the police had visited the house several times over the past few days, including searching the outside of the building. The proximity of the camera to the sidewalk again is irrelevant as there is nothing to suggest that he blatantly recorded passersby.

Sorry Long Rifle. Although you might have done some homework, it appears you are singing the Police tune and not the American tune. Americans should not have to go to a Police station to complain about police behavior. The very suggestion that Mr Gannon has had previous run ins with the police is irrelevant, EVERY citizen is entitled to the equal protection of the police.

Had the police sought the videotapes as evidence regarding the son’s charges or to investigate if the parent’s were harboring the son, it probably would have been a kosher search.

Jerk homeowners are not subject to a different interpretation of law. It is not the role of police officers to have hissy fits

The probable cause hearing was gonig to be today, but has been moved to July 27….

I Love the Nashua Police Department. They Rock!

…they may not give you CPR if needed. HAHA!

I sure hope you are not representative of the good folk of Nashua. And if you are a cop, which I suspect, it doesn’t make you or the Nashua Police Department look any better then most of the comments here have suggested. That you could find someone dieing (why else give CPR) funny, speaks volumes.

Mr. H. Fusion -

1. I did not overlook the Constitution – it is implicit in my reference to federal and state law, and federal and state court decisions. Laws are written and passed within the framework of the the respective constitutions (either US or state). Those laws that are believed to be unconstitutional may be challenged in court, whereupon they are either upheld or ruled unconstitutional. Didn’t think that I had to break it down Barney style in my previous post, but I obviously was mistaken.

2. Your argument that the police did not follow procedure and violated the 4th Amendment is not supported by reality or case law on the matter.
2-1. Police do not necessarily have to leave private property when requested. In fact, they could have obtained a search warrant to search the house for the wanted juvenile. Instead they attempted to work with Mr. Gannon to apprehend his son, but he was hostile and uncooperative from the start. It is also possible that they could have entered the residence without a warrant to arrest the juvenile. The law allows law enforcement officals to enter the residence of a wanted subject without a search warrant in order to make an arrest. A search warrrant is required only to enter the pemises of someone else other than the wanted subject in order to find that subject and take him into custody.
2-2. The alleged foot in the door is not a 4th Amend. issue.
2-3. The items that were seized were not “illegal” – they were instruments of an alleged crime and it was proper to take them into evidence.
2-4. Once again, the warrant was for the entire residence. So you’re telling me that it is inconcevable that Mr. Gannon might lie and not disclose the location of everything that he had. Case law allows the police to look anywhere within a residence (to include the curtilage) where the sought items listed in the warrant application may be located. Anything found as result of the search, but not listed on the original search warrant application, may be seized as evidence depending upon how it was found. For example, if the search warrant was for a gun used in a murder and the police looked in a nightstand drawer and found a kilo of cocaine, the cocaine could be used as evidence against the the owner of the property because it was found in a location where a firearm could be located. Given the same situation except that the item listed in the search warrant was a 50″ plasma TV, the cocaine would be inadmissible as the nightstand drawer would not be a reasonable location to look for the TV.
2-5. The amount of time required to secure and search the house was not unreasonable given the timetable required to obtain a search warrant. Once again, this is supported by case law on the matter. Search warrants are preferred over consent searches in felony cases. This way a person cannot later claim that they only gave consent because they were under duress.

If I were a betting man, I would bet a year’s salary on 2 things:
1. That if the case is dismissed, it won’t be on 4th Amend. grounds
2. That Mr. gannon’s complaint is being investigated and if substantiated, the appropriate NPD employess will be disciplined.

You adamant assertions that the police commited heinous and blatant violations of the 4th Amend prompts me to inquire what law school you claim as your alma mater. I am assuming it is of higher quality than that attended by the judge who reviewed the search warrant application for probable cause and signed the warrant.

3. NPD didn’t post the information – the Nashua Telegraph did. The police are required to release certain documents (per court decisions on the matter) when requested by the media.

4. I didn’t feel it necessary to include the link to the picture I was referring to as it is located at the top of this BLOG. It was taken directly from the Telegraph article.

Det Karlis didn’t swear out a complaint against Mr. Gannon, he merely put together the search warrant application. Bias? How so? Either the evidence is there or it isn’t. Once again I refer you to my original question to Sniper as to whether Det Karlis acted the way he did knowing he was being taped. Doesn’t pass the common sense test. I know you claim that you are not against the police, but you seem to be taking everything that Mr. Gannon is claiming as gospel and implying that everyone involved on the NPD side is lying, is biased, or has alterior motives.

I won’t go into the privacy issue any further. The case law is there. It is clear that everyone in this forum has their own opinion on the matter, and it will be up to the court to make the final ruling on the matter.

[editor: you're off the main page; so, I'll let this slide -- but, read comment guidelines, pls.  Usually, we'd cut a post this long.]

I apologize to the editor, and did not mean any break with your rules. I should have done as you asked (after the fact, lol, but you know what I mean) and will do so in the future.

I was trying to cause meaningful discussion and to add to the dialogue. I hope that this was clear from my post.

Your rules will be obeyed and honored.

Steven, It’s a shame that you are in the military with that poor attitude about the government. Long Rifle has it right. you are just another turd in the bowl of life with no where to go but down. Serious Steven, mind your business and just read the postings.

The guy videotaped the police and it’s illegal. what more do you want to say. I dont care if Gannon was coming to complain about the police or not. He sounds like he deserves a punch in the mouth to go along with the felony charge. its always easier to complain about the police and what theyre doing when you get caught with your finger in the cookie jar. Gannon is a poor excuse for a father that should have slapped his son in the mouth years ago. but instead he was busting the chops of the police trying to do their job and arrest his punk son. good thing we are reenforcing the shitty behavior of little Gannon. J. Luis you can take care of Little Gannon and keep him out of trouble seeing as his own father cant. The Gannon’s should not have children because they cant take care of them.

Typical, I expected you to keep my anti Gannon posting out of here.

This is complete nonsense. There ought be no law against recording conversations, with or without consent. This seems to me to be a law for the protection of the corrupt and criminal. Particularly, a government official in official capacity should be able to be recorded at any time. Given the technology out there today, we should really make every police officer wear recording devices all the time, of both audio and video, which cannot be removed or turned off without deliberate effort and being quite evident that they are.

I will just say this…NASHUA NH POLICE ARE PATHETIC AND COMPLETLY OUT OF CONTROL. THEY THINK BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BADGE THEY ARE KING SHIT! NO SERIOUSLY..THEY NEED TO FOCUS ON REAL CRIMES BESIDES FOLLOWING CARS AROUND AND PULLING PEOPLE OVER FOR DRIVING 5 MILES OVER THE SPEED LIMIT. PLEASE, THEY TALK ABOUT GANGS ECT..FOCUS ON THAT..TODAY I WAS DRIVING DOWN MAIN STREET AND COUNTED 6 PEOPLE PULLED OVER! AND THEN DONT YA KNOW..I GET PULLED OVER FOR GOING AROUND THE CORNER A LITTLE TO FAST THAN I SHOULD HAVE! MY GOODNESS THE ECONOMY IS BAD THEN GIVES THESE USELESS COPS A LIFE AND FIRE THEM! THEY ARE REVOLTING IN ALL SHAPES AND FORMS..I COULD TYPE FOR DAYS OF HOW THEIR ATTITUDES ARE JUST WRONG,HOW THEY ARE JUST WRONG..