Legal Commentary

Big Brother Is Listening

By TChris

For several months, a police supervisor in Portsmouth, New Hampshire used a bugging device to listen to civilian employees in the police records office as they conversed with each other and with visitors. The device was apparently installed to help supervisors investigate complaints about the employees' rudeness when interacting with the public. Although a sign in the police department warns visitors that their conversations in the lobby might be recorded, no notice was given to the employees that a recording device had been installed inside their office.

Why police supervisors thought it was necessary to eavesdrop instead of telling the employees that they were being recorded is unclear. Perhaps it was simply their nature to seek to "catch the bad guys" who violated work rules rather than giving the employees information that would probably have prevented the violations. [more ...]

After the employees discovered the electronic eavesdropping, the county attorney cautiously concluded that "the system raises the question of whether the employees consented to the recordings." Since the employees weren't told their internal office conversations were being recorded, consent doesn't seem to be much of a question. In any event, the county attorney concluded that the state's wiretapping law wasn't violated because "the recordings were made with the belief that they were lawful." Police officers in Portsmouth evidently aren't expected to know what conduct is prohibited by state law. The state Attorney General’s office has agreed to review the county attorney's conclusion.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on July 21, 2009 (boomark / email).