
CopBlock.org Founder Faces 21 Years in Prison for Reporting Police Brutality - wtvanhest
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-824678
======
powertower
He is not being charged for posting the (mentioned) publicly recorded video of
the cop slamming the kids face into the table.

What he is being charged for is calling police officials and others on the
phone after this, and recording the conversations _without getting the other
parties permission to record the phone call_... Then posting those recordings
online.

This is how 95% of these stories are. Facts are hidden, what happened is
misrepresented; stories to fit narratives are made up.

Don't get me wrong, if you call an on-duty police official at the police
station maybe they shouldn't be given/expect privacy, but this story makes it
seem that this guy is being charged for posting the mentioned video. Clearly
he is not.

~~~
skizm
This makes much more sense. Still... I should be able to record my own phone
calls, right? I think by picking up a phone you should be ready to be recorded
especially as a police officer/prominent public figure.

~~~
_delirium
It's something of a relic of early-20th-c debates on wiretapping. Some states
came to the conclusion that it's "wiretapping" unless _both_ sides of a
conversation agree, which has a certain privacy-law type feel to it. In other
states, it's only wiretapping if you're doing it unbeknownst to both
participants, which is closer to the normal definition of wiretapping, looking
more at the "sneaking onto a phone line you don't belong on" aspect rather
than privacy concerns.

It can produce some oddities in companies as well. It's now assumed that a
corporation can read employees' email, for example, or record their internet
or IM traffic. But in a two-party-consent state, it would be illegal for your
employer to record telephone calls made from your office phone, unless they
get the consent of each person you talk to.

~~~
mikeash
> But in a two-party-consent state, it would be illegal for your employer to
> record telephone calls made from your office phone, unless they get the
> consent of each person you talk to.

My understanding is that the most restrictive state applies, so you don't even
have to be in a two-party state, you just need to be calling one.

In any case, this is why every call center you talk to says "this call may be
recorded" when you first connect. It's not just a courtesy!

~~~
tedunangst
I've been told the opposite. If your call is interstate, then federal rules
(one party consent) apply.

~~~
mikeash
According to this page, it's not 100% clear or consistent, but the more
restrictive state's laws applying is definitely a possibility:
<http://www.rcfp.org/can-we-tape/interstate-phone-calls>

------
kevinalexbrown
While "crowdsourced" reporting is kind of cool, this report strikes me as an
example of that idea gone awry. It took some googling to find a reasonable
account, from the Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press[0]. This would,
if anything, be biased toward Mr. Mueller, but it put the above article in an
entirely different light.

1) As others have pointed out, he's on trial for allegedly recording three
telephone calls to the police, a school principal, and a school secretary,
without the consent of all parties, then made them publicly available. This is
a felony under NH law. The iReport article implies, via quotations from
multiple sources, that Mr. Mueller is on trial for filming police brutality.
In fact, it appears that _he called these parties_ for comment, so this
doesn't even seem to be an issue of the right to record your arrest, or
interested interactions with the state.

2) CopBlock.org and other "citizen watch" type sites might be a great idea,
but performances like Mr. Mueller's, who apparently insists on the court
calling him "Ademo Freeman", says things like "Bring on the Circus", and
represents himself in a criminal case just paint these movements in a bad
light. Police brutality, over-reaching state authority, etc. might be big
problems; this kind of misguided moral crusade does not help.

3) I can understand the frustration supporters might find with inconsistent
applications of wiretapping laws: I am not sure the state would care if a
random citizen made three phone calls public, if no one pressed charges or
there weren't some other reason. This article in no way communicates any of
these issues and instead implements a tirade of misdirection and indignation.

Finally, I'd like to say something in defense of professional journalists. I
know they often get a bad rap as being either extensions of the state vying
for "influence" or sensationalists chasing controversy in every corner, but
reports like this make me appreciate journalists who:

\- call for comment \- search for credible sources, preferably ones with
opposing viewpoints \- read or link to actual court documents

EDIT: You can find the video where he publishes the recordings here:
<http://youtu.be/sEhFwI6IyMU> . Both the principal and the police officer made
it reasonably clear they did not wish to discuss the matter. While the
principal did respond to Mueller's questions, it seems unlikely she implied
any consent to record.

[0][http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/nh-
blogg...](http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/nh-blogger-
charged-felony-wiretapping-could-receive-21-year-prison-s)

~~~
revelation
I'm with you on the disgust for these Assange-personas, but what he did should
not be illegal.

He was talking to public servants over a line owned by the state. He was
specifically contacting them because of their respective roles in public
departments. He was contacting them to talk about things that fall squarely
into their responsibilities as public servants.

Public servants have no expectation of privacy in fulfilling their duties, why
should it be different when you talk to them over the phone about said duties?

So yes, these wiretapping laws need to go.

------
FJim
According to the one other source I found, it wasn't the video which led to
the charges.

He recorded a subsequent phone call with the police department without
notifying them that the call was being recorded. According to Wikipedia,
regarding the recording of telephone conversations, New Hampshire is an 'all
parties consent' state, and seemingly by his own admission he broke this law.
Thus the calls for jury nullification, to ignore a law which they find unjust.

~~~
gst
So recording a phone call (without consent) is a reason for locking someone up
for 21 years?

~~~
droithomme
Good question. Here is a complete transcript that I have typed up of the 24
second long phone call that is the controversial call in question. (source:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhFwI6IyMU>)

Patrol Captain Office, can I help you?

Ah yes, I was calling to see if there was a comment about a video that is
surfacing on line of Detective Murphy slamming a 17 year old child on top of a
table.

Well, I haven't seen the video. Where is it?

It's on a web site called CopBlock.org.

OK, I'll take a look. (Click.)

------
bilbo0s
One observation and one question.

First... this guy is gonna be a hero with a capital H if they send him to
prison for recording the cops. Hero with the left and the libertarian right.
Hero with the other prisoners... probably beyond that whole black-white gang
thing. He will be untouchable.

Anyway...

I would also like to try to get an idea of the reasoning behind making it
illegal to record the police, or indeed ANY public servant, in the execution
of their duties. Suppose I make a phone call to, let's say, a public school.
During this call I inquire about something erroneous that they may have been
telling my child... as I understand this, it is illegal for me to record that
call to use as documentary evidence of the challenges the child may face in
that school.

I am wondering why that is the case? There must be some 'bad' way that can be
used, so they don't allow it. I just can't see what 'bad' thing it s the
government is worried about. Any lawyers out there able to address that
quickly?

~~~
jarrett
The main reasons behind this law have nothing to do with police work or public
officials, actually. Two-party consent wiretapping laws generally apply
regardless of who's on the other end. You could get charged for recording your
own grandmother, not just a cop. (At least in principle you could, though it
probably wouldn't happen.)

So why were these laws enacted? Basically to protect privacy. State
legislatures decided that surreptitious recording of one's one phone calls was
an invasion of the other person's privacy. I personally am against these laws,
but that's the rationale behind them. It's not about protecting cops in
particular.

~~~
pessimizer
I think these laws were enacted solely to protect deeply corrupt systems, but
I might be biased because I live in Illinois. With laws like this,
administration-connected people can be openly corrupt, because the collection
of evidence against them is in itself evidence of a crime.

No one is prosecuted for corruption in Illinois unless they become a roadblock
in some way to someone with more clout (after which they resign and charges
are quietly dropped), or the Feds come to town.

------
knowtheory
This certainly sounds egregious, and it may very well be, but all of the posts
I can find on the subject appear to be written with approximately the same
tone (one on prwire, which takes any press release folks want to post) and
this one from iReport (which is crowdsourced).

I would be interested in reading any sources folks know about about this that
are external to the Free Ademo movement.

~~~
wtvanhest
I couldn't find a good one so I posted the link to CNN, I am with you on
needing a better source

------
gwern
> The controversial felony wiretapping charges journalist and CopBlock.org
> founder Adam ‘Ademo’ Mueller is facing will go to trial, a situation that
> has stirred up a hornet’s nest of free speech advocates in New Hampshire.

Not on the topic of the article, but this must be the worst-written sentence
I've read in weeks; I had to read it three times before I finally figured out
what it meant (a dude is going to trial).

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I think the implication is that the felony wiretapping charges will be one of
the things on trial, due to the efforts towards jury nullification.

But, yes, that is a horrible sentence.

------
smsm42
21 years for wiretapping? This surely sounds extreme, to the point of being
incredible - can somebody with some expertise in legal system evaluate how
probably is to get such sentence? Given no priors, no history of violence, no
harm to property or any person and no criminal intent - even if he violated
the law I don't see how it can even warrant one year in jail, let alone 21. Is
US judicial system really that screwed up or is it just imagination of article
writers?

~~~
droithomme
It's very simple to understand. The person charged is a human rights and
justice blogger who runs a site called CopBlock where for years he has posted
videos of police brutality, lawlessness and thuggery. He is a thorn in the
side of the police and they are highly aware of him and watch him closely
looking for slip-ups.

In November 2011 he recorded a 24 second long call devoid of content where the
person on the other end was a desk officer in a two-party consent state. This
act of recording gave them probable cause for arrest, and he is in fact guilty
of the "crime". This is a popular tactic for dealing with social justice
advocates in authoritarian regimes: watch them closely and surely they will be
guilty of something eventually.

As Cardinal Richelieu said, "Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du
plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre." (If one would give
me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find
something in them to have him hanged.) In the US there are so many laws on the
books, that all of us are violating some of them almost daily. This is
discussed in Harvey Silverglate's book "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds
Target the Innocent", Gene Healy's "Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization
of Almost Everything", and Paul Rosenzweig's "One Nation Under Arrest: How
Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors, and Activist Judges Threaten Your Liberty".

Much more shocking than this incident are the people who benefit from living
in a free and just society, but who are supporting and defending the charges
and proposed prison sentence in this travesty, this abomination, this
violation of humanity and of human rights. 21 years in prison for a human
rights activist, where he will be subjected to the endemic prison rape and
violence that the inmates of the american justice system enjoy? All because of
recording a 24 second call with police? To see members of the public
supporting this in any way whatsoever is utterly nauseating and those people
supporting even any sentence at all are vile monsters, devoid of any decency
or reason.

------
DigitalSea
Wow, to put this into perspective if you kill someone in Australia you're
looking at a sentence of about 15 years in comparison to recording someone
without their permission and getting 21 years... This is seriously a joke and
given the outrage being generated by almost everyone you know he'll walk free.
The fact CNN is writing about this and by the language used in the article
they agree he shouldn't be jailed it'll be interesting to see what comes of
all of this.

~~~
marvin
Also to put things in perspective, Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian
terrorist who killed 69 teenagers last summer, will get a maximum of 21 years
in prison. This is the highest sentence possible under Norwegian law.

~~~
jontas
That isn't quite right. The 21 year sentence can be extended to keep him in
prison for life [0].

He is not going to be walking out of jail free 21 years from now.

[0] <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17724535>

~~~
marvin
Yes, but the point was the "punishment" part is 21 years maximum. Any
additional time will be only to protect the lives of other citizens.

~~~
spand
Not sure if its fair to call you out on this but what would any additional
"punishment" bring anyone ? 21 years is a long long time.

Extending the prison term seems like the right way to go and keep the issues
of punishment and safekeeping separate.

~~~
marvin
Yes, I agree with this. 20+ sentences seem redundant - anything more is
basically a life sentence.

Don't know if you're from Norway, but Norwegian criminal law has a distinction
between 21 years, which is the maximum sentence permitted by law, and
"forvaring", which is explicitly defined as additional, indefinite custody
with the express purpose of protecting society from violent criminals which
have a very high risk of doing repeat offenses.

------
mfkp
For the curious, I believe these are the videos in question:
<http://www.copblock.org/8754/manchh/>

(Second video is the phone calls, third video is the high school recording)

------
lcusack
I wish this article was written by an actual journalist. Seems to be very one-
sided.

