Big Brother is looming over Manchester, and our hosts are pushing back with a lawsuit against proposed surveillance cameras on Elm St. From ancient Roman secret police to Bentham’s Panopticon and Orwell’s telescreens, surveillance has been a topic of controversy and discussion for as long as humans have existed in community with one another. What cultural and political changes would constant surveillance bring to New Hampshire? Dive into the dirty details on this week’s episode of Told You So!
Tammy and Carla chat about the recent hearing about downtown police surveillance cameras, summer in the City, kayaking from Goffstown to the West Side ice arena, and more.
I’m working on a summary of yesterday’s proceedings regarding the City of Manchester’s proposed plans to put up several surveillance cameras downtown. In the mean time, here’s today’s coverage from local media sources…
We want more privacy,” plaintiff Carla Gericke said. “We want the government’s role to be limited and restricted as it’s constitutionally supposed to be. Let’s not turn into a big brother Orwellian surveillance state.”
Gericke, a liberty activist who has sought state and local office, said she would have no issue with a storeowner installing a camera and voluntarily sharing video with police. ‘Everyone’s working together. That’s a decentralized approach,’ she said. ‘What we’re talking about here is a very centralized approach where it’s centralized in one group of people’s hands. We don’t know really what’s going to happen to the data and I think it’s naive to just say we should trust them.’
Carla Gericke, president emeritus of the Free State Project and a Manchester activist who led a protest against the cameras last April outside City Hall. She is concerned about the cameras having a chilling effect on future protests. She questioned whether the cameras would record future protesters and if the police would use the information to make a database of trouble-makers and renegades.
Last week, we were ready, willing and able for arguments regarding the illegal police cameras being proposed downtown. Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond our control, the matter has been postponed and another judge was assigned to the hearing, which will now take place on July 9th.
The Union Leader covered the delay here, mentioning the fact that the City of Manchester has argued that several other jurisdictions are already using cameras, so it must be A-OK. Following this logic, if a cop bust you for speeding, you can argue it’s OK because other people were speeding and breaking the law, too… right?
Police Department’s latest defense for its downtown surveillance cameras: At least five other communities do it. A wrinkle to their argument: Milford, Concord, Exeter, Salem and Claremont stream their video feeds on the internet for all to see — usually for promotional reasons. Manchester city officials named the five communities in a 10-page legal brief filed Monday in Hillsborough County Superior Court. The brief is a response to a lawsuit filed earlier this month by civil libertarians challenging plans for police surveillance cameras on Elm Street.
The hearing for injunctive relief in the matter of NEAL KURK et al. v City of Manchester is taking place today. Having now read all the rather technical pleadings, it’s difficult to predict what may happen.
On the one hand, you have us four intrepid privacy advocates, the petitioners, holding strong that under RSA 236:130, it would be illegal for these surveillance cameras to even have the capability to identify motorists or motor vehicles, since such identification is expressly banned if it “can” occur under the section entitled, “Highway Surveillance Prohibited.”
On the other side, you have the City of Manchester and its police force, who argue they can do what they want (and they usually do–remember the recent tax cap override?). The City makes several technical arguments, including that some of us lack standing under Duncan, a bad court case that lead to the successful Constitutional Amendment which passed by a whopping 83% margin last fall to restore taxpayer standing. They also seem to make the argument that we should just “trust them” to use the cameras in lawful ways. Color me skeptical.
You can read more about the case here:
Union Leader
Manchester Ink Link
Granite Grok
Follow me on Facebook to stay up-to-date on today’s developments.
The Free State Project is doing great:
Politically, NH is in a weird situation right now, with the flip in 2018 to Democrat in the House and Senate, but still with a Republican Governor. Free Staters have been in the unique situation of furthering libertarian goals, by working with both sides of the aisle on issues we care about: criminal justice reform, legalization of recreational MJ (sadly, tabled by Senate), annulment of misdemeanor drug charges, pushing back on irresponsible Democratic high tax/spend budget, pushing back on attempt to backdoor an income tax masquerading as “family medical leave,” holding the line on business tax cuts, and a huge one for many of us: repealing the death penalty (which passed by ONE vote, phew!).
Our ideas are gaining traction, for example, at least 7 Republican House members said “Taxation is Theft” from the well during session speeches (and only one was a free stater!), and essays like this, “My Turn: Taxation is theft – and here’s why” have appeared in local newspapers. I even got to say “less and less is more when it comes to taxes” and plug the FSP on the BBC recently (listen to The Why Factor “Why is it so hard to get people to pay taxes?” I’m near the start).
I have also been working on new projects which continue to further Liberty in Our Lifetime:
Remember, donating to the Free State Project is your opportunity to support a living libertarian experiment with the potential to change the world. We’re doing it, but right now, we can use a little help! Thank you!
Fond regards and deepest thanks,
Carla
Today, the ACLU-NH filed a lawsuit on behalf of 4 petitioners (and I’m one of them! :)) to block the use of police surveillance cameras on Elm Street in Manchester. Here is the ACLU-NH’s press release:
Surveillance cameras would violate a NH privacy law because they will capture motorists’ identifying information
CONCORD, N.H. – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire filed a lawsuit challenging planned surveillance cameras in downtown Manchester. The cameras, which would capture live video of traffic on Elm Street, are illegal because they violate a state privacy law that specifically disallows cameras that capture a motorists’ identifying information, such as their face or license plate.
“The surveillance cameras proposed by the City of Manchester are troubling: driving down Elm Street shouldn’t include recording video of your face, license plate, and passengers,” said Gilles Bissonnette, Legal Director at the ACLU of New Hampshire. “New Hampshire is a state that staunchly defends its right to privacy, and this plan is a direct violation of that by needlessly capturing the information of thousands of Granite Staters simply going about their business.”
The current installation plan includes three permanent surveillance cameras in the area of City Hall that will look north and south on Elm Street, with a live feed transmitted to the Manchester Police Department’s dispatch office. The images captured would be recorded and stored for fourteen days. Although the intent may not be to monitor traffic, the high quality of the cameras allow users to zoom in and out, and would inevitably capture faces and license plates.
Former Representative Neil Kurk, who drafted the law in 2006 and is a petitioner in the case, said:
“The statute we are defending in this lawsuit is unique to New Hampshire and, unlike other states, provides our citizens with a right to be free from government intrusion that is tantamount to a surveillance state. The goal of this statute is to prevent New Hampshire from becoming like New York City or London where government surveillance through cameras—regardless of whether the surveillance cameras capture criminal activity—is pervasive. I am deeply disappointed that Manchester is going down the path of government intrusion by installing surveillance cameras on Elm Street. This is exactly the type of surveillance that the statute was and is designed to prevent.”
Carla Gericke, a former New Hampshire State Senate candidate and petitioner in this case, said:
“How can the police simply start surveilling downtown people and motorists without any input from the community? When I learned about the Manchester Police Department’s plan to put up surveillance cameras downtown, I organized a protest rally, and about 40 people attended. I am deeply concerned about this government intrusion. I am confident that Granite Staters do not want this type of surveillance because more than 80% voted to protect privacy when they amended the New Hampshire Constitution last year.”
Five years ago today, I won my First Amendment First Circuit civil rights lawsuit against the Weare PD affirming YOUR RIGHT to RECORD POLICE in PUBLIC. Remember:
1. Record EVERY police encounter you see. This is a powerful way to keep everyone accountable and safe! If you are just passing by, see your role as being a “witness.” Don’t get involved or confrontational, simply record. If you use Facebook, using the “LIVE” feature can add protection in the event your footage “disappears” later.
2. Creating a local culture of filming police officers in NH is an excellent way to keep our police accountable to the people. We have now been waiting for YEARS for body cams, which, where introduced, strangely, only seem to record “parts” convenient to the official narrative, so ALWAYS BE FILMING FOR YOUR OWN PEACE OF MIND, YO! 🙂
2. Even if your phone is not working, pretend to film because as stated in #1, it helps keep everyone on better behavior when they think they’re being recorded.
3. The police have NO RIGHT to take your phone/recording device without following proper procedures, and if PD tells you they’re taking your recording, or that you are not allowed to film, you have a lucrative lawsuit waiting, so be sure to consult a lawyer immediately… because…
4. Police have NO CLAIM OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (their “get out of jail free” card) and WILL be held liable for violations of your right to record them.
In Rialto, CA, where they introduced body cams years ago, they found:
“But Rialto’s randomised controlled study has seized attention because it offers scientific – and encouraging – findings: after cameras were introduced in February 2012, public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.
‘When you know you’re being watched you behave a little better. That’s just human nature,’ said Farrar. ‘As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better.'”
Don’t rely on them to provide the recordings… DIY!
This week on ManchTalk I’m flying solo as my co-host, Tammy Simmons, is on holiday. I discuss the Quality Inn DEA/MPD SWAT fiasco that resulted in three deaths and locked down South Willow street, the Orwellian Surveillance State coming to the streets of Manchester, the police cameras that were placed downtown with no public input, why personal privacy matters, why government transparency matters, and how YOU can get involved.
Catch my video asking Mayor Joyce Craig for a full, public inquiry into the deadly debacle at the Quality Inn last week.
Worried about the increasingly dangerous policing, lockdowns, and new police cameras being introduced without any public input? Join me at City Hall on Tuesday, April 9th at 5PM for a rally–1984 Is Not an Instruction Manual–to highlight these issues. You are also welcome to provide 3 minutes of public testimony at the Alderman meeting that starts at 6PM.
My LTE from today’s Union Leader:
“Demand full inquiry
To the Editor: Last week, Manchester SWAT working with the DEA deployed chemical weapons on two twenty-something small-time drug users in a hotel near Exit 1, where they died. News articles already fail to mention this use of gas, so I can only assume the official narrative will attempt to ‘memory hole’ this damning detail.
Should we believe the official version? We have no way to vet the information provided because after the unlawful 2016 West Side Lockdown, the police ‘solved’ our concerns about transparency by secretly encrypting their scanners, destroying years of tradition, and leaving law-abiding citizens in the dark.
How do we know these LEOs are ‘ones we can trust,’ rather than ones on the blacked-out Laurie’s List of misconduct the AG is actively fighting to hide from us.
Why is the DEA operating in Manchester, expending meaningful resources on small time drug users (the dead 26 year old was out on bail for 0.4 grams of crack cocaine).
Was the public at large more or less safe during this debacle? Someone doing coke in a hotel room puts me at 0% danger…
Who pays when businesses on South Willow, like Starbucks, are closed down for hours?
Who pays for the unlawful displacement of hotel guest and nearby residents?
Who pays for the damage to our Queen City’s reputation, based on what sounds like an operation that went rogue and escalated unnecessarily?
Manchester residents all pay, but the buck must stop at Mayor Joyce Craig’s desk: Demand a full public inquiry.
CARLA GERICKE
Hooksett Road
Manchester”
