NH-State Supreme Court tosses conviction of Free Stater and founder of Cop-Block.

Court tosses felony wiretap conviction in taping of Manchester police captain, high school officials

http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20140211%2FNEWS07%2F140219859

CONCORD – The New Hampshire Supreme Court threw out the felony wiretapping convictions of the founder of CopBlock.org, a group that claims it polices the police, saying the judge made a mistake in instructing the jury, an error serious enough the jury could have found Adam Mueller innocent.

Mueller, 31, formerly of Jackson, Wis., but now residing in Laconia, was convicted of secretly recording telephone conversations he had with a Manchester police captain, the Manchester West High School principal and her assistant in 2011 and spent three months in jail.

He was seeking their comments on a video he posted on YouTube that showed a confrontation between West High student Frank Harrington III, 17, and police detective Darren Murphy in the school's cafeteria. Harrington was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Murphy was recorded roughly pushing Harrington down onto a cafeteria table. A police department internal review concluded Murphy did not use excessive force.

Mueller, a Free Stater who goes by the name "Ademo Freeman," posted the telephone recordings online. Police learned of them when Mueller mentioned them on a local radio show and acknowledged he did not tell Capt. Jonathan Hopkins, then West High School principal Mary Ellen McGorry, or her assistant Denise Michael that he had recorded the conversations.

The Supreme Court, in its decision released Tuesday, said Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge Kenneth C. Brown erred when he instructed the jury that a violation of the felony wiretapping statute requires a mental state of "purposely," when the statute specifically identifies "wilfully" as the applicable mental state.

Under state law, "wilful" means the defendant must act with an intentional or reckless disregard for the lawfulness of his conduct. In other words, the defendant has not violated the law if he has a "good faith" belief his conduct was lawful, according to the unanimous decision written by Justice Robert J. Lynn.

The court said the erroneous instruction likely affected the outcome of the proceedings and to allow the convictions to stand "would seriously affect the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings."

Why no rant from you about this guy? Didn't he do what you think is an invasion of privacy?

This proves that you aren't really serious about privacy, it's just the "other" side that can't do it.

Your true colors just came out.

You mean to tell me there is still a judge that isn't a liberal?

Achigan wrote:Why no rant from you about this guy? Didn't he do what you think is an invasion of privacy?

This proves that you aren't really serious about privacy, it's just the "other" side that can't do it.

Your true colors just came out.

When the cops stop watching us, we'll stop watching them.

WHL wrote:You mean to tell me there is still a judge that isn't a liberal?

It would appear so.

Anti Federalist wrote:

Achigan wrote:Why no rant from you about this guy? Didn't he do what you think is an invasion of privacy?

This proves that you aren't really serious about privacy, it's just the "other" side that can't do it.

Your true colors just came out.

When the cops stop watching us, we'll stop watching them.

You certainly are something else my friend. Maybe your friends on the Ron Paul forum fall for your BS but I don't.

In the end your protesting won't amount to a hill of beans.

Achigan wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:

Achigan wrote:Why no rant from you about this guy? Didn't he do what you think is an invasion of privacy?

This proves that you aren't really serious about privacy, it's just the "other" side that can't do it.

Your true colors just came out.

When the cops stop watching us, we'll stop watching them.

You certainly are something else my friend.   Maybe your friends on the Ron Paul forum fall for your BS but I don't.

In the end your protesting won't amount to a hill of beans.

Stick around over there, maybe you'll learn something.

In the end, yeah, you're probably right, since my country is now populated by soi disant authoritarians.

But I will keep on, regardless.

Achigan wrote:Why no rant from you about this guy? Didn't he do what you think is an invasion of privacy?

This proves that you aren't really serious about privacy, it's just the "other" side that can't do it.

Your true colors just came out.

The 7th Circuit Court found a specific First Amendment right to record police officers. It's the second federal appeals court to strike down a conviction for recording police. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled that a man wrongly arrested for recording cops could sue the arresting officers for violating his First Amendment rights.

That decision also found a broad First Amendment right to record on-duty government officials in public: "Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting 'the free discussion of governmental affairs.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html