NationStates Jolt Archive

You might find yourself facing charges.
linky (http://www.daily-tribune.com/NF/omf/daily_tribune/news_story.html?rkey=0041549+cr=).
A Bartow County couple will go before a magistrate judge today to see if they will be arrested for allegedly stalking a Kennesaw police officer by installing cameras to track neighborhood speeders.

Lee and Teresa Sipple spent $1,200 mounting three video cameras and a radar speed unit outside their home, which is at the bottom of a hill. They have said they did so in hopes of convincing neighbors to slow down to create a safe environment for their son.

The Sipples allegedly caught Kennesaw police officer Richard Perrone speeding up to 17 mph over the speed limit. Perrone alerted Bartow authorities, who in turn visited the Sipples' home to tell them Perrone intended to press charges against them for stalking.

Well isn't that nice.

Shouldn't they have signs up saying "You're being watched."?

Well isn't that nice.

Shouldn't they have signs up saying "You're being watched."?

I'm not sure that would make it better to be honest...

Doesn't surprise me one bit. Neither the people who set speed limits nor the people who enforce them spend even a second of their time thinking about safety.

My neighbor has a security system that includes cameras. He's required by law to have several signs on his property that indicate this fact, and none of them are on viewing angles that allow them to look inside neighboring homes. He had to get a special court document because one of his cameras looks over our backyard.

If these people had these sorts of signs on their property, I would imagine the officer has no case.

You have to wonder if the cop will get a ticket for speeding.

Another thing, I don't think it's stalking if it only happens once. I shall return with the verdict of the wiki.

Stalking (from Middle English stalk: from Old English bestealcian; akin to Old English stelan to steal) is a legal term for repeated harassment or other forms of invasion of a person's privacy in a manner that causes fear to its target. Statutes vary between jurisdiction but may include such acts as:

repeated physical following;
unwanted contact (by letter or other means of communication);
observing a person's actions closely for an extended period of time; or
contacting family members, friends, or associates of a target inappropriately
cyberstalking

In other words, hypocrisy reigns supreme. They say you're speeding, and they levy the local government's "tax" on you. You CATCH them speeding, and you're breaking the law.

I much prefer this story of honesty and integrity:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12784367?GT1=9033

It would be altogether different if the couple with the radar trap had some sort of official sanction for their activities. But they didn't. Guess what else private citizens don't get to do...wiretap public phones.

I much prefer this story of honesty and integrity:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12784367?GT1=9033

Awesome! Lead by example...

The school zone thing drives me insane. Enough people complained near where I live that every once in a while, we have about five cruisers just picking off speeders during the zone hours. The word is out, and speeding there has been drastically reduced. People can make mistakes, go down an unfamiliar road, or just not pay enough attention...and that's fine, anyone can do it...but it's cool to see a cop admit to his mistake in such a real way.

In other words, hypocrisy reigns supreme. They say you're speeding, and they levy the local government's "tax" on you. You CATCH them speeding, and you're breaking the law.

I much prefer this story of honesty and integrity:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12784367?GT1=9033

Yah, the government doesn't like competition. Thats why the shut down mafia numbers rackets: so they could do the same thing and call it the lottery. The same thing with photo radar used to catch speeders: all right if the government does it, but not if it is used by private citizens. It might just catch government enforcers breaking the law.

BTW does anyone remember Rodney King?

Yah, the government doesn't like competition.
I see it this way...bad enough the government gets to do it...do you really want trailer park Sam clocking you each time you drive by?

here is a link that describes the stalking law that officer Perrone is hoping to charge the Sipples with:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1599.asp

Is a private citizen allowed to photograph a criminal fleeing the scene of a crime to give to the police for ID?

I would say there is a substantial difference between having a surveillence setup, where pictures are taken continuously (or video recorded), and someone who just happened to snap a pic of a crime in progress, or of a fleeing suspect.

It would be altogether different if the couple with the radar trap had some sort of official sanction for their activities. But they didn't. Guess what else private citizens don't get to do...wiretap public phones.

Is a private citizen allowed to photograph a criminal fleeing the scene of a crime to give to the police for ID?

here is a link that describes the stalking law that officer Perrone is hoping to charge the Sipples with:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1599.asp

Interesting...looks like they are focusing on the surveillance issue...would there be no other laws preventing citizens from surveilling their surroundings without authorisation?

I understand why they wanted to do it (what works really well here is a big flashing screen letting you know what you've been clocked at, though no pictures are taken)...but I don't believe that just anyone should be allowed to set something like this up, with the express intention of 'harassing neighbours' into compliance with a law, or whatever. For one thing...can you imagine how popular these people are in the neighbourhood? (I'm sure some people agree and are happy, but I doubt everyone does)...and the idea is to create a SAFER environment for their kid? Hmmm.

"Hey Johny, your parents are rats, come here so we can kick the crap out of you."
"Damn you mommy and daddy!!!!!!"

I would say there is a substantial difference between having a surveillence setup, where pictures are taken continuously (or video recorded), and someone who just happened to snap a pic of a crime in progress, or of a fleeing suspect.

I don't think the legality of their home-made speed trap is being questioned. I think it has more to do with the fact that the Sipples then sent the incriminating information to the police officer's superiors several times. According to Georgia law, this may qualify as harassment.

I would say there is a substantial difference between having a surveillence setup, where pictures are taken continuously (or video recorded), and someone who just happened to snap a pic of a crime in progress, or of a fleeing suspect.
Not just happened - they purposefully took the photograph for ID purposes.

Do you feel they should have to have a permit to passively record a numberplate but they should not have to have a permit to actively record a persons face?

For practical purposes what is the difference? You end up with a recording of a crime in progress that was made by a citizen without official sanction.


Also - in respect to your comment on public phones - is there an expectation that your conversation is private? Now - is ther an expectation that your number plate is not visible to drivers and cameras on a public road?

What is the point of being a police officer if you aren't allowed to get away with traffic violations?

I don't think the legality of their home-made speed trap is being questioned. I think it has more to do with the fact that the Sipples then sent the incriminating information to the police officer's superiors several times. According to Georgia law, this may qualify as harassment.

So can placing someone under surveillance without that person's consent. The two combined, surveillance AND contacting the officer's workplace simply make the case stronger. Likely, no one would have really made an issue of this had the information gathered from the surveillance been forwarded...but that's not to say that this charge could NOT have been brought unless the couple acted further.

So can placing someone under surveillance without that person's consent. The two combined, surveillance AND contacting the officer's workplace simply make the case stronger. Likely, no one would have really made an issue of this had the information gathered from the surveillance been forwarded...but that's not to say that this charge could NOT have been brought unless the couple acted further.

You're the law person, not me. I'm just clarifying. Here is the pertinent law. The link is in one of my posts further upthread.

Georgia Stalking Law
Title 16, Section 16-5-90

(a)(1) A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person. For the purpose of this article, the terms 'computer' and 'computer network' shall have the same meanings as set out in Code Section 16-9-92; the term 'contact' shall mean any communication including without being limited to communication in person, by telephone, by mail, by broadcast, by computer, by computer network, or by any other electronic device; and the place or places that contact by telephone, mail, broadcast, computer, computer network, or any other electronic device is deemed to occur shall be the place or places where such communication is received. For the purpose of this article, the term 'place or places' shall include any public or private property occupied by the victim other than the residence of the defendant. For the purposes of this article, the term 'harassing and intimidating' means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes emotional distress by placing such person in reasonable fear for such person's safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family, by establishing a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior, and which serves no legitimate purpose. This Code section shall not be construed to require that an overt threat of death or bodily injury has been made.

(2) A person commits the offense of stalking when such person, in violation of a bond to keep the peace posted pursuant to Code Section 17-6-110, standing order issued under Code Section 19-1-1, temporary restraining order, temporary protective order, permanent restraining order, permanent protective order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction or condition of pretrial release, condition of probation, or condition of parole in effect prohibiting the harassment or intimidation of another person, broadcasts or publishes, including electronic publication, the picture, name, address, or phone number of a person for whose benefit the bond, order, or condition was made and without such person's consent in such a manner that causes other persons to harass or intimidate such person and the person making the broadcast or publication knew or had reason to believe that such broadcast or publication would cause such person to be harassed or intimidated by others.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of stalking is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Upon the second conviction, and all subsequent convictions, for stalking, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years.

(d) Before sentencing a defendant for any conviction of stalking under this Code section or aggravated stalking under Code Section 16-5-91, the sentencing judge may require psychological evaluation of the offender and shall consider the entire criminal record of the offender. At the time of sentencing, the judge is authorized to issue a permanent restraining order against the offender to protect the person stalked and the members of such person's immediate family, and the judge is authorized to require psychological treatment of the offender as a part of the sentence, or as a condition for suspension or stay of sentence, or for probation.

Not just happened - they purposefully took the photograph for ID purposes. That qualification makes very little difference to the discussion. The issue was, there is a substantial difference between a continuous surveillance set-up, and someone who just happens to have the means to record or photograph someone at a particular time. As in...setting up a video camera outside your home to monitor the grocery store across the way is NOT the same as walking past one morning and taking a pic of someone suspicious running out the door.



Do you feel they should have to have a permit to passively record a numberplate but they should not have to have a permit to actively record a persons face? No permit needed to record a numberplate...though depending on the jurisdiction that actually can constitute harassment in conjunction with other actions...the issue that springs to mind is a recent case in municipality where neighbours were logging in the plates of suspected johns AND THEN PUBLISHING THE NUMBERS in a community paper. As for recording faces...well, again, I'd say it matters whether the recording was done as part of a specific surveillence setup, or on the fly.

For practical purposes what is the difference? You end up with a recording of a crime in progress that was made by a citizen without official sanction. The difference is blurring, as surveillance technology becomes more accessible to the general public, but the fact still stands...private citizens, without official sanction, can not go about surveilling one another. Thank goodness.


Also - in respect to your comment on public phones - is there an expectation that your conversation is private? Yes, there is actually, and that was specifically pointed out in Kyllo v. The United States. Now that was a Fourth Amendment case, so it would be applying to police, not ordinary citizens per se, but the fact that there IS a subjective expectation of privacy that is objectively reasonable even on a public phone has been held to be true by a number of SCOTUS decisions (and SCC here in Canada). In terms of private citizens wiretapping a public phonebooth, well you have issues of trespass, as well as various privacy violations depending on the legislation in that jurisdiction. The police have to get a warrant to do it...do you really think the average Joe should just be able to do it on a whim? Hey, I have a great idea...to get around search warrants, the police can just hire Joe to do just that! Whoohoo! Wait...they can't admit those recordings as evidence? Awwwww.

Now - is ther an expectation that your number plate is not visible to drivers and cameras on a public road?Your number plate is required to be visible according to various Traffic Acts. Again...if you are driving around in a car, recording everyone's license plates...well it's probably only an issue if you actually DO something with the information to get found out. But I would argue it's questionable at BEST whether your activities in that sense are legal. Writing down a license plate of someone you think is driving drunk, and reporting it to the cops is something altogether different...and guess what...you'll be required to testify if it goes to court. Checks and balances...

You're the law person, not me. I'm just clarifying. Here is the pertinent law. The link is in one of my posts further upthread.
I did read it.

"A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person. "

Follows, places under surveillance OR contacts another person...

It's a stretch, for sure, to try and apply this to someone surveilling but doing nothing further (but one could certainly try) and it's so odd that it would be under a stalking law instead of something specifically attuned to citizen surveillance, but c'est la vie...

What is the point of being a police officer if you aren't allowed to get away with traffic violations?

Well you still get to sexually assault strippers and get away with it (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/03/news/state/4_04_082_2_07.txt). (at least he lost his job)

It would be altogether different if the couple with the radar trap had some sort of official sanction for their activities. But they didn't. Guess what else private citizens don't get to do...wiretap public phones.

Yes, but in that case they are tapping into something private. If you choose to fly down the street at 50mph where everyone can see you......

Yes, but in that case they are tapping into something private. If you choose to fly down the street at 50mph where everyone can see you......
Look at it this way. With the naked eye, can you tell how fast someone is driving? You can get a sense that they are going TOO fast...but bring that into a court room as evidence and get torn to shreds. Now sit there with a radar gun and clock everyone, write down their plate number and speed, and take it to court.

The first question will be...who the hell are you and why are you setting up a surveillance operation?

What is your purpose? Are you law enforcement? No. You are a private citizen, and that is frankly, not your job. It is more likely that you are there with the express intention of harassing motorists, overall 'good intentions' notwithstanding.

Imagine someone sitting on a corner, photographing jaywalkers. Yes, the jaywalkers are doing something illegal...but quite possibly, so are you. To me, it's less of a privacy issue (in this specific instance) as it is an issue of who gets to do the watching.

Also, in some areas (http://www.vernonhills.org/programs/CitizenSpeedControlProgram.asp), citizens CAN be trained to, and given permission to man these kinds of radar units. I don't know if that's the case here, but I doubt these people even bothered to ask. As part of a neighbourhood watch program, one community here bought a radar unit with the big flashing sign that indicates people's speed. That alone has huge deterrance potential...but it needed a series of permits.

Look at it this way. With the naked eye, can you tell how fast someone is driving? You can get a sense that they are going TOO fast...but bring that into a court room as evidence and get torn to shreds. Now sit there with a radar gun and clock everyone, write down their plate number and speed, and take it to court.

The first question will be...who the hell are you and why are you setting up a surveillance operation?
So you witness someone breaking the law but the only way you can prove it would be illegal?


What is your purpose? Are you law enforcement? No. You are a private citizen, and that is frankly, not your job. It is more likely that you are there with the express intention of harassing motorists, overall 'good intentions' notwithstanding.

Imagine someone sitting on a corner, photographing jaywalkers. Yes, the jaywalkers are doing something illegal...but quite possibly, so are you. To me, it's less of a privacy issue (in this specific instance) as it is an issue of who gets to do the watching.
Where do you stand on neighborhood watch schemes?

In some areas, there seems to be a culture among law enforcement officers that they may freely speed, as other officers will not ticket them. I think, however, this may be a very regional thing.

I guess what annoys me most about it is that he was speeding, and rather than admit he made a mistake, the reaction is to cause as much trouble as possible for those who pointed it out.

So you witness someone breaking the law but the only way you can prove it would be illegal? I don't think you are listening here.

Setting up your own surveillance system is illegal. Taking a pic on your camera phone of someone running out of a bank with bags of money is not....because you aren't sitting there taking pictures of every single person exiting the bank. The biggest issue with surveillance, is that you are going to be capturing people going about perfectly legal activities as well, which violates their expectation of privacy, yes, even on a public street. It's quite another thing to be in a city where you know there are city-sanctioned video cameras on every corner violating your privacy. Having some schmuck sitting outside a Starbucks doing this is not only creepy...in more than one jurisdiction, it is stalking.

Is it okay for you to set up a camera in the ladies washroom to catch women snorting coke? NO. Because in the meantime, you also have access to other lawful, private activities.

So go ahead, take a picture of the bank robber. Just don't sit outside the bank like a total weirdo with your video camera, some adult diapers, and a box full of nutrient bars.


Where do you stand on neighborhood watch schemes?
See above. They are regulated by bylaws. I'm fine with that.

I guess what annoys me most about it is that he was speeding, and rather than admit he made a mistake, the reaction is to cause as much trouble as possible for those who pointed it out.

I agree. The biggest ass here is the cop.

Well, hmmm, actually, I think the couple acted foolishly as well...but the cop is the one making himself look very, very bad.

In some areas, there seems to be a culture among law enforcement officers that they may freely speed, as other officers will not ticket them. I think, however, this may be a very regional thing.

Automatic photo-radar and red light cameras are forcing the issue though :D Nothing like having a ticket arrive for you at work...hehehehehee...

Well you still get to sexually assault strippers and get away with it (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/03/news/state/4_04_082_2_07.txt). (at least he lost his job)

I suppose that jury of 11 men had nothing to do with that verdict...

I suppose that jury of 11 men had nothing to do with that verdict...

Isn't that scary? And I think there has to be jury unanimity in that jurisdiction...

Setting up your own surveillance system is illegal. Taking a pic on your camera phone of someone running out of a bank with bags of money is not....because you aren't sitting there taking pictures of every single person exiting the bank. The biggest issue with surveillance, is that you are going to be capturing people going about perfectly legal activities as well, which violates their expectation of privacy, yes, even on a public street.
If the camera is set to only photograph people driving above a certain speed then it will not be recording people who are going about lawful activities.


Is it okay for you to set up a camera in the ladies washroom to catch women snorting coke? NO. Because in the meantime, you also have access to other lawful, private activities.
Do you have an expectation of privacy in the toilet? Yes. Do you have an expectation that nobody can see you on the highway? No.

Discretion and accountability is why we put things like enforcement and surveillance in the hands of specific parties.

There is no way to determine the difference between surveying for speeders or simply gathering information on your neighbors for whatever reason. Vigilante surveillance is no different than vigilante justice in that it doesn't have the built in discretion and accountability that an official institution has.

here is a link that describes the stalking law that officer Perrone is hoping to charge the Sipples with:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1599.asp

i wonder if the law is similar over here. perhaps someone could have a case against the transport authority and city councils and shops for stalking. i certainly never gave my consent to be watched every time i go shopping or driving.

Discretion and accountability is why we put things like enforcement and surveillance in the hands of specific parties.

There is no way to determine the difference between surveying for speeders or simply gathering information on your neighbors for whatever reason. Vigilante surveillance is no different than vigilante justice in that it doesn't have the built in discretion and accountability that an official institution has.

Oh you mean like all the accountability in the Patriot Act?

Oh you mean like all the accountability in the Patriot Act?

And that's the problem with the Patriot Act, its lack of accountability. It's also the problem with the warrantless wiretaps.

Where do you stand on neighborhood watch schemes?

I like to wave at them as I pass them by.

With regards to the instaneous case and the law the couple is being charged under, the couple did not establish surveilence over any person but instead suveiled a location, so they should be able to get the stalking charges dismissed. It is worthwhile also to note that this argument is reininforced later in the statute - "'harassing and intimidating' means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person", and that further the statute requires not just surveilence but that the suveilence be undertaken "for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person."

Without addressing the morality or legality otherwise of a private speed trap, it would not seem on its face to be the type of behavior covered by the stalking law, and is most certainly not that intended to be covered by the authors of the statute. Mind you, given the vagrieties of the legal systems of the various states they may be convicted of stalking, but they should not be under this statute.