People in Portsmouth panic at the sight of man with guns.

[S&WM&P40]

+1 to your post.

I was a police officer for 11 years in NH and actually remember reading said memo. It was issued by Cheshire County Attorney (then AG) Peter Heed.

I remember debating this issue with a former sergeant of mine. Sadly, most cops seem to think there is an open carrying exception to the 4th Amendment (or Part I, Article 19).

There isn't. :)

The only argument you ever hear from the police, police unions etc.. Is the blanket excuse of "Officer Safety," they use this line for everything they disagree with. Some how hoping that the uneducated public on the issue will here this cry and flock to support them. Be it lawful citizens who choose to open carry, or video taping law enforcement officers in public while carrying out their duties. I really fail to see how this blanket claim holds any weight when it comes to video taping officers in public. If anything you would think they would welcome more cameras on the street? It could/has help clear officers of wrong doing. As they like to say to citizens "Not talking to us/lawyer up makes you look guilty." I say the same thing to them on this issue, not wanting to be filmed makes you look duty! If your a good police officer with nothing to hide then whats the problem? I can only hope that NH House Bill 145 will pass this time around.

I do see a few problems with it though!

(1) The person making the recording shall first give notification of the recording to the officer;

(3) The act of recording does not interfere with the officer’s ability to perform his or her official duties.

More so with number (3), who is to say what interferes with their official duties? Someone shows up and starts filming the officer/officers and stands about five feet away, I see nothing in the amendment from prohibiting police from pushing people back say 20-30 feet hell even 100 feet. They could claim they are still allowing you to film you just have to do so from that distance.

As for number (1), again they could claim they did not hear you inform them that you are recording.

With public and police relations in the state they are in now, it really makes me think twice about taking the entrance exam and joining a department.

[Highline]

You're spot on with regards to the problems with the bill. At first I believed the law would be a step in the right direction, but now I've decided that I disagree with having the law pass.

It is my position that the "wiretapping" arrests, insofar as they're made on someone recording a public official, violate Part I Article 8 of the NH Constitution. The recordings are made to hold the government accountable, therefore the act of recording is constitutionally protected.

With public and police relations in the state they are in now, it really makes me think twice about taking the entrance exam and joining a department.

You sound like a guy who has his head (and heart) in the right place with regards to liberty, freedom, and rights. You're also fairly well educated on these things.

Take it from someone who left the police profession that it is impossible to be a rank-and-file law enforcer while caring about the individual liberties of people. If police only went after people who hurt others, it would be a good honorable job. The reality is, though, that police often hurt people by enforcing victimless crime laws.

Malum prohibitum laws need to be abolished. Malum in se laws is where the police should be focusing their efforts.

[Highline]

With public and police relations in the state they are in now, it really makes me think twice about taking the entrance exam and joining a department.

You strike me as an individual who respects the liberties of other people. Take it from someone who left the policing profession because of the same, you're better off working elsewhere.

Taking a persons freedom away and sending them to court for victimless crime nonsense is hard to do for someone with libertarian leaning ideals

"Malum in se" laws is what the police should only enforce... that would make them true "peace officers." They're "law enforcement officers" because they enforce "malum prohibitum" BS.