This was a front page story in my local liberal rag.
Two pertinent quotes from the story:
According to a spokesperson for ShotSpotter, their system can't record voices. Interesting, since the argument was apparently recorded prior to the gunshots being fired. I suppose that shouting on a public street isn't exactly what you should do if you want to maintain your privacy, but I wonder how many people are aware that the authorities have the ability to listen in to what people are saying on the street...and seem to be doing so.
Since the police recorded the conversation, it's apparently subject to the wiretap laws...so naturally, they had a warrant to do so. Oh, they didn't?
I'm so glad I don't live in a police state.
Two pertinent quotes from the story:
ShotSpotter officials say their acoustic sensors, set up to detect gunfire, are not designed to record conversations on the street. However, court documents show that audio surveillance helped provide specific details that enabled police to string together the sequence of events that ended in the fatal shooting of Pina, 20, in the South End.
In Massachusetts, minus a court order, the state wiretap law prohibits audio recording without both parties' consent. Police officers have used that statute at times to seize cellphones from people trying to record them on the street.
According to a spokesperson for ShotSpotter, their system can't record voices. Interesting, since the argument was apparently recorded prior to the gunshots being fired. I suppose that shouting on a public street isn't exactly what you should do if you want to maintain your privacy, but I wonder how many people are aware that the authorities have the ability to listen in to what people are saying on the street...and seem to be doing so.
Since the police recorded the conversation, it's apparently subject to the wiretap laws...so naturally, they had a warrant to do so. Oh, they didn't?
I'm so glad I don't live in a police state.
Last edited: