Based on this article, it would seem that if a person were committing acrime, and you caught them on video, and you didn't tell them adequatelythat they were on camera (if they broke into your house while you weren'thome), they'd get off of the hook. It would seem that a civil libertieslawyer (no offense intended) could argue that the person was "sightchallenged" and didn't know that he was being recorded. Is the new defense"I didn't see the sign?". I'm rethinking an application at my personal homewhere I have had vandalism in the past to a vehicle and my mailbox. I havetwo cameras set up that watch the area 24/7 with IR illuminators to try tocatch them, since the "police are too busy". I do have signs, but it couldbe argued based on the article below that the signs may not be big enoughto see as a motorist swinging a baseball bat takes out a line of mailboxesas they drive down the street at 30 mph.Bob ShieldsR. L. Shields Associates, Inc.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Nashua+dad+turns+in+tape%2C+gets+arrested&articleId=d98cb83f-8365-4ff1-84a9- c2dfab341c46

Nashua dad turns in tape, gets arrested

By RUSS CHOMA

Union Leader CorrespondentThursday, June 29, 2006Nashua - A Nashua man is facing two felony charges for allegedly usingsecret video cameras to tape police who had come to his home to investigatehis son's possible role in a robbery. Nashua Police arrested MichaelGannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., on Tuesday and charged him with two felonycounts of interception and disclosure of telecommunication or oralcommunications. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of seven years inprison. Gannon is accused of making several audio and video recordings ofat least two Nashua police officers who had come to his home to interviewhim about the whereabouts of his 15-year-old son, who was a suspect in aJune 21 robbery.

According to court filings, Gannon and his wife, Janet, had videocamerasset up at both the front and rear entrances of their home. During aninterview with police, Janet Gannon told investigators that the couplebought the cameras from Wal-Mart because there had been some criminalmischief in the parking lot in front of their home. Michael Gannon came tothe police station Tuesday with a videotape that he said showed theofficers being "discourteous." The tape included a recording of aconversation Gannon had with officers and a second conversation the policehad when they were alone. While Gannon waited in the lobby of the station,police reviewed the tape. When they discovered the officers did not knowthey were being recorded, they arrested Gannon.Yesterday, Nashua Police Sgt. Detective Jeff Maher said that although thecameras were not hidden and police officers were on Gannon's property whenthe recording allegedly occurred, Gannon never told the police officersthat he was recording their actions and conversations. That makes it acrime, he said.

"Just the fact this recording occurred, a crime was committed," Maher said.According to court documents, police had visited Gannon's house severaltimes inquiring about his son, but the only indication Gannon ever gave theofficers that he was recording them was when he told one of them to smilebecause he was on camera. Maher said that security cameras on privateproperty are not illegal, but the person being videotaped needs to benotified. Maher noted the Nashua Police Department uses cameras in itsbooking area, but has a large sign informing people they are beingrecorded. Maher also explained that Gannon's alleged taping is differentfrom when television crews or members of the media might record policeinvestigating a crime scene, because there is an expectation that mighthappen.

"There certainly is a kind of awareness in a public place that you arebeing recorded," he said. "This was not the case."