By Carlos Miller
In what may be the first of its kind, a man was arrested for using Twitter to notify protesters of police whereabouts in a case that shockingly violates First Amendment rights.
Elliot Madison, 41, was arrested along with another man during the G-20 summit protests in Pittsburgh in late September after police tracked them down to a motel room and discovered a makeshift communication center complete with computers, police scanners, maps and telecommunications equipment – all which are legal and available to the general public.
They were charged with hindering prosecution, criminal use of a communication facility and possessing criminal instruments.
Unless the New York Post is withholding some information, I don’t see how any of those charges can stick.
If the cops are making their whereabouts known on the public radio waves, it’s not exactly a secret nor could it be hindering prosecution if someone shares that information. It would be free speech.
The Sept. 24th arrest led to a questionable FBI raid on his Queens home last Thursday where they ransacked his home for 16 hours with helicopters flying overhead. The feds ended up seizing a pound of liquid mercury, dozens of gas masks, backpacks containing hammers, “books about poisons” and a microscope.
Madison, a self-described anarchist, also had some of his “political writings” seized.
The feds also found metal triangles that are used to puncture tires and two boxes of ammunition. Goldsmith said agents left a collection of machetes, samurai swords and daggers at the house, because they didn’t fall within the scope of the search warrants.
Madison and his wife have a long history of working for the People’s Law Collective, a group described as providing legal representation for protesters. His lawyer argued that the search was illegal and asked the judge to order the return of the property.
The judge issued a temporary order of protection stopping the feds from going through the material.
Popularity: 1% [?]
26 responses so far ↓
1 NYCPhotorights // Oct 5, 2009 at 8:24 AM
While I would like to see a challenge on first amendment grounds, federal law does prohibit disclosing anything you hear on a scanner to third parties:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002511—-000-.html
By my understanding it is not limited to police communication. For example, a railroad buff listening to a portable scanner cannot even tell other people waiting for a train that it is running late, if he heard about the delay via his scanner.
2 Scott // Oct 5, 2009 at 9:15 AM
NYC, you should have read that section of the law. Its perfectly legal to listen to a scanner, if the information on that channel is generally available to the public (Section (2) (g) (i)).
And for police frequencies, section (2) (g) (ii) (II) is pretty explicit:
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted—
(II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;
3 bj // Oct 5, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Scott, you are correct but so is NYC.
Simplified explanation, you can listen but you can not repeat or record. The fact that they repeated orders of were police were told to go or reported locations they heard on the scanner where police said they were at – they broke the law.
4 Carlos Miller // Oct 5, 2009 at 12:01 PM
I hear what you guys are saying but when I worked at the Arizona Republic as a cop reporter, I had a pager that would update me of newsworthy incidents.
These were compiled by a bunch of people sitting around listening to police scanners. We paid for the service.
So how is that not repeating information you hear on the scanner?
The law you posted, NYC, is the same they use against people who videotape cops, but it never sticks.
I really don’t see how a scanner transmission would be considered “intercepting” anymore than I can see a message I write on somebody’s Facebook wall being “intercepted” by a third party.
If it’s out there, it’s available to everybody.
Intercepting a cell phone conversation would be different, of course, and illegal under the posted law.
5 Rob Molecule // Oct 5, 2009 at 12:43 PM
I once listened to a scanner where the police said they were chasing a guy through backyards on Lafayette Ave. in Buffalo, NY. This was a street I was living on at the time, around spring of 1993.
Oh shit, I just repeated what I heard on a scanner. I’m going into hiding now.
6 NYCPhotorights // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I know it is legal to listen to it – I was only commenting on whether or not it is legal to disclose what you heard to another party. Perhaps I should have been clearer.
7 Rob Molecule // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:43 PM
It’s just that such a law is an obvious afront to free speech. How can they justify a sweeping gag order on anything heard on a device that is legal?
8 Rob Molecule // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Now they may have a case to be made that the scanner was used in the commission of a crime, which is also illegal. But then again, protesting should not be a crime. And general tweets with this info should not necessarily tie them to specific criminals amongst peaceful protesters.
9 Carlos Miller // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Rob,
That’s the point I’m trying to make. If you are using the scanner to serve as a lookout for someone committing a bank robbery, then I can see where that would be a crime because you are acting as an accessory.
But to warn protesters about police whereabouts?
10 bj // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Relevant items.
Overview
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/interception.html
Actual law
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
around page 320
11 Rob Molecule // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:58 PM
What if I had used the information I posted above to warn a neighbor that there was a criminal being chased by police through our backyards. Would I have been committing a crime?
12 Carlos Miller // Oct 5, 2009 at 2:03 PM
What if I’m writing an article about an ongoing police situation, such as a standoff, for the web.
And I call police and they give me no answers.
So I base my report on witness statements and information I heard over the scanner.
Is that a crime?
I don’t think so.
So how is that different than this incident.
The gunman involved in the standoff could easily have an iPhone where he is reading my article as I update it.
13 Michaelk42 // Oct 5, 2009 at 3:09 PM
I have to wonder why no one is going after the people providing streams for this iPhone app then
http://www.juicydevelopment.com/policescanner.html
“It must be pointed out that Juicy Development does not produce the vast majority of the streams that are in the scanner. A few streams are provided by government web sites but the majority of streams are provided by volunteers, hobbyist, and even a few fanatics. Most of theses people are sponsoring or publishing streams at their own expense.”
If it’s always against the law to repeat the info with or without criminal intent, then hello, selective prosecution.
14 Tom // Oct 5, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Unfortunately this is an area that has been changing over they years. When I took my radio operators certificate (in Canada), the law was and still is, very clear in Canada. The law was based on an international treaty from the early days of radio. It stated that radio communications that were not general purpose (i.e. commercial broadcast, or broadcast to “all stations”) were private to the recipient. This was meant for long distance short wave that at the time had no encryption capability. You could listen, but you could not repeat. I know the equivalent law in the US went to a constitutional challenge way back when, and was upheld. If it is legal now, it is because the law has been changed. Not knowing the details of US law, I can’t comment on the current situation.
@Michaelk42: yes it is selective enforcement
@Carlos Miller: If you publish an written article based on police scanners, yes, it might still be against the federal law. Similarly if you were to publish an article based on conversations heard over marine frequencies, it might also be against federal law. I believe that CB frequencies had a specific exemption.
15 Michaelk42 // Oct 5, 2009 at 7:26 PM
@Tom
Well, if that’s the case, this is going to be one of those times to say “screw the law, it’s overbroad and unconstitutional.”
16 Kol. Klink // Oct 5, 2009 at 9:08 PM
To “SERVE AND PROTECT” the elite means beating down the proles.
17 Kurt // Oct 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM
@Tom:
This may apply to personal communications, but not to public official communications likes police, fire, etc.
18 Jon Quimbly // Oct 7, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Carlos,
The hilarious thing about the police scanner-internet connection that the cops are pushing, is that live police scanner streams have been available online for years:
http://www.dxzone.com/catalog/Internet_and_Radio/Police_Scanners/
http://www.google.com/search?q=nypd+scanners+recording+OR+listen+OR+audio+OR+video+robbery+OR+protest+OR+shot+OR+shooting
During most large scale protests I’ve covered, there’s usually been an SMS service (run by demonstrators) that delivers updates about protest locations, police presence and whatnot. Whether it’s police scanners, or people on the street posting updates from their iphones, or people just calling each other – it doesn’t matter, the word gets around.
19 Jon Quimbly // Oct 7, 2009 at 12:45 AM
Check this out, others during G-20 monitored police scanners, made recordings and posted them on the web:
http://kdka.com/local/g20/G20.police.recordings.2.1229524.html
They claim to have proof of police giving protesters an order to disperse while coordinating over the radio to move in and arrest them.
`The thing has been designated ‘hammer and anvil’ and it is essentially an almost military-like maneuver that is used to indiscriminately sweep an area of people who have a legitimate right to be there and have a legitimate right to express their Constitutional rights,” Albert Petrarca, an activist, said.’
Here’s the capper: “…but police are working with the District Attorney to dismiss charges against any people wrongly arrested.”
Kinda puts me to mind of the NYPD’s plan during the RNC, same kinda tactics.
20 Jon Quimbly // Oct 7, 2009 at 7:42 PM
An interview with Elliot Madison’s attorney is happening at the moment, check in here after 8pm-
http://archive.wbai.org/
Look for show ‘Off The Hook’ (a show run by 2600 Magazine.) Lots of issues covered, especially the constitutional angles, but also the merits of the search warrant, the items seized, why Twitter was an issue etc.
The State Department protested to the government of Iran when they shut down access to Twitter during the election protests this year.
Yet, when the same thing happens here, use of Twitter to assist protesters … criminalized.
21 Rob Molecule // Oct 8, 2009 at 9:21 AM
CNN posted a good updated article on this:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/06/G20.tweeters/
22 TL Winslow // Oct 8, 2009 at 2:04 PM
The Achilles heel of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is absence of a law allowing the govt. to be arrested and prosecuted by itself. Welcome to my world.
23 Jon Quimbly // Oct 8, 2009 at 2:53 PM
MP3 of interview with Elliot Madison’s attorney Martin Stolar:
http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/091007_190001oth.MP3
The story and interview begin at 15:20.
24 Randall A. Gordon // Oct 12, 2009 at 1:37 AM
As Jon mentions, the State Department’s involvement with Twitter during the Iran protests create a double standard that is…especially infuriating. Granted, this is an entirely separate agency, but the disconnect is simply ridiculous!
The list of objects seized does cause me to hang my head, but with a slight grin. Makes me wonder what the reaction of modern law enforcement would be to search the homes of, say, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc. Or, better yet, da Vinci, Maxwell or other giants of the scientific world. They’d be scared shitless—everything would be a terrorist’s tool!
25 Jessica // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:59 PM
This is crazy! Who would of thought 140 characters could get you arrested. I must be more careful from now on.
26 Frank // May 2, 2010 at 7:01 AM
And parting out their organs after they’re dead, if you’re in New York.
Leave a Comment