Live free or what?
In New Hampshire comes something hella lame:
The state Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the government can keep and destroy more than 500 CDs taken from Michael Cohen, owner of Pitchfork Records in Concord, in 2003 even though the state failed to prove that a single disk was illegal.
Cohen was arrested for attempting to sell bootleg recordings. But the police case collapsed when it turned out that most of the recordings were made legally. Police dropped six of the seven charges, and Cohen went to trial on one charge. He beat it after the judge concluded that the recording was legal.
However, the police refused to return Cohen’s CDs. In the state Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling, Chief Justice John Broderick, writing for the majority, reasoned so poorly that it appeared as if he’d made up his mind ahead of time.
Update: In comments, Tom notes there’s more to the story:
After beating the criminal charges, Cohen asked for all of his music back, saying he wanted it for his personal collection, not for his store’s sale bins. In doing so, he acknowledged that there were bootlegs among them and that selling those would be illegal, according to court records.
Well, there wasn’t enough to prove that in a court of law so I’d say give him his stuff back. Your thoughts?
August 25th, 2006 at 5:03 am
The part they don’t tell you is here:
and:
If the guy wanted his CDs back, it was pretty stupid (one might say “hella lame”) for him to admit to the court that they were bootlegged. If state statutes allow for confiscated contraband to be destroyed, I’m not sure where the foul is.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:41 am
I agree with Tom, if the guy admitted in open court that the recordings were bootlegs, it’s tough to fault the court for not letting him have them back. Did O.J. get the glove back, too?
August 25th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Errmm…”bootleg” generally implies that the item is for sale. It’s absolutely, postively, undeniably illegal to sell unauthorized copies of CD’s. However, it’s prefectly legal to make backup copies of CDs that you own for your own private use.
Admission of not being able to sell them really doesn’t say anything in and of itself.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:48 am
tgirsch, I read this as:
After beating the criminal charges, Cohen asked for all of his music back, saying he wanted it for his personal collection, not for his store’s sale bins. In doing so, in the opinion of the state’s attorney, he acknowledged that there were bootlegs among them and that selling those would be illegal, according to court records.
They are pretty sure he did something wrong but they wholly and utterly failed to prove that in court. Because he was acquitted, (unless they use the standard mischief trick of trying him at a different level of government) double jeopardy prevents his further punishment for any crime. I will note that the link you provided said that the state dropped (thus not acquitted) six of the charges.
We don’t just randomly deny people their property rights and stuff, there’s a procedure in place. Due process again. A nation of laws and not men.
August 25th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
When folks who work for prosecutors, police, and courts like the ones in this story watch an old CD of Robin Hood, Mel Gibson’s “The Patriot”, or even Spielburgs “Saving Private Ryan”, I wonder which side they pull for? Surely they always are for civil and legal authority and against the brigands, rebels, and invaders.
The Sherrif on Nottingham HAS to be some kind of patron saint of government employees these days…doesn’t he?
God forbid they ever watch “Open Range” and see Costner and Duval placking legally elected public officials with those cowboy loads! They’d drive right into Hollywood and BUST those guys!
August 27th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Justin:
If he owned originals, there never would have been a court case in the first place. And to me, a “bootleg” is any illegally-made recording, irrespective of whether or not it’s for sale. Perhaps the colloquial differs from the legalistic, I wouldn’t know.
SM:
That’s not how I read it at all. Nowhere does it say that the prosecutor thinks the guy admitted there were bootlegs. As I read it, he acknowledged, as a matter of public record, that some of them were. Probably figured he had nothing to lose, given that he had already beat the criminal rap.
August 27th, 2006 at 12:49 am
tgirsch,
It’s certainly open to interpertation. The guy isn’t ever quoted. It doesn’t say, for instance: