>>>>>Yes, as with any group, there are corrupt members here and there. But in defense of the police: They are a needed part of society and by the nature of their job, they deal with crimminals most of the time. It stands to reason that many would become jaded after continuously dealing with that sort of people. Some of them will crack and take action that they should not. That said, the police probably do not have the right to demand that taking pictures or video of an event be forbidden.
>>>>
>>>>Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Well, the public. Anyone can take a video nowadays.
>>>>
>>>>If this law passes, it will truly bring on a police state.
>>>
>>>Too late. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer. But you know what? If I see a cop going Rodney-King on someone I'll be the first one to break the law and start taking a video....furthermore I'll run away to protect myself & my video too.
>>
>>Do you have a reference for that? I don't believe it is actually true. My understanding is that the only law that comes close is the law meant to protect citizens from surveillence without reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed and the posting of films on . Most communiations and surveillence laws were written to protect the public against surveillence of private communications. I don't think they have leg to stand on if any citizen actually sued. The police in California, Massachusetts, and Maryland are trying to use those laws to stop the public filming. Were you thinking of another state and is there a law that I don't know about (that would not surprise me).
>
>http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns
>That one sites an example in Boston where someone was arrested for doing this - and another in Illinois. The one in Illinois the judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison!!!!
>So - despite the fact of what the law was INTENDED for - the cops are reading it differently - and in Massachusetts and Illinois (and maybe others) the judges have sided with the cops on this. One guy used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the police. After doing so, he was criminally charged!! The example in Maryland is even more disturbing.

I agree it is extremely disturbing, Some of the cases are eventually dismissed (with the help of the ACLU):

Likewise with Simon Glik and Jon Surmacz; their cases were eventually dismissed, a key factor being the open way they had used their cellphones.

Two or more of the cases are still pending or actually set though. One good thing (at the expense of those who didn't get theirs dismissed), this caused at least one jurisdiction to actually write laws protecting the citizens rights to film the police in public.

At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested "shooter," the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.

As journalist Radley Balko declares, "State legislatures should consider passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law enforcement officials."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/?page=3