Your tendency to argue the side of the law is useful in many of these threads, keeps people sharp on the other side. But in this case it is pretty clear that the law was wrong. You admit that the officer was in the wrong. But if the kid didn't run the camera, the officer would have gotten away with it.
The bottom line is that the officer serves the public, you, me, and the kid. In his role as public servant, the officer has zero fourth and fifth amendment rights from the public that they serve. Their role is absolutely public, and can be monitored and recorded for any reason at any time.
I would think that would be up to the state's wiretapping laws.
"A man has been charged in Carlisle, Pennsylvania with filming police officers during a routine traffic stop and faces up to seven years in prison for "wiretapping".
"Brian D. Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent, reports the Patriot News. The criminal case relates to the sound, not the pictures, that his camera picked up."
"But if the kid didn't run the camera, the officer would have gotten away with it."
True. But if the kid didn't run the camera he never would have mouthed off to the cop.