[robertpaulsen]

"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.

[palmer]

"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."

Knowing nothing else about this case, it sounds like they are trying to protect themselves here, not the public. You need to answer the question: do police (and other public servants) have 4th and 5th amendment protection from the public that they serve? If you believe they do, that's fine, we will know where you stand on the issue (we are their servants not vice versa). If not, then you need to stop calling this a case of the citizen entrapping the police. Because clearly, without the camera, the kid would have had no protection from trumped up charges.

[fernwood]

The charges were dropped and decided it was appropriate to video tap the police. So you used another false argument

see http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2007/06/20/news/news630.txt