More on police attempts to keep citizens videoing them

We're at a point where they know there is no "legal" justification to prevent citizens, so they use threats, lies and intimidation.

The legal argument prosecutors rely on in police video cases is thin. They say the audio aspect of the videos violates wiretap laws because, in some states, both parties to a conversation must consent to having a private conversation recorded. The hole in their argument is the word "private." A police officer arresting or questioning someone on a highway or street is not having a private conversation. He is engaging in a public act.

Even if these cases do not hold up in court, the police can do a lot of damage just by threatening to arrest and prosecute people.

"We see a fair amount of intimidation — police saying, 'You can't do that. It's illegal,'" says Christopher Calabrese, a lawyer with the ACLU's Washington office. It discourages people from filming, he says, even when they have the right to film.

Ford was not deterred. According to her account, even when the police threatened her with arrest, she refused to turn off her video camera, telling her son not to worry because "it's all on video" and "let them be who they continue to be."

The police then grabbed her, she said, took her camera and drove her off to the police station for booking.

As someone who has been threaten (as a teenager) with physical violence by the police with their badges hidden, but had no proof of their threats later, I'm all for you and I being able to record their "public" actions.

It helps keep "public" officials in check, as sometimes they forget who they work for.

Read more here.