[newbusox]

Not to burst anyone's bubbles, but just because the DoJ has issued a letter stating that they believe this is constitutional does not make it so. There are opinions, I believe, from the First and Seventh Circuits that state explicitly that this is the case, but, probably until there is a definitive decision from the US Supreme Court or the like, or of an appellate court in a given state, local police could still try to arrest you for recording them, and the police may be able to make a colorable argument that that is valid. It's not inconceivable, depending on the jurisdiction, that a court could decide in police's favor were someone to sue in a situation like that.

[felipemnoa]

Considering this:

http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2012/04/supreme-court-sa...

I don't think is a wise idea to take this to the supreme court at this moment. They could easily say that it is illegal to record police.

[cynicalkane]

I find it very strange that you're citing (a highly erroneous summary of) a Court ruling restricting the right privacy for jail inmates in specific situations, in order to argue that the Court will extend privacy of persons in public places. Actually, the lack of prisoners' rights to privacy, and the right to record things in public areas, are both well established.

By the way, the word you're looking for is "unconstitutional", not "illegal". Even should the Court restrict the right to record--which they won't, it's a well-established right--jurisdictions may establish that right through law anyway.

[loverobots]

Two appeal courts have said yes and DOJ said yes too. Personally I'd be more afraid of getting my @ss kicked for "resisting police" and having my video erased, than being arrested for taping cops.

[Karunamon]

That's why you use something like Justin.tv or QIK or something that live uploads. Cop beats you up and smashes your phone? The resulting payout you'll get will make the beatdown worth it.

I'd totally take a beatdown if it would make me a multi millionaire :)