BGW, the only reason George Washington is blue is because sad sacks like you throw his name around in some kind of I-ride-the-short-bus attempt at patriotism. You better think twice before you start calling people here traitors, because most folks around here are more informed than you, more literate than you, and care a hell of a lot more about the USA than you.

Anyone that parrots semi-retarded, oversimplified talking points about immigration is no patriot or fan of the Constitution (or whatever the last hate buzz-words is - islamofascist, gay marriage, etc.)

Look, immigration has always been what makes this country great. If it wasn't for H1-B, student Visa, illegal workers... this country would not have had a dot-com boom. There are more companies than you can imagine started by immigrants and people you hate. In fact, the US is the only major first world country with positive population growth, which can be attributed to ... guest what? You like your Social Security? Guess what is paying for it when you retire? Illegals who pay in and never collect. Guess what makes your WalMart profitable and running smooth? Guess why your stock portfolio goes up? Guess who picks your fruits and vegetables?

What I initally addressed is the LAPD violation of the Constitution. You would willingly give over your Rights in order to spew some "illegal immigrant" hatred. First of all, the Constitution should strive to protect all humans, anywhere. Secondly, go read some constitutional law. (Obviously other than rights to taxpayer funded programs, protection from deportation, and voting..)

Immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (Until Ashcroft and Abu-Gonzales created Gitmo detention centers)

http://www.slate.com/id/1008367/
http://www.nlg.org/resources/kyr/kyr_english.htm

the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

(US v. Verdugo-Urquidez) Implies the Fourth Amend search and seizures does not apply to non-residents (in the case of border issues)

(Martinez-Aguero v. Gonzales) "aliens stopped at the border have a constitutional right to be free from false imprisonment and the use of excessive force by law enforcement personnel."


(Plyer v. Doe) No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. (No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.])

I'm not sure where half-breeds like you learned how to read the Bill of Rights and see where it says "citizens" have the following rights, but I still maintain, this country (and George Washington's memory) would be better off if you choke on a taco.

Wepwawet, you are scarily wrong. You always have the right to record a public official. (Except if you posed a threat, block traffic, do not follow orders, or interfere)
-----------
"When a public employer is involved, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its state equivalents are implicated. (A few states apply their Fourth Amendment equivalent to private parties as well. These states include Massachusetts, California and Florida. All employers in those states must comply with the constitutional tests, in addition to the statutory and common law tests.) The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by state action. Actions by a public entity employer may qualify as "state actions."

Generally, there are two components to a Fourth Amendment analysis, under the public employer test: (I) is there a subjective (actual) expectation of privacy and (ii) is this expectation of privacy reasonable. If the surveillance is of an area open to public view, surveillance is generally permissible, since there can be no expectation of privacy in an area open to public view. The issue of whether other less obvious examples invoke a reasonable expectation of privacy is less settled.
---------
More examples of police getting in a huff about videotapes. But I think in the case of a police officer, the public interest outweighs the wiretap laws. (as it pertains to audio) Not sure what the FL law is. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121 http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060805/NEWS01/108050086

NH law: "It is a crime under state law (RSA 570-A:2) to use any sort of electronic device to eavesdrop or record conversations without the consent of everyone involved. It’s a felony to record other people’s conversations, and a misdemeanor to record one’s own conversations without the other person’s consent."

There is also the ruling of a man videotaping Truck inspections, that was arrested multiple times by police. PA courts upheld his right to videotape. http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0847P.pdf
----
The activities of the police, like those of other public officials, are subject to public scrutiny. Indeed, "the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987).
Videotaping is a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination and can often provide cogent evidence, as it did in this case. In sum, there can be no doubt that the free speech clause of the Constitution protected Robinson as he videotaped the defendants on October 23, 2002. See Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Stanley, 394 U.S. at 564 (1969); Whiteland Woods, L.P. v. Township of West Whiteland, 193 F.3d 177, 180 (3d Cir. 1999).