This PA state case decided in Fed Dist. Court seems on point
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-videotape.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). Although Robinson need
not assert any particular reason for videotaping the troopers, he
was doing so in order to make a visual record of what he believed
was the unsafe manner in which they were performing their duties.
He had previously talked to Arthur Hershey, a Representative in
the Pennsylvania General Assembly, about his concerns.
Robinson's right to free speech encompasses the right to receive
information and ideas. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564
(1969). He also has a First Amendment right to express his
concern about the safety of the truck inspections to the
appropriate government agency or officials, whether his
expression takes the form of speech or conduct. See Texas v.
Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989); Minnesota State Board for
Cmty. Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 308 (1984). 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
-8-
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). Moreover, to the
extent that the troopers were restraining Robinson from making
any future videotapes and from publicizing or publishing what he
had filmed, the defendants' conduct clearly amounted to an
unlawful prior restraint upon his protected speech. Vance v.
Universal Amusement Co., Inc., 445 U.S. 308, 316 & n.13, 317
(1980); Near v. State of Minnesota ex. rel. Olson , 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
No reasonable trooper could have believed that
Robinson's videotaping on October 23, 2002 constituted harassment
under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2709. That statute provides, in
relevant part: "[a] person commits the crime of harassment when,
with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person: ...
(2) follows the other person in or about a public place or
places; [or] (3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly
commits acts which serve no legitimate purpose." Id. at
§ 2709(a)(2) & (3). Significantly, the statute continues:
"[t]his section shall not apply ... to any constitutionally
protected activity." Id. at § 2709(e).
At the trial in this case, Fetterman, Rigney, and Riek
all admitted that Robinson's videotaping of police activity is
not unlawful in itself.
.......
The Constitutional principles involved in this action
are well established. We are not dealing with a "close case" or
with the split-second decisions police officers often have to
make in the heat of a dangerous or potentially dangerous
confrontation. There was no justification for the actions of
defendants in violating Robinson's right to free speech and his
right to be secure in his person against an unreasonable seizure.
........
