Guy didn't like being on camera. Gee, that's familiar.
When the State does it they tell me I have no expectation of privacy in public. which I agree with. Maybe this guy doesn't? He obviously doesn't know law.
Notice the other officers aren't getting into his game. They'll protect him from harm, help him with the cameras and so on, but they're not arresting anyone. They don't want to get involved. Even the sergeants at the end were trying to do damage control.
On a serious note, what could you do in reality? This ---- keeps popping up rather constantly, and I know of no real punishment for abuse of power. I have to watch out for this crap, I'm brown...
In the rest of the world, evidence acquired illegally or other illegal acts while taken in the line of duty mean the evidence is still legal to present - but the authority figure gets charged for the crimes he committed.
Here in the US, we give them a form of immunity, and if illegal acts are committed in the line of duty, we saw "Aw, shucks, since we're throwing out the evidence, we don't gotta even give you a slap on the wrist! Throwing out the evidence is enough punishment there!"
Seriously. I'm not joking here for once - I'm completely, 100% serious. The logic behind it is that retarded.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, how is a Chicago PD officer equivalent to Congress?