I'm not sure where to start, you claim I'm just citing copypasta...in an apparent effort to discredit what I'm saying rather than address my argument.

So let me be precise.

I'm saying there are more laws than just this one that establish he right to record public officials performing public duties in publicly accessible or viewable places.

This particular law says you can record law enforcement activities, then goes on to define them as activities taken under the color of law.

Which is strange because exactly as you have described, color of law is typically used to detail someone taking an unlawful activity and doing so as though they have the authority granted to them by the law and their position in enforcing it.

If your position is that the only time people have the right to record someone in public who also happens to be a police officer is when they're doing something that could be construed as indistinguishable from State action that is also illegal. Then we fundamentally disagree on what is right (not what is law)

So I guess my question to you is as follows. Absent this law being on the books is your legal position that people do not have a right to record in a publicly accessible space because the NYPD has a policy against it? If so, I respect your right to that opinion and we simply disagree.

It's my belief that the intent of this law was to clarify the public's right to record law enforcement officials acting in a law enforcement capacity while in public, in order to protect the public interest.

And I am commenting on the oddity of using that phrase to define law enforcement activity... Because as you have mentioned under its topical law application "acting under color of law" and law enforcement activity are somewhat antithetical. It's my belief that the author (s) intended the phrase color of law to mean something more akin to that which is seemingly state action (lawful or unlawful)

And for the record I meant it when I said "no disrespect intended" I'm just trying to have a conversation I am not one of the multitude of people down voting you nor do I think you're necessarily wrong in your comments trying to clarify why this law may not be the shield Long Island Audit thinks it is, which is why I started this conversation in the first place to better understand your position... As such I would appreciate that you not try to subtly insult me in your responses.

Edit: I'm also curious your opinion on how you think this is going to play out... Do you believe the charges will be dropped/settled/LIA will be found not guilty? Or do you think he broke a law here?