Funny thing about laws, it is all about how it is interpreted by lawyers, judges, and a jury. ---Very true.
The officer would have to prove that I INTENDED to obstruct his investigation. Not going to happen. Intent is one of the most difficult actions to prove. when an act is is session. I would say that I would have a 99% probability of winning if I had a good lawyer, and I still think a better than 75% chance of winning when I made sure it went to trial and I had peers who truly love their 4th amendment rights, which most citizens do.---Intent is difficult to prove. Depends on the officers ability to articulate the circumstances of the situation. Being told that you are hindering the investigation numerous times and asked to stop on tape does help show intent. At least it did with my case and the person pled out.
Actually now that I think about it, I would say 100% chance of winning period, since the federal appeals court upheld the case of the guy above! I would simply cite that case when I went to court, and then proceeded to sue like he did. lol-----The Glik case was a no brainer. He was just taping them perform their duties. He tapped what everyone else was seeing. If an officer or detective have someone pulled off to the side to conduct an interview and was asked to stop, it might go different. It's not always possible to move a victim/suspect to a "private" building or such do to a variety of circumstances. There many different circumstances/ scenarios that might affect a ruling one way or the other.