I can only hope the court rules sensibly in this case (though as it flies against their previous rulings I am not confident). It should be a firmly established and unquestionable right for citizens to film employees of the state as they perform their duties.
I was under the impression, based on the existence of outward-facing surveillance cameras from business and Amazon Ring and whatnot, that there was a general right to record anything whatsoever as long as it is happening in public. There are obviously some limitations, but they all relate to national security, i.e. if you go around taking pictures of military installation perimeter security, even from outside the perimeter on publicly accessible land, you're gonna get your camera confiscated and be brought in for questioning. Otherwise, it is seemingly impossible to guarantee freedom of the press if you don't have freedom to record events taking place in public view. The police can't wipe human memory, so the only conceivable reason to prevent filming is to degrade the quality of evidence any time police activity falls under investigation, which can't seriously be considered a legitimate goal of government.
I believe it's normal, when a crime allegedly happened in public, for the police to go around and request security camera footage from businesses nearby. At least, it is something that happens in my area.