A couple of things...
1. As far as I know every offense is an arrestable offense, if the officer has reason to believe that you will not appear in court or there is a justifiable reason you can be taken in, this includes speeding, tag whatever.
2. Exigent circumstance is what the cop should have used, I think that we all would agree something else happened outside of this 11 minutes of video that spurred all the LEO with the bikes. If something else did occur then the officer only need to make the traffic stop and ask for the camera nicely, if the rider wouldn't give it up then he could have taken it under current exigent circumstance guidelines for most departments.
The problem here is that the officer was a turd and tried to use the tag to arrest the kid to get the tape... He could have just as easy given a receipt and taken the camera from the kid and drove off. The only time I ever took someone to jail for an offense like that is when they were crazy obstructive, refused to sign the ticket or were out of town and we took them to the jail to post bond. Pretty thin ice to be skating on for the officer since he puked out the words right off that he wanted the tape, in this situation had he not said that it would have looked much better for him but I think he tried to use the wrong laws for the wrong reason to get what he wanted....
For those that have never heard of Exigent circumstances...
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.
In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:
An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]
Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.[2]
Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact.[3] There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.
Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence.[4] In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.
Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary.[5]
