IANAL. That said, I believe the relevant law is <a href="http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-99.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-99.htm</a> and the key element will prove to be whether using a cell phone as a video/audio camera would constitute a "secret" recording of audio as required by definition B4. (Apparently, with Glick's original case dismissed, there's a chance that it would not suffice.)<p>In terms of his suit, anyone can sue anyone for anything. It's the winning that's hard. I can't imagine any cause for action on impairing his freedom of speech, nor that sufficient probable cause did not exist to effect the arrest. While I don't like how the law is written, and may not agree with the premise, the law is the law and it's easy for an officer to believe that they have probable cause for an arrest under that law. Frankly, I think they had PC for the arrest, even as I wish they didn't and wish that even if they had, they'd have chosen not to make that arrest. I can't see how Glick can meaningfully win this case...