Characterizing police bodycams, etc., as retaliatory surveillance doesn't make sense to me. This is workplace surveillance of a public workplace conducted by the employer. I'm not sure why we ned to worry about balance: police are unionized workers with extremely aggressive and capable union representation. Their on-job surveillance is a mandatory issue of collective bargaining with the agencies that employ them (a fact you don't mention). Why is it reasonable to leave the questions that concern worker privacy and the effect of the monitoring on the outcomes of the job to be settled between those parties?

You do not therefore address the surveillance of police by citizens using recording devices in public. This is the actual second side of your coin. And the analysis cannot be conducted in the rather non-specific balancing structure you use in this draft, because citizens surely have a First Amendment right to record all police behavior occurring in public, as they surely do not have (under Houchens v. KQED) a First Amendment right of access to any of the areas inside police stations. So you need a different approach to what remains your quite sensible initial set of questions.

Why aren't these links anchored to the text in the usual Wed way? Why make it hard for the reader to follow what you are linking? Use the "make a link" button in the wiki editor or see TextFormattingRules to do the markdown directly.