[Ben Ficklin]

You are correct that he was not arrested for filming, but for obstruction of justice.

But the issue is about filming.

The issue has played out over several years and the courts keep ruling against the police. So the police have invented other "crimes" to control the filming, in this case obstruction. Sometimes "interfering with a police officer". Sometimes threatening a police officer.

The 4 police cars established the perimeter and the man was outside the perimeter. The dog was outside the perimeter.

The other camera you mention was across the side street, further outside the perimeter, but more important, they were not blatently filming, challenging the authority of the police.

[dragnet2]

You are correct that he was not arrested for filming, but for obstruction of justice.

Could you provide a specific point on the video the dog owner obstructed justice and or interfered with police?