The "arrest" was that they said he was arrested when they detained him for 12 minutes or so. That might count as one technically for legal purposes, but it's hardly what most people would consider an "arrest."
The article makes much of the idea that they "make a suspicious activity case" but the fact is that they didn't fabricate anything, they dropped the matter when they saw it was unrelated to any criminal activity.
This may not be constitutional, but a norm of not cooperating with law enforcement is a terrible one that leads only to further bad outcomes. If this guy had simply given his real name and said what he was doing--despite not being required to--he likely would've kept his phone and not wasted so much time.
Maybe things have changed since I was last in Des Monies, but I don't see this case going anywhere with a jury.
It is unfortunate that you don't appreciate how his actions further establish and protect our rights. I suggest you read the case of Turner v Driver to see how standing up for your rights can establish important legal precedent that benefits everyone.
This case is, in my opinion, highly unlikely to go in front of a jury. I have seen many cases similar to this end in five to six figure settlements.
The important constitutional violation here was that the cop misspoke and said he was arrested when the actual encounter was effectively detainment, which may result in a few tens of thousands to be paid on lawyers. Yes, I'm sure you can find many examples like that.
I don't see the "benefit" here. I've been pretext stopped in the middle of the night while driving a beaten-up car in an out of the way area. The cop asked me to get out and walk around to see something and I did so, etc. We both went our separate ways a few minutes later, because nothing was wrong.
If this guy had simply said "my name is X, I'm videoing these illegally parked cars for my blog at Y" this would've ended without incident. Instead, it will become an incentive to cops to either "find something" (which, despite the headline and a quote in the article that makes it seems otherwise, I would point out that the article says the cops did not do here) or make sure they never bother to investigate anything happening in plain sight, even if that leads to bad outcomes for people.
But those are invisible, because you can't see that but-for event and someone acting like a Karen with the cops will get tens of thousands of dollars for it.
The article makes much of the idea that they "make a suspicious activity case" but the fact is that they didn't fabricate anything, they dropped the matter when they saw it was unrelated to any criminal activity.
This may not be constitutional, but a norm of not cooperating with law enforcement is a terrible one that leads only to further bad outcomes. If this guy had simply given his real name and said what he was doing--despite not being required to--he likely would've kept his phone and not wasted so much time.
Maybe things have changed since I was last in Des Monies, but I don't see this case going anywhere with a jury.