You need to go to a case prep class, talk to folks fresh from an academy, or talk to a good prosecutor. LEOs don't have to charge him right now, they can drag their feet and wait to charge him later. I would hope you've heard of a thing called the statute of limitations.
Fact is, when a LEO tells you to leave and you refuse you can be arrested. They can then hook you up for trespass, obstruction, he catch-all of disorderly conduct, or even interfering with an arrest (not the same as obstruction either). Just because you're arrested for a crime and not formally charged does not mean it's a false arrest.
Sadly, it does mean that the arrest is on your record and now it will cost YOU the money to get an arrest without charges expunged from your record. So no matter what, they've got you in a pinch.
Here's the RSMO on the interfering with an arrest.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000150.HTM
In all honesty, that one looks to be the most applicable that I've seen thus far.
Sorry cash, I didn't see your post until I had this one up. So what's your thought on the combined issue of the crime for interfering occurring and it possibly being stretched into the street gang activities statute? It's a really large stretch in my opinion, but it appears at face value that it technically could be possible. Camera operator's best interest should have been in following the instructions of the LEO for his own good, especially after being told to leave the area.
How does 575.150 apply?
"(1) Resists the arrest, stop or detention of such person by using or threatening the use of violence or physical force or by fleeing from such officer; or
(2) Interferes with the arrest, stop or detention of another person by using or threatening the use of violence, physical force or physical interference."
I never saw any threat or physical interference like in the below case.
From the federal 8th district court of appeals Copeland v. Locke, 613 F.3d 875:
"A review of the video taken from Chief Locke's police cruiser illustrates that Steibel's repeated requests for Chief Locke to move his vehicle distracted Chief Locke while conducting the traffic stop. Moreover, the video depicts an agitated Steibel who points at Chief Locke, points down the road, and by Steibel's own admission, tells Chief Locke to "move the f***ing car." However, even at the height of his agitation, Steibel was separated from Chief Locke by the length and width of the stopped vehicle. And, while Steibel did approach the traffic stop, the video shows Steibel approaching in a non-aggressive manner. Accordingly, when viewed in a light most favorable to Steibel, at most, Steibel distracted, cursed at, and pointed at Chief Locke.
Steibel's conduct, viewed in this light, does not violate Missouri Statute section 575.150 which requires "(1) the defendant, having knowledge that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest or a stop of a person or vehicle, (2) resists or interferes with the arrest by threatening to use violence or physical force or by fleeing from the officer, . . . and (3) defendant did so with the purpose of preventing the officer from completing the arrest." State v. Clark, 263 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Mo. App. 2008), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Daws, 311 S.W.3d 806 (Mo. 2010). Here, Steibel knew that Chief Locke was making a traffic stop, but the record, viewed in a light most favorable to Steibel, indicates that Steibel did not threaten the use of violence or physical force nor did he "flee" from the officer under any reasonable definition of the word as he backed away from the scene upon being engaged and pursued by Chief Locke. Moreover, according to the record, Steibel had no intention of preventing the officer from completing the stop. Thus, under the facts viewed in a light most favorable to Steibel, no reasonable officer could have believed that Steibel had violated section 575.150.
The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.. If, as Steibel avers, Chief Locke
arrested Steibel solely for distracting him from the stop through the use of his protected expression, then the arrest was unlawful even if it arguably interfered with police activity.
Notably, Chief Locke asserts that he advised Steibel to step back. Steibel denies this. Accordingly, viewing the record in a light most favorable to Steibel, Chief Locke merely reacted to Steibel's use of loud, profane language coupled with Steibel's expressive gestures in directing the Chief to move his cruiser away from Steibel's business. No reasonable police officer could believe that he had actual probable cause to arrest a citizen for such protected activity. Accordingly, on this summary judgment record, Steibel has presented sufficient evidence to show that Chief Locke arrested him without actual probable cause."
So here when this guy didn't even backup, (while just being on the other side of a car), the cop still did not have probable cause.
This St. Joesph's guy is lucky that the video recording was still available when he got his phone/camera back.
