Kind of a big nothing burger, really. Yeah, the one officer was abrasive. Nothing that's going to lead anywhere in a lawsuit. The dude was cooperative, definitely, though he seemed to also have a bit of an attitude. However, I'll go with the "dick cop" kinda bringing that out of him.
I do think the guy was intentionally disregarding the manager. Upon the initial contact, the manager walked right up to him and started talking to him. He obviously looks like a manager. The guy admitted he saw this and gave a lame excuse. He didn't lift his visor, turn his head, or make any acknowledgment to the manager to determine what he was tryung to tell him. Because it's just not common sense, when you know you're face is completely covered by a helmet with reflective visor, to simply ignore a manager who clearly walked up to you and started talking. Whose fault is it that he had a helmet on, with reflective visor down, playing music? Hint, it's not the manager's fault. It's perfectly reasonable, and within the manager's right and job duties, to address this and not allow someone dressed like that in the store.
I've walked into a store with a helmet on, but it's usually something like getting a receipt at a gas station, or something quick and simple like that. I also always lift the visor and I don't play music, so if an employee asked me to take it off, I wouldn't ignore them, and I'd comply. Sure looked like this guy didn't want to comply.
But even if you take his word at face value, and assume he did absolutely nothing wrong, the manager still had a valid reason to call the police and the police had reasonable suspicion to detain and identify him.
Regarding the crime(s). Personally, i think the initial plan was sufficient. The manager wanted the guy advised that he could no longer come back or he would be arrested for trespassing. They gave him the advisement and were going to let him leave. They then changed their mind and, while I think the initial plan was the best, I can understand the justification for arresting him for trespassing, based on the manager's statement that he told the guy numerous times and he refused to leave, and also factoring in the mild argumentative nature of the guy, which could lead someone to believe that a warning and trespassing admonition wouldn't solve the problem. So, while i don't believe it's the best solution, it seems like the elements are there, the officers had probable cause for a trespassing type of arrest, and it could be seen as a reasonable decision.
At the end, the officer tells the guy he's being arrested for disorderly conduct. I believe this is in Texas and I looked up disorderly conduct in Texas.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm
It looks like several different California penal codes all rolled into one. It also doesn't look like they would have probable cause that the man was in violation of any of that. It simply doesn't apply, whereas trespassing does, or could, apply. It says in the video that mics were muted at the end for the police conversation with each other. I'm guessing maybe they were talking about the charge at that point. Maybe one of them felt the trespassing was weak and suggested they go with disorderly conduct. These conversations will sometimes occur at that point, and officers like to turn off cameras for that too. Our DA has told us to keep them running so there aren't questions about it. If it's turned off it opens the defense argument to all sorts of suggestions. Another factor about the two charges are that trespassing is a crime where Wal-Mart is the victim, and there could be an issue if they did not want to press charges. I never heard them ask the manager if he wished to seek criminal charges right then, only that he wanted him admonished for trespassing. Maybe an officer did ask off camera and the manager said no. That could be an issue. Either that, or they wanted to "simplify" things by keeping the manager from having to be a victim. I've done this, at times, where I will arrest someone for a crime against the state instead of the victim. It still solves the problem. Disorderly conduct would be a crime against the state. The problem is, I'm not seeing how that applies. So they should have stuck with their original plan, and if they must arrest, keep it to the trespassing/refusing to leave type charge.
So their could possibly be grounds for a lawsuit based on an arrest for a crime that didn't apply. But I still don't think that would go anywhere, considering that they did have a crime that applied, which was the trespassing charge he was originally advised of.
