Attorney arrested for "resisting arrest". The attorney who represents her clients would not allow police officers to illegally take pictures, because of they had "good intentions". The attorney takes the cop to court, but didn't win. This the lawsuit that was filed against that cop. https://casetext.com/case/tillotson-v-city-of-sf

As someone who doesn't know much about the law except don't break it, I'm having a hard time understanding the legality of this. So was any of this lawful?

Who knows. San Fan is a loony city for loony people.

If you look at the precedent Schit (client)vs Schovel (prostitute) which is available on google you will see that in that case Schovel was arrested for not committing any crimes. She was arrested for Schit coz he was lying. When the police questioned Schovel she said she didn't do Schit, Schovel was in fact digging at the local community garden at the time of the alleged crime. Schovel is suspected to have dug a HUGE hole in the community garden, police are still looking into it.

She committed obstruction of justice by hindering a police investigation. The police are well within they're right to take a picture of a crime suspect, she had no legal grounds to try to stop them.

"I'll arrest you for resisting arrest"... sounds legit

That's what I don't get. At what point was Tillotson under arrest in order to be able to resist arrest?

He wasn't necessarily in the wrong for cuffing her but "resisting arrest" while not currently under arrest?

How does that work? I don't understand.

Must be some kind of time travel paradox.

Oh after actually reading the article further it seems that obstruction & resisting arrest are essentially the same thing under California law I guess.