Riverside California Police Chief Larry Gonzalez released a critical incident video explaining what happened at a McDonald’s on Indiana Avenue.
In his narration, Chief Gonzalez says the call began as a concern about a man in the restroom for “about an hour.”
That man was 27-year-old Peter Villalobos. He later died at the hospital after being detained, according to Gonzalez.
Civil rights attorney John H. Bryan reviewed the police bodycam in a detailed breakdown and asked the question many people have: how did a welfare check over a bathroom stall end with a death in custody?
Bryan argues the video shows a chain of decisions that were unnecessary and escalatory from the start.
I agree this case turns on early choices. Once you lock in a pretext – “trespass” for a bathroom stall – you create a path that’s hard to exit.
The Call From McDonald’s
Chief Gonzalez says the city’s dispatch center received the 6:38 a.m. call from a McDonald’s manager.
The caller reported a man in the men’s room “about an hour,” not answering knocks, with no noise or smell.
The concern sounded like a welfare check, not a criminal complaint.
Bryan plays the 911 audio and emphasizes there’s no explicit request to “trespass” the man from the property.
He says the manager’s primary concern seemed to be well-being, not enforcement.
That’s an important framing difference. Welfare checks are supposed to be about health and safety, not punishment.
From Welfare Check to Detention
According to Chief Gonzalez, the first officer found Peter locked in a stall.
After a few minutes, Peter came out.
Gonzalez says the officer tried to detain Peter to verify his identity, and that Peter “became uncooperative and resisted being handcuffed.”
A second officer arrived. Gonzalez says both used verbal commands, de-escalation efforts, and multiple pleas before using force to take Peter into custody.
Bryan watches the same footage and reaches a different conclusion about the necessity of detention.
He notes Peter left the stall, washed his hands, and appeared to head for the exit.
Bryan argues the officer had no crime in progress and could have let Peter leave. In his view, detaining Peter to “trespass” him felt like a pretext to run warrants, not a true property request.
That’s a fair legal question. Trespass generally requires a clear notice and refusal to leave or a property agent’s express request. The video doesn’t show that exchange before the officer announces “you’re being trespassed.”
What the Bodycam Shows
Chief Gonzalez’s video includes multiple angles and warns viewers the footage is graphic.
We hear the officer repeatedly ask for Peter’s name and date of birth.
Peter gives the name “Peter Villalobos” more than once, but struggles with spelling and his DOB.
The officer presses: “How do you not know your date of birth?” He tells Peter to lean on the car bumper for ID verification.
Peter refuses, says he’s not going to jail, and resists efforts to be handcuffed.
Backup arrives. A struggle follows on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant.
Gonzalez’s narration says officers used force to take Peter into custody and then requested medical aid.
Bryan points to the distance camera view and the paramedic narration at the hospital.
He notes responders later documented closed-fist blows and elbows, with contusions to the forehead, nose, and lower extremities.
To Bryan, this confirms significant physical trauma—and underscores his argument that the encounter didn’t need to reach that point.
Watching the footage, it’s hard to escape the feeling that everyone got trapped by the detention decision. Once the officer says “you’re being trespassed” and insists on custody to “verify,” the window for a calm exit narrows to zero.
Medical Timeline and Unanswered Questions
Chief Gonzalez says Peter was handcuffed, medics were requested, and he was transported for treatment and medical clearance before booking.
In the video, paramedics report elevated heart rate (around 140), full-body pain, pupil findings, and list the visible injuries.
They deny hearing admissions of drug or alcohol use, while noting behavior they describe as agitated and combative earlier.
At the hospital, medical staff recite the injuries on camera and the vital signs in real time.
Then Chief Gonzalez delivers the outcome: while being treated, Peter went into medical distress and was pronounced deceased at 9:42 a.m.
The cause of death is still under investigation by the Riverside County Sheriff-Coroner.
Because this is an in-custody death, Gonzalez says the Riverside County Sheriff’s Force Investigations Detail took over, assisted by the District Attorney’s Bureau of Investigations.
The department is also conducting an internal review, and the city’s Community Police Review Commission will do an independent look.
Bryan flags a time gap in the department’s edited video and questions whether anything meaningful occurred within that window.
He also highlights what he considers mocking language and an overall approach ill-suited to someone who might be in a mental health crisis.
We should say this out loud: cause of death matters. Toxicology, asphyxia mechanisms, cardiac events, positional risks – those are medical and forensic questions. But process matters too. Even without a final autopsy, we can evaluate tactics, detention basis, and decision points.
The Legal Lens: What Was the Crime?
Chief Gonzalez frames the detention around trespass and identity verification.
He also notes Peter had an outstanding warrant for suspected controlled-substance influence and paraphernalia possession. That’s critical context the officers might or might not have known in real time.
Bryan’s position is simpler: no crime was alleged by the caller, and when Peter exited as asked, the detention had no lawful basis to continue.
He says the officer’s insistence on holding Peter to “trespass” him, after Peter complied with leaving the restroom, looks like unreasonable seizure.
Then comes the hardest line in Bryan’s critique: if the underlying detention was unlawful, then “resisting” that detention reframes what happened next.
Here’s my take. If the restaurant clearly requested a trespass notice and the officer was acting as a property agent to formalize it, a brief identity check might be arguable. But the video never shows that explicit manager request on camera. That ambiguity undermines the legal footing.
The Human Factors We Can’t Ignore
Chief Gonzalez emphasizes officers made pleas for cooperation and called medical aid quickly once force was used.
The medics’ on-scene care and rapid transport are clear in the footage.
Bryan emphasizes the moments before all that – the tone, the posture, the choices that escalated a shaky interaction into a physical fight.
He also relays, via Peter’s family, that Peter had been diagnosed with schizophrenia years prior.
If true, that raises the stakes for crisis-informed policing. Slowing down, inviting a clinician, or keeping the encounter at welfare-check temperature could have changed the outcome.
I think two truths can coexist. Officers face noncompliance that can turn volatile fast. And yet, noncompliance alone – especially from a confused or impaired person – does not always warrant moving straight to custody and force.
What Comes Next
Chief Gonzalez says multiple investigations are underway. The DA will review the case for legal consistency. The department will test actions against policy and training. The civilian commission will do its own review.
Bryan says he’ll follow the autopsy and post updates. He’s blunt: absent a medical explanation that eclipses trauma and stress, it’s hard to square this death with the original reason for contact.
For the public, the essential questions are clear.
Was Peter lawfully detained once he exited the restroom?
Were de-escalation tactics sufficient for a welfare check scenario?
Did the force used match the actual threat presented?
And most importantly, what policy changes – dispatch scripting, on-scene contact with managers, mental-health protocols, clearer trespass procedures – could keep a welfare check from becoming a fatal encounter?
The final medical findings will matter. But so will the first two minutes of the next call.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.