An officer mistakes a Walmart employee for a car prowler, and bodycam captures an encounter that ended with force and a lawsuit.

A Walmart employee who had just finished work was mistaken for a possible car prowler after checking his own vehicle in the store parking lot, setting off a short but forceful police encounter that ended with an arrest, dismissed charges, and a civil lawsuit against the city.

Attorney Jeff Hampton, who reviewed the case on his legal YouTube channel Hampton Law, said the incident involving Mark Domino showed how quickly a routine police inquiry can go wrong when an officer assumes guilt before asking basic questions.

According to Hampton’s account, Domino had gone to a Walmart parking lot after work to retrieve something from a car shared with his wife, who also worked at the store. He had arrived on a motorcycle, while his wife had driven the car and parked elsewhere in the lot.

A woman named Jodie Brunell saw Domino open several doors on the vehicle and called 911 because she thought the activity looked suspicious. Hampton said Brunell did not report seeing Domino steal anything and specifically said she could not tell whether he had taken anything from the car.

By the time Clarkson Police Officer Loris approached Domino, the encounter had already been framed as a possible vehicle-prowl investigation. But Hampton argued that the officer never clearly explained that reason to Domino before demanding identification and then ordering him to put his hands behind his back.

A Brief Call Turns Into A Rapid Escalation

The bodycam footage reviewed by Hampton begins with Officer Loris approaching Domino near his motorcycle and asking whether the bike belongs to him.

Domino confirms that it does. The officer then asks whether he has identification.

When Domino asks why the officer needs his ID, Officer Loris says someone reported seeing him looking into vehicles and that he is trying to figure out what happened.

Domino responds that he does have ID, but questions whether he is required to provide it if he has not done anything wrong.

That exchange becomes the turning point.

Within seconds, Officer Loris orders Domino to turn around and place his hands behind his back. Domino repeatedly asks what he is being detained for and what he did wrong.

Hampton emphasized that Domino was not shown threatening the officer, making sudden movements, or using profanity during the early part of the encounter. Instead, Hampton said, he appeared confused and wanted to know what accusation had been made against him.

The officer continued repeating commands rather than giving a fuller explanation.

“Turn around and put your hands behind your back,” Officer Loris says in the footage.

“For what?” Domino replies.

Hampton argued that the officer could have resolved the situation quickly by simply telling Domino there had been a report of someone looking through vehicles and asking whether the car belonged to him.

The Missing Question: “Is This Your Car?”

According to Hampton, that basic question was never asked before the situation became physical.

Domino told Officer Loris that he worked at Walmart and that the motorcycle was his, but Hampton said the officer did not meaningfully investigate whether Domino was connected to the vehicle that triggered the call.

Instead, the officer pressed him to comply with handcuffing.

Domino asked whether he was being arrested or merely detained. Officer Loris told him he was not under arrest at that moment, but also said Domino was becoming agitated and was not cooperating.

Hampton disputed that interpretation, arguing that the footage shows a man asking for an explanation rather than actively fighting the officer.

The legal commentator acknowledged that police may be able to briefly detain someone when they have reasonable suspicion that a crime could be occurring. He referenced the Supreme Court’s Terry v. Ohio standard and said the 911 call from a named witness may have given Officer Loris grounds to investigate.

But Hampton said reasonable suspicion does not erase the need for basic communication, de-escalation, and fact-finding.

In his view, the officer had the authority to ask questions but handled the interaction in a way that made physical resistance more likely.

That distinction matters. A lawful basis to investigate does not automatically make every tactic used during the investigation reasonable.

Force Is Used After Domino Pulls Back

The confrontation became physical after Officer Loris moved to take Domino into custody.

Domino can be heard asking why the officer is putting hands on him. The officer tells him to stop resisting and says he matches the description of a vehicle-prowl suspect.

The footage then shows officers bringing Domino to the ground and threatening to use a Taser again if he does not comply.

Domino repeatedly says he had just gotten off work and asks what he did wrong.

Hampton argued that Domino’s physical movement appeared to be a natural reaction to an unexpected grab, not proof that he was trying to attack or flee. He said the officer’s early escalation created the resistance that officers later cited as justification for using force.

That conclusion is Hampton’s legal and factual interpretation of the video, not a court finding. But the footage does show that Domino had not been told clearly, before the struggle, that officers believed he might have been involved in a vehicle prowl.

The scene also demonstrates how quickly police encounters can change once an officer begins physically controlling a person. A question that might have been answered in seconds becomes much harder to resolve once people are shouting, pulling away, and trying to understand what is happening.

Officers Learn The Car Belonged To Domino

Later bodycam footage reviewed by Hampton shows officers speaking with the witness, Brunell.

She tells police she saw a man open three doors on the same car and then walk away. She identifies Domino as the person she saw.

But officers also learn that Domino is a Walmart employee and that the car is registered to him and his wife, who works at the store as well.

Hampton highlighted that moment as the clearest sign that the entire suspicion could have been resolved earlier.

The “car prowler,” as he put it, was a man checking his own car after work.

Brunell’s report was not necessarily unreasonable. From a distance, someone entering multiple car doors in a large parking lot can look suspicious, especially if the observer does not know the person or the vehicle.

The problem, Hampton argued, was what happened after police arrived. He said Officer Loris should have checked the vehicle registration, asked Domino whether the car was his, or briefly confirmed his employment before moving directly toward handcuffs and force.

Hampton Alleges The Officer Misrepresented The Encounter

One of Hampton’s strongest claims involved what Officer Loris said to another officer after Domino had been detained.

In the footage, Officer Loris describes Domino as “super agitated,” says he would not provide his name, and claims Domino became increasingly confrontational before officers went hands-on.

Hampton then compares that account with the recorded interaction.

The bodycam footage, he said, shows Domino answering questions, saying the motorcycle belonged to him, acknowledging that he had ID, and repeatedly asking why he was being detained.

Hampton argued that the officer’s version made Domino sound combative in a way the video did not support.

He called the difference between the report and the footage more than a matter of interpretation, accusing the officer of portraying a confused worker as an aggressive suspect after the fact.

The other officer can be heard saying that the situation could have been resolved quickly if Domino had simply explained that the car was his.

Hampton’s response was that Domino had never been asked that question.

“You can’t blame a man for not explaining something he was never asked to explain,” Hampton said.

Arrest, Dismissed Charges, And A Civil Claim

Domino was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and obstructing law enforcement, according to Hampton’s report.

He was released a few hours later. Clarkson Police Chief Joel Hastings announced an internal use-of-force investigation, Hampton said.

Domino was later offered a deal that would have resulted in the charges being dropped if he stayed out of trouble for three months. Hampton said Domino rejected the proposal because it required him to accept some responsibility for what happened.

Instead, Domino filed a $5 million tort claim against the city.

Hampton said Domino told the Lewiston Tribune that the case was not primarily about money. He wanted an apology and an acknowledgement that officers mishandled the situation.

The criminal charges against Domino were eventually dismissed, according to Hampton.

He later settled his civil case for $25,000.

The settlement does not necessarily establish legal liability or prove every allegation made by Domino or Hampton. But it closed a dispute that began with a mistaken suspicion in a Walmart parking lot and ended with a public bodycam record, dismissed criminal charges, and a payment from the city.

A Case About Communication Before Force

Hampton’s broader argument was not that police can never investigate a suspicious-person report.

He said officers are allowed to respond to calls, ask questions, and temporarily detain people when circumstances justify it. But he argued that the officer in this case ignored simple steps that could have protected both the public and Domino.

A brief explanation about the 911 call, followed by a question about the vehicle, could have answered the central issue without handcuffs, a struggle, or a Taser threat.

The case also illustrates why bodycam footage matters. Without it, the public may have been left with only the officer’s summary of a supposedly uncooperative suspect.

Instead, the footage preserved a fuller record: a witness report, a police inquiry, Domino’s questions, the escalation to force, and the later discovery that the vehicle was his.

For Hampton, the lesson was clear. Police officers may have legal authority to investigate suspicious behavior, but the way they communicate can determine whether an encounter ends with information or with unnecessary force.

In this case, a man checking his own car at his own workplace became a suspect, then an arrestee, before officers confirmed the most basic fact in the case.