Sure, with the caveat that thinking exclusively in procedural terms is a mistake. I feel like all my comments still stand. Given the company already removed the cameras, which obviously imply that they agreed that the city had the right or at least the position to demand their removal. What procedural grounds did they have to reinstall them? Their behavior demonstrates they already accepted the modification of the contract. If they were planning to contest it why remove them? Why reinstall them?

The comment you replied to was quite banal. Fines are the remedy for a company invading the privacy of citizens. Then when you assume the company executives or agents knew the contract was terminated because of the violation of state law, reinstalling them demonstrates the intent to continue violating the law. The remedy for that is being arrested.

The comment seems to me to be slightly hyperbolic, and expressing frustration about how individuals make clearly malign decisions, and then get away with that asshattery because they hide behind documents of incorporation. But even if you think it was literal, arrested and charged is still operating within the bounds of the law, is it not?