There are two simple things which would make the process functional for both sides.
1) Put cameras on the officers
2) Give the magistrate court and a initial public defender / citizen advocate the right to view officer body cam footage and make a provisional judgement to hold or release a person on the likelihood of a crime based on the officer's body cam footage. Our magistrate courts are way under-powered here. All one needs to look at is the Innocence Project case for Michael Hanline in which the magistrate court report was ignored by the District Court. That district court judge belongs in jail and it is as simple as that (http://californiainnocenceproject.org/read-their-stories/michael-hanline/)
If a cop is making an iffy call about obstructing because a person is filming 20 feet away, release the person (no overnight/multi-day stay bullshit) pending the officer and attorney general continuing to press charges. If somebody filming is trying to stand over a body in the street after the cop tells them to back away to an appropriate distance and they refuse, hold them until bail is made.
There is a third stage which neither the police nor much of the unwashed masses are ready for in which one can lawfully refuse an officer and defend themselves as they would against any other violent, armed attacker. The judgement of the average person just isn't there yet, as a function primarily of US culture. There are plenty of other places in the world where that works just fine, but it's not for the US just yet. We have a cultural / social maturity problem and it is what is feeding the us vs them attitude that the average police department has. It's a bit hard to argue with the Baltimore police doctrine, proven repeatedly over the years, that many of their officers believe the value of a black man's life is more than a bullet but less than a taser cartridge when protests turn into looting and vandalism with selfish rather and communal interests as the driving force.