Was he told he was under arrest? Was he read his rights?
Doesn't have to be. What you may have seen on US TV, or what is true in Canada isn't what is true in real life in the US. A US police officer does not have to say "You're under arrest" for you to be under arrest. When the police officer told him that he had to go with the police officer, that is legally the same as being placed under arrest. The officer does not have to read you your rights the instant you are arrested.

The Miranda warning is given by police to suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are asked questions. An incriminating statement by a suspect doesn't count as evidence unless the suspect was advised of his or her "Miranda rights" and made a voluntary waiver of those rights. However, police may request name, date of birth, and address, and other identifying information without first reading suspects their Miranda rights.

By requiring Tattoobradley to accompany him, the officer created a custodial situation. If Tattoobradley had attempted to leave, the officer would certainly have placed him in handcuffs. If he intended to interrogate Tattoobradley, then he would have had to read him his rights, or anything Tattoobradley said might have been inadmissible in court. Note, however, that he does not have to read him his rights simply to ascertain identity.

In any case, I stick by my earlier statement. Never get confrontational with a cop. You will lose, and it will be that much harder to get out of the situation later. If a cop is doing something he shouldn't, you can take it up later, through the legal channels. That is what attorneys exist for. If the cop is in the wrong, and you get in a fight with him, that will count against you later. If the cop is in the wrong, and you hold it together, calmly, it will be a big plus on your side when the matter goes to court (whether you instigate the court proceedings, or they do.)