Originally Posted by Ataturk
It's a rule invented by the famously liberal Warren court, and one that makes a lot of sense.
People are rarely in a position to know for sure that the cops don't have the right to stop, frisk, or arrest them. That's just the way it is, and it's been that way for a very long time. Do you have a better idea?
You can clearly see the guy resisting arrest in the video. This suggestion that cops should have to explain what their evidence is and why they're arresting you before they do it would be incredibly impractical.
"I didn't stop my car because the cop wouldn't tell me why he was pulling me over!"
Yes, I do have a better idea. I think people minding their own business should be safe in their persons from unreasonable search and seizure. I'm pretty sure this is not an original idea. People should be very sure, that if they are not acting in a threatening manner, not disturbing the peace, not in the middle of committing a crime, some stranger with a badge cannot walk up and fondle their nuts.
Now, you've shifted things a bit by drawing driving a vehicle into this. Even then, while one must pull over and provide certain documentation, there are limits to their legal actions prior to being detained. However we both know that trying to exercise the legal limits on the actions of police pulling you over is just asking them to escalate their likelihood to bully you and/or do something illegal to make you look guilty to cover their illegal actions. I'm a pretty "law and order" type of guy, but the thing is, both law and order must be on both sides of the badge and clearly is not on a pretty regular basis.