From what I understand, a police officer can stop and harass (detain and ask questions with zero apparent "probable cause") all their hearts desire without being required to tell the detainee what the reasonable suspicion is (if any).
Before taking a cop to court for harassment or for deprivation of civil rights and liberties, how can a person (or their lawyer) know whether they have a case or not? (So that they don't go to court like blindfolded, not knowing the facts)
Let's say I happen to look like one of their people on their "wanted" list. If he doesn't tell me, I could certainly believe he was harassing. How can this type of confusions be avoided with the current laws that allow the cops to lie?
In case there is no way of knowing, thus no way to sue (or much harder than it would otherwise be), would this seem like a loophole that practically abolishes the 4th amendment?
In case they really can't tell you the reason because it's somehow better that way (and if we like the idea of innocent until proven guilty), why do they not just say so, like "sorry, but I cannot tell you that" instead of making up all kinds of mind boggling and inteligence insulting excuses?
It almost seems like they have to articulate "a" reason 😕
All answers here say that cops are not required to give a reason for the stop. Can somebody back that up with an actual law or case law please?