Yhyjyk

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?

That is not easy. It depends on exactly what the officer did or did not do, and on what the person detained did. Did the officer provide any reason for the detention? was that reason plausible? Was there any circumstance which might have made a detention plausible?

(I recall reading a court opinion that certain conduct is sufficiently unusual that it justifies a stop even with no evidence of unlawful activity. The cited example was carrying an axe on a bicycle at 2am.)

If a plausible reason can be asserted for the stop, it is not likely to be held an infringement of rights.

Also, a person considering if rights were infringed in an actionable way should consider what harm or damage was inflicted. If a person was stopped and questioned briefly, but then allowed to proceed without an arrest or a citation, it would be hard to assert that significant damage was done, and a court is not likely to hold the officer's action is grounds for suit. An arrest is a larger imposition, and physical abuse yet larger. Specific circumstances may increase or decrease the effect of unwarranted detention in a particular case.

Given this level of detail, an experienced civil rights lawyer can probably make a good estimate of the chances of success with a section 1983 duit, and injunction against a police department, or some other legal tactic, and the probable upfront costs of proceeding.

Note that the question "Were my right infringed?" is significantly different from "Can I enforce my rights through a court action such as a section 1983 suit?" There ae a good many cases in which rights were almost surely infringed, but the chance of a court awarding damages or other relief are small. There is a tendency to favor officers even when their conduct is probably wrong but not really outrageous, and there is an inclination not to permit lawsuits for what are perceived as trivial harms. This can work injustice, but the cost/damage to the system if every minor harm was the subject of a suit would be significant.

In case there is no way of knowing, thus no way to sue, would this
seem like a loophole that practically abolishes the 4th amendment ?

The 4th amendment only means that the officer needs a probable cause/reasonable suspicion to detain you. It absolutely does not mean that he has to tell you what that is. In fact, not telling you what the probable cause is is often a part of the officer's job because, if you are indeed a perpetrator, letting you know what the suspicions are could make you do things that would allow you to escape justice.

There is certainly always a way to sue i.e. file a lawsuit, for which you do not need to know what the probable cause was. Instead, you contend that there was not any. And from this point the officer has to tell the court what it was, if any.

If he fails to provide one, you win and get redressed for harassment — this is how your 4th amendment rights work.

If he does provide a good probable cause, you lose because in this case you either:

• actually did something suspicious and knew there was a probable cause; OR


• jumped to the conclusion that the officer harassed you when he was simply doing his job.