Obviously, your definition of police state and mine differ.
Think Burma (Myanmar), where visiting relatives cannot stay with you without police permission. Or Bulgaria under the Soviets, where you could send your six year old to violin lessons alone at ten at night without fear for their safety, but could not operate a successful business or speak against the state withour fear of reprisal, imprisonment, or execution.
Any form of government involves some loss of freedom for security, the question is how much, or to what degree?
Ask any policeperson the U.S. whether they are legally obligated to protect you, and/or responsible to compensate you for their failure to do so. You are primarily responsible to protect yourself, and have a natural and legal right to do so, though you might be prosecuted for doing so in our increasingly degrading system.
You may have surrendered all your freedoms (I hope you feel secure), but some are still willing and able to resist overzealous government by the various means still available in America.
For every person decrying the overzealous police, there is another victim of crime asking “Why don’t the police do more to stop crime?” That tug of war is never ending. We don’t live in a vacuum.
Or as one criminal put it “Why don’t the police go after the other criminals?”. On the list of threats to me, the police are WAY down the list.