The American legal tradition stems from a root that is all about putting limits on what the agents of government may do. From the Magna Carta onwards, the major developments in Western legal tradition are all about guaranteeing freedom from violent and arbitrary impositions of government.
The strict limits put on government power in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the explicit text of the Declaration of Independence all speak directly to that tradition. The enormous benefits of the innovations in human liberty such as freedom of conscience, the right to a trial of one’s peers, the right to be secure in one’s property, and others all exist for this purpose.
I will have to disagree with the assertion that a civilized society can co-exist with one that has limited checks on police power - the two don’t go together, and the idea that they do runs directly counter to these central legal concepts of Western civilization. Unchecked power is always abused; surely the Obama administration is evidence enough that the argument to limit the power of the government over citizens.
I'm just confused about how the Founders managed to get along without police crawling around everywhere, like maggots on a gut wagon...
I appreciate where you’re coming from but your argument is just too abstract. As far as the letter of the law, the police are probably more limited than ever. This is certainly true in this particular case where prior to 1985 a cop could shoot any fleeing felon.
A lot of police work happens at the gut level. You can pile on the formal limits but ultimately it’s cultural conditioning that shapes how a policeman relates to the public he serves.