[inquest]

Speaking of Terry's law, that case provides an excellent example of the dangers of "incorporation". If the SCOTUS had simply ruled that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to the states and left it at that, that wouldn't have been much of a problem (at least for people outside of Nevada). But instead, they ruled that a) it did apply, and b) Nevada hadn't violated it. This results in very disturbing implications for how the 4th amendment is applied to the federal government.

[Ken H]

Speaking of Terry's law, that case provides an excellent example of the dangers of "incorporation". If the SCOTUS had simply ruled that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to the states and left it at that, that wouldn't have been much of a problem (at least for people outside of Nevada).

Not so. If the Fourth were not incorporated, the decision would have been left to Nevada to decide on the basis of the Nevada Constitution. Same with other States. Correct?

But instead, they ruled that a) it did apply, and b) Nevada hadn't violated it. This results in very disturbing implications for how the 4th amendment is applied to the federal government.

I agree with that, but how did incorporation make it worse?

With the Fourth incorporated, an individual now has no right under the US Constitution to withhold ID from police.

If the the Fourth were not incorporated, the same is true. Individuals would have no right under the US Constitution to withhold ID from police. Agreed?