[taxcontrol]

I am of the opinion that this comes down to a detention, or a custodial or non-custodial stop. In a non-custodial stop, the citizen is not required to identify, or even engage with the officer in any way. This is no different than being approached by someone on the street.

The next level of stop is detention. I believe that the Terry vs Ohio ruling establishes “reasonable suspicion” as the criteria or the stop and question.

The highest level is a custodial stop. This should require probable cause.

As I see this particular situation, the officer had “reasonable suspicion” that a broken tail light was a traffic violation.

[APFel]

So on other words, cops can simply make up laws.

Sounds great.

APf

[Leaning Right]

As I see this particular situation, the officer had “reasonable suspicion” that a broken tail light was a traffic violation.

I must disagree. "Reasonable suspicion" comes into play when there is some uncertainty. All of the facts are not in.

But there is no uncertainty here. The facts are all in. A single broken tail light is not an infraction. It is up to the cop - and the driver as well - to know the facts.