>No grounds....just the way it is.
So then, what you’re saying is: “Due process is dead”.
>They have to confer up the chain of command to determine if there might be probable cause, even consult a judge.
Might be? Either there is, or there isn’t; and in the case of asserting one’s right to be free from [unreasonable] searches, it is utterly unreasonable that the assertion of such right should be the “probable cause.” (Furthermore, the 4th amendment requires that WARRANTS be supported by probable cause, not that there should be any sort of search committed w/o a warrant.)
>Follow up question is “am I being detained?”
No, the follow-up is a statement: “If you aren’t arresting me, I’m leaving.”
>Follow up question (if yes) is “how about my Miranda warning?”
At that point, the follow-up is ALSO a statement: “You are in violation of US Code Title 18, Section 242; it is a felony, and I demand to speak to your supervisor.” ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 )
>Inconvenience can—and should—flow both ways.
It’s not inconvenience, it’s illegal.
rule of *law* and probable cause have been meat-house dead for a loooooong time around the catch all checkpoints...