How can I tell whether my 4th amendment rights have been violated?
<p>From what I understand, a police officer can stop and harass (detain and ask questions with zero apparent "probable cause") all their hearts desire without being required to tell the detainee what the reasonable suspicion is (if any).  </p>

<p>Before taking a cop to court for harassment or for deprivation of civil rights and liberties, how can a person (or their lawyer) know whether they have a case or not? (So that they don't go to court like blindfolded, not knowing the facts)  </p>

<p>Let's say I happen to look like one of their people on their "wanted" list. If he doesn't tell me, I could certainly believe he was harassing. How can this type of confusions be avoided with the current laws that allow the cops to lie? </p>

<p>In case there is no way of knowing, thus no way to sue (or much harder than it would otherwise be), would this seem like a loophole that practically abolishes the 4th amendment?  </p>

<p>Edit:</p>

<p>In case they really can't tell you the reason because it's somehow better that way (and if we like the idea of <em>innocent until proven guilty</em>), why do they not just say so, like <em>"sorry, but I cannot tell you that"</em> instead of making up all kinds of mind boggling and inteligence insulting <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/q/38245/21569">excuses</a>?  </p>

<p>It almost seems like they have to articulate "a" reason 😕  </p>

<p>All answers here say that cops are not required to give a reason for the stop. Can somebody back that up with an actual law or case law please?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In case there is no way of knowing, thus no way to sue, would this
  seem like a loophole that practically abolishes the 4th amendment ?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The 4th amendment only means that the officer <em>needs</em> a probable cause/reasonable suspicion to detain you. It absolutely does not mean that he <em>has to tell</em> you what that is. In fact, not telling you what the probable cause is is often a part of the officer's job because, if you are indeed a perpetrator, letting you know what the suspicions are could make you do things that would allow you to escape justice.</p>

<p>There is certainly always a way to sue i.e. file a lawsuit, for which you do not need to know what the probable cause was. Instead, you contend that there was not any. And from this point the officer has to tell the court what it was, if any.</p>

<p>If he fails to provide one, you win and get redressed for harassment — this is how your 4th amendment rights work.</p>

<p>If he does provide a good probable cause, you lose because in this case you either:</p>

<ul>
<li>actually did something suspicious and knew there was a probable cause; OR</li>
<li>jumped to the conclusion that the officer harassed you when he was simply doing his job.</li>
</ul>

<p>That is not easy. It depends on exactly what the officer did or did not do, and on what the person detained did. Did the officer provide any reason for the detention? was that reason plausible? Was there any circumstance which might have made a detention plausible?</p>

<p>(I recall reading a court opinion that certain conduct is sufficiently unusual that it justifies a stop even  with no evidence of unlawful activity. The cited example was carrying an axe on a bicycle at 2am.) </p>

<p>If a plausible reason can be asserted for the stop, it is not likely to be held an infringement of rights.</p>

<p>Also, a person considering if rights were infringed in an actionable way should consider what harm or damage was inflicted. If a person was stopped and questioned briefly, but then allowed to proceed without an arrest or a citation, it would be hard to assert that significant damage was done, and a court is not likely to hold the officer's action is grounds for suit. An arrest is a larger imposition, and physical abuse yet larger. Specific circumstances may increase or decrease the effect of unwarranted detention in a particular case.</p>

<p>Given this level of detail, an experienced civil rights lawyer can probably make a good estimate of the chances of success with a section 1983 duit, and injunction against a police department, or some other legal tactic, and the probable upfront costs of proceeding.</p>

<p>Note that the question "Were my right infringed?" is significantly different from "Can I enforce my rights through a court action such as a section 1983 suit?" There ae a good many cases in which rights were almost surely infringed, but the chance of a court awarding damages or other relief are small. There is a tendency to favor officers even when their conduct is probably wrong but not really outrageous, and there is an inclination not to permit lawsuits for what are perceived as trivial harms. This can work injustice, but the cost/damage to the system if every minor harm was the subject of a suit would be significant.</p>

<p>IANAL but my understanding is that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Qualified Immunity</a> protects police officers from all but the grossest of malpractice.</p>

<ul>
<li>If the police officer blatantly violates your 4th Amendment rights, they will not enjoy qualified immunity;</li>
<li>If the state prosecutes you, then you will have an opportunity to challenge any 4th Amendment violations; but</li>
<li>If the officer non-blatantly violated your 4th Amendment rights and the state chose not to prosecute you then the very best you could hope for by challenging the officer is that the court will take note of it and the next time the officer violates another sucker's rights <strong>in the exact same way</strong> it will be a blatant violation and thus remediable, but no redress for you.</li>
</ul>

<p>However, in general, the judiciary does not believe peasants have 4th Amendment rights.  So the police have more or less a license to run roughshod over you.</p>

united-states police fourth-amendment