He at least did get out the ever-important "I don't consent to ..." part, so, I don't think the cop would have a leg to stand on in any trial. The cop also specifically states that the reason for the stop, detainment, and search was that a call was received. He acknowledged that he knew it was probably one of those first (sic) amendment guys, indicating that he knew the guy's actions were legal. Ignorance cannot even be claimed here, not that it'd be a legitimate excuse if it could. Not that I have any personal animosity toward the cop, but I do hope this guy sues. These sort of stops are a big fat infringement on the constitutionally protected rights of American's, and they need to be met with strong and loud opposition.