Not all states recognize that right.
For example, in VA we are not allowed to physically resist an illegal detention. Commonwealth vs Christian is the case. The court said, among other things, that the right to resist an unlawful arrest was based on the idea that in olden times, an arrest was extremely serious, but that detentions do not include the kind of dangers that went along with being arrested in the middle ages. So, the court saw no reason to extend the right to resist unlawful arrest to unlawful detention.
As a side-note, think thru on that court's logic for a moment. Along comes SCOTUS, inventing a new police power out of thin air in Terry v Ohio--detaining someone on reasonable suspicion. Then, a later court says that because the right to resist illegal detentions did not exist previously, the court won't recognize it.
Scotus needed to invent a standard by which people can be detained because the constitution doesn't establish one, it's only requires them to be "reasonable" just like searches.
Lots of stuff that limits the state (vs. authorizes the state as in terry) is similarly created out of thin air
You might as well get all hot and bothered over Miranda rights. Because the constitution nowhere requires LEO's to read the rights to people upon custodial arrest. The scotus invented it, just like terry , even moreso because terry's question was begged by the vague 4th. Miranda was not begged
Or get upset at the exclusionary rule whereby evidence is suppressed if obtained unlawfully. That is nowhere mentioned in the constitution
Or the right to an attorney (gideon v. wainright iirc) where the state pays for lawyers for the indigent. A right nowhere mentioned in the constitution.
I don't see people getting all peeved that the constitution created these practices out of thin air. It works both ways. Sometimes their penumbras and emanations are absurdly stretched (as in roe v. wade and I happen to be pro choice), and sometimes it's more subtle
But even the concept of judicial review itself, whereby the scotus is the final "decider" and gets to overturn bad law is nowhere mentioned in the constitution. It too was plucked from thin air.
That's the rule of law we live under. On the whole, we enjoy a broader swath of recognized rights than any nation I am aware of, especially as regards RKBA and speech rights.
And for those of us lucky enough to have chosen to live in states like WA that restrict the state FAR more than under the federal constitution, we enjoy even more protection from state intrusion (more limited curtilate searches, no search incident to arrest of MV, no DUI checkpoints, no trash search at the curb, etc. etc. etc. etc)
It's awesome to live in such a state.
But all this whinging about terry, and it being unconstitutional is silly. All the 4th says is a seizure must be reasonable. The framers could have set the standard for a stop in the 4th amendment. They chose not to, so the SCOTUS filled in the blanks. RAS is a standard similar to that seen in most civilized nations and it allows investigation of inchoate crimes, suspicious activity, etc. at a reasonable threshold and for a brief detention.
Most common sense people think, for example, if I see a guy slim jimming his way into a car in a dark parking lot, I should seize the individual and investigate. Well, at least according to the judge on my case of that nature, that activity gave me merely RAS to do so. Most people find that "reasonable" thus consistent with the 4th.
Ditto for the seizure of getaway cars, which is also usually a RAS level of evidence.
