I think you meant a legal stop??? There is a clear difference between legal and lawful. Most stops are on a legal basis, not a lawful basis.
Just this morning I came across something very interesting that speaks to what I think you are saying: judicial review gone wrong.
In this country, it is generally acknowledged that judicial review was cemented in this country by the the 1803 Supreme Court case
Marbury vs Madison.
Here is the interesting stuff. My source is
Jefferson 1942 (abridged) by Saul K. Padover. The Federalist political party was composed primarily of propertied and monied interests, and hated and despised democracy. The incumbent in the election of 1800 was Federalist John Adams. The challenger was his vice-president Thos. Jefferson, a solid supporter of democracy and the common man.
Adams was very bitter about Jefferson winning the election of 1800. Adams made many midnight appointments to federal office after he knew he lost the election. He also appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court, although I forget whether it was a midnight appointment. For sure, though, Marshall was a definitely a Federalist and strongly disliked Jefferson. (Oh, it must have been a midnight appointment because Marshall was Secretary of State to Adams.)
So, Jefferson, when he takes office, is confronted with some 100 federal office holders opposed to him, appointed by Adams. He did not much care for the idea of turning people out of their jobs, but felt the country was not entirely safe with a bunch of anti-democratics in office. So, he started removing them from office. This gave rise to the court case.
Marbury was appointed federal marshall by Adams in a midnight appointment. Jefferson, as president, later caused* his commission to not be delivered to him. Without the commission in hand, Marbury was nullified in executing his duties as a federal marshall.
We all know now that John Marshall wrote the decision supporting Marbury and undermining Jefferson.
So, I cannot help but wonder if the outcome of the case was strongly influenced not by law but by politics and personal animosity. Did Marshall and the other Federalist appointees on the Supreme Court find a way to side with the Federalist animus against democracy and rule by the common man's vote? Or, was it really just a matter of law?
*Another curious point about the case was that as Adam's Secretary of State, John Marshall was
supposed to be the guy who delivered Marbury's commission to him. The sources I've read tend toward saying there were so many commissions, Marshall could not get them all delivered before his secretaryship expired with the Adams presidency. Thus it fell to Jefferson's administration to deliver the commission. But, a very good question I've seen asked: How was the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court able to rule on a case in which he was personally involved?