Originally Posted by
polonius
That's not true at all -- the police can't simply go around arresting everyone they don't like the looks of and justify it by saying, "what's the big deal, if they're innocent, the courts will clear them."
That's not what I said. Read it again:
You misunderstand the meaning of presumption of innocence. It means that, before you can be convicted of a crime, the state must meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Should it fail to do so, you are not guilty by law.
It has no meaning on the street. Police have no burden of proof, and may investigate based on reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc.
By law, everyone is presumed innocent unless there is evidence to the contrary.
One more time: the presumption of innocence is a concept that applies to a court adjudication of guilt
only.
Even for a two-minute stop, a cop is the one who has the burden of demonstrating there was some good reason for that stop, whereas for you to sue the cop for harassment and abuse of authority, you don't have to demonstrate any lack of suspicious activity at all. If the cops are unable to provide a reasonable justification for the stop, you would win the case.
LEOs can't detain or arrest or seize without meeting the appropriate standard. It has nothing to do with presumption of innocence, but with the 5th and, particularly, the 4th Amendment.