Yes. He used coercion of force to get that person to comply. The gun, uniform, badge, and the manner in which cops "ask" for things is intimidating to the average citizen.
When I was a teenager I used to agree with this.
Asking is not using "coercion of force". A cop can't walk into a business and ask to use their restroom because he's coercing the business owner? A cop can't ask the waitress for another cup of coffee because he's using threat of force to get her to comply? A cop can't pull over and ask someone mowing their lawn for directions to an address because that would be intimidating to the average citizen?
The solution is not for cops to wear gags, it is for average citizens to act like adults.
And the idea of a cop going on fishing expeditions based on his "gut" is just disgusting.
Geeze, I would have thought that you of all people could appreciate a fishing trip. In my opinion it depends entirely on what they're fishing for and where they go looking for it. And how they react to minor stuff found when fishing (an
awful lot of small quantities of pot get thrown into retention ponds or fields and minor crimes waved away, FYI).
Nice little video of a cops reaction to a mere citizen asserting his right against unreasonable search.
Bad cops can ruin your day, sho-nuff. The driver did what he should have and the cop lost it in a downright comical fashion. But notice that the driver didn't go to jail for the weed he had in his glovebox or the illegal gun he had on his hip or whatever else.
FWIW, that isn't the way a refusal usually goes down, either. The much more typical response: "Okay, well, have a nice day."
Cordex: your example was of a cop who "just knows!!!" that someone is doing something wrong, so he trumps up an excuse to initiate contact1, then uses intimidation and the implied threat of forcecitation needed to attempt to violate the 4th Amendment by getting a "consensual" agreement to search2. And my example (the cop who "just knows" you're doing something wrong interpreting a refusal to consent as cause) is not some obscure and improbable scenario, it's what they're conditioned to believe.3
1. An equipment violation is not a trumped up excuse. It is an infraction in and of itself. That it serves another purpose as well is not inherently bad.
2. If someone agrees to a search when they could refuse it, they are not having their 4th amendment rights violated any more than someone who freely admits to a crime is having their 5th amendment rights violated..
3. I don't deny there are bad cops who would behave that way. The police I know were not trained to interpret refusal as cause. Moreover, even if they did they would have to justify it in court and the prosecutor doesn't want to look stupid.
Also, I noticed you failed to comment on this.
It wasn't really worth commenting on, but okay:
Isn't it funny how, if a random guy sidles up to a stranger's car with his hand on a gun and "asks" if they "consent" to have sex with him, we'd interpret that as non-consensual. But when the guy has a badge, and the full force of the .gov behind him, then it's totally voluntary and consensual when he asks to search you and your car. Just good solid policework, serving and protecting etc.
If a cop sidled up to a stranger's car with his hand on his gun and "asks" if they "consent" to have sex with him, we'd equally interpret that as non-consensual in addition to being conduct unbecoming, abuse of police powers, etc.. That's the apples-to-apples, if you want to make a comparison.