But the purpose of the stop was not enforcement of the vehicle code.

"When there is not probable cause to believe that a driver is violating any one of the multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations 24 -- or other articulable basis amounting to reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed or his vehicle unregistered -- we cannot conceive of any legitimate basis upon which a patrolman could decide that stopping a particular driver for a spot check would be more productive than stopping any other driver." Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 661, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 1400 (1979)

In California, as I suspect in most states, the driver is required to produce a license and registration when being pulled over for a traffic stop.

California Vehicle Code 12951(b) states: "The driver of a motor vehicle shall present his or her license for examination upon demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code."

Since the vehicle was not involved, the stop would not require a license to of produced. Of course, the cop would lie and make up a reason.

You are conflating a consensual encounter with a detention.

No, when they decide not to show up or release someone that they should have detained.

Read Terry v. Ohio | 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) 542 U.S. 177

I have reported crimes, but LAPD refused to make arrests.
I had a cop argue with me and tell me that I was not authorized to have an arrest made because I was a building manager. I had to explain real property law to him.

In many states, there is no requirement to show ID unless arrested. In other cases, there still has to be reasonable suspicion (the Terry standard).

Detaining someone for 1 second without reasonable suspicion violates the 4th amendment. Pulling someone over is not a consentual encounter, but the officer is probably trained to turn it into one. Extending the stop is unconstitutional. See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492 (2015),. I suspect that even a diminimus extension would be unconstitutional. So, a false report could be argued a civil wrong, even when causing a deminimus delay.

The "might be armed?" might not be a crime. The defense would argue that there is a possibility and argue that it might not meet the standard of reasonable doubt. But in a civil case, it could meet the preponderance of the evidence.

How much would you like to bet that Flock's lawyers told them what exactly to say when calling the police?

I am sure you know this and are just trying to shit on the editors, as one does on /.; but here, use this in case you didn't know: https://xcancel.com/_lyraaaa_/...

None of that is true. Grow up and learn how to understand and rate journalism. Start with Appling the spj code of ethics to media.
" Anyone who defends that is off the deep end self-deluding and in full on denial of reality. "
So you post a factual incorrect statement then call anyone with facts delusional. JFC, take some actual media course. Like, in a class room.

He's incapably of learning. I don't thing he has learned anything since 1980.

OFFS lease stop lying. You wither didn't read it, or didn't understand it.
Some of us remember when he was alive, and read went o to study him.
If you actually know what you were talking about, you would understand the difference between Marxist communism and socialism.

Liars like you have become tiresome.

No, you did not. Yor just making things up becasue you are likely functionally illiterate, can'[t hold complex thought or idea, and have no clue how to admit you are wrong. I pity you, Because your are embarrassingly wrong.

That's actually not true at all. Please tell me how many American FDR called evil? Literally one of the, if not the most socialist president whose social programs led to American become a technological and industrial power house.

American modern conservatives primary planks are to take rights away from marginalized group; which s fucking evil.

Get over yourself and read some books.

'Lot of money'. Not really. Historical what they do give is pretty divided, depending on the actual issues.

Your kink actual shows it is. The lawsuit is BS, like most Trumps lawsuits. He is trying extort them is get their companies to kiss his ass and not say anything against them. The is SOP for Trump, going back to the 90s.
This is actual censorship by the governemnt.