Police demand ID without any suspicion whatsoever of a crime

This first video is a clear and present violation of constitutional rights. A journalist named Chris Geo is arrested after he comes to a Federal Emergency Management Agency base to ask a question why they were taking the license plate number of everyone going to a postal office. The reason given seems to believe since the postal office was close enough to their area, they had the right to do so. 

The officer was very short with the answer, in fact, he seemed pretty annoyed when pressed to answer. The journalist gives his name, but that is not good enough for the cop. Oh by the way, the journalist never even stepped on the FEMA base/headquarters, but just outside of it.  Although he did film part of the base, FEMA's own manual states that filming of federal buildings is not a crime. Oh, the cop had stated he was being polite, well being polite doesn't mean you can violate civil liberties.

 This journalist works for a small organization but I think that if he worked for ABC or the New York Times, he would not have been harrased and arrested. There is no reasonable suspicion that he committed any crime. None whatsoever. Asking questions of governmental officials, unless it has been changed recently, is not a crime. Nor, is it suspicion of a crime. 

The government cannot demand I.D. without reasonable suspicion of a crime. A cop can't stop you on the street, without such suspicion, and demand to see your I.D. If he does, he is breaking the law. If he doesn't know he is breaking the law, he should have never been hired in the first place. After all, this is his job and he should know at least the basics of the law. We aren't talking about grey areas of constituitonal questions here. 

 So, this journalist who refused to give an I.D., as upheld in his right by the Supreme Court Decision Brown v. Texas. The officer is immune from prosecution for wrongdoing to only the extent that a reasonable officer would believe he was within his powers as an officer. Clearly, he wasn't. So, he is liable for an illegal arrest and should be sued. 

If officers who clearly violate the law don't face lawsuits personally, they will continue to violate the law. By the way, this illegal arrest took almost two months to be dismissed. If it takes that long to dismiss something that a judge in 5 minutes should have dismissed, than how much liberty do Americans have when illegally arrested? Such arrests can maybe ruin a life.

The second video deals with a person detained for filming what I believe are uniformed secret service police just outside the White House. It isn't as clear cut a case as the first one. This isn't a case of police banning filming of them as they use physical force against a suspect. But, if the government states that certain governmental officials/police can't be filmed as they do their duties, what next will they ban? Would a network journalist be arrested for reporting on security around the White House? If so, that is very troubling indeed.