The "Am I being detained" video is all too illustrative of a problem that most courts refuse to see ---- that police/authorities are often far from cooperative when a person tries to invoke their rights, or even clarify their status. This guy is lucky, he was allowed to go.

The agent was probably trained to never admit that a person is "detained". Then, no matter how coercive, a stop-and-search will be argued to be a "consensual encounter." Similarly, police are often trained to never write in their reports precisely when someone is placed "under arrest". Rather, at the very end of the report, it will say something like "subject, under arrest, transported to jail." That is because officers often "arrest" prior to having legal justification. So long as they don't call it arrest, however, a prosecutor can argue that it was something else - like a "consensual encounter." (a police officer's opinion about when a person is under arrest is not definitive, but it is a factor weighed by the courts).

In this case, the officer simply ignored and/or refused to answer two simple questions: "Am I being detained?" and the related "Am I free to go?" Of course, as long as the subject of the stop doesn't get a clear answer, driving off risks charges and even violent apprehension. I'm surprised they weren't giving the vehicle a drug dog sniff while he was arguing.

For some discussion and more videos, see:

<link>