Thanks for ignoring the hyperbole.
On point, I don't know that any case you could reference would cover this. See, I have to believe that the SCOTUS would support any cop finding illegal activity while enforcing some other law. I also have to believe that they would NOT support the police if they were using an excuse to target individuals. In fact, they have ruled against that many times, the most recent I recall is in Indianapolis where the cops were doing drug stops. They think it is fine to do alcohol road blocks, but not drug stops how they did in IN. Why? Because the cops either admitted, or it was so obvious the SCOTUS could not ignore, making all of these stops in black neighborhoods. The cops argued that was where the crime was, yet SCOTUS ruled (correctly) that this was a violation of the civil rights of the people who lived and drove there. You are arguing that SCOTUS would or has supported the police stopping people with no intention of enforcing anything, only looking for evidence of wrong doing. I doubt you could convince anyone here that this would be the case.
