Failure to comply with a search request is generally considered "reasonable suspicion".
Mate I must disagree with you there. We happen to live in a relatively progressive (relative to Zaire maybe...) Western democracy, and one of the foundations of our judicial system is the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.
Refusing to give permission to an officer, or objecting to a search that an officer intends to conduct (if you reasonably believe it is unfounded), is your legal right, and is even your civic duty if you wish to preserve what civil liberties you have left.
A police officer may not simply search you for the fuck of it, and politely refusing to be searched - which is a very reasonable thing to do considering you are a free human being and citizen - in NO WAY whatsoever constitutes evidence that you are guilty of something. Just like refusing to answer police questions without a lawyer present does not incriminate you in any way. "You have the right to remain silent", undoubtedly everyone has the RIGHT to refuse a search where they honestly believe that the officer has no grounds for conducting the search.
Reasonable suspicion laws are a bitch, they can be seen as giving officers the green light pretty much any time they want to conduct a search of person. But even their search powers are curtailed by the relevant legislation, and even REASONABLE SUSPICION has a definition and guidelines that must be satisfied by the officer conducting the search if the search is to be considered LAWFUL. Having dreadlocks and refusing a search is NOT tantamount to arousing reasonable suspicion in a cop. I'll throw a link detailing this later on if anyone would like it, I'm in a hurry atm.
And even if some cops unfairly consider refusal to be their ticket to reasonable suspicion and subsequent searches, more people who are victims of this should follow up with a complaint to the Police Ombudsman or Council for Civil Liberties in their state. Especially when they were violated and nothing was found (drugs, weapons, whatever). Police are obliged to give you their names and the police station that they work from (upon request) if they ask you for your name/address and/or search you. Yes many police do pretty much whatever they want to, but only because there is not enough objection from citizens directly affected. If not directly to them, then at the very least complaints should be collected and presented en masse by Ombudsman or CCL to some authority for investigation. That is why it is important to take the time and get some free communtiy legal aid to guide you when you think a complaint against some officers would be appropriate. This doesn't mean when they search you, and find a smokin bong under your shirt, that you should complain that they took your billy and 1/4 oz. Only when they are rude/aggressive/abuse their powers etc.
So what, you don't find the police intimidating even when you haven't done anything wrong? I do, and I'm sure there are plenty of people younger than myself who find them so intimidating that they foolishly but understandably run on impulse when approached by the cops. In the eyes of any reasonable person, or modern legal system, this is not an automatic sign of guilt - don't be quick to judge. Such thoughts must be purged from the minds of society and hopefully police too; that way less citizens will feel at odds with the police, and they won't be seen as agressors, but protectors instead, e.g. avoid the initial shit that causes things like Macquarie Fields riots.
