If officers actually have reasonable suspicion that a specific person violated 18 U.S.C. §111 (assaulting/resisting/impeding federal officers), then a brief Terry-style stop to investigate can be lawful.

But you’re smuggling a lot into “reasonably suspected,” and it doesn’t answer the concern being raised:

Suspicion has to be particularized. “Was in the area,” “was protesting,” “was filming,” “looked like they might interfere,” or “was near someone who did something” isn’t reasonable suspicion of §111 for that individual. The Fourth Amendment requires specific, articulable facts tied to the person detained.

Stop vs. arrest still matters. Even if there’s RS, that supports a brief detention. If you’re talking handcuffs/transport/prolonged detention, you’re usually in probable cause territory.

So yes, §111 can justify enforcement. But it can’t be a magic incantation that turns broad crowd-control or “immigration enforcement” pretext into constitutional detentions.

If you think these detentions are “perfectly fine,” what specific facts are officers using, in practice, to establish §111 reasonable suspicion for the particular people being detained?