There are no boundaries to our "rights". These are not affordances, nor privileges provided by the state. These are all our "inalienable rights" as a free people.
We the People further reserve the right to struggle for life, freedom, and happiness should any subset of the people get funny ideas that they are 'above the law'.
If you review many of the Supreme Court of the US judgements about the first amendment you will notice that there are indeed boundaries to individual rights; most notably when these rights infringe on others' rights.
The legitimacy of the state in United States of America is contingent on the primacy of the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. This declaration was indeed an act of "rebellion" against the "laws" of the Crown of England.
The essence of that document is a rejection of any notion of stratified rights and obligations, and the uniformity of the application of the law.
The OP is about the POLICE. It does not appear that the POLICE are subject to the same laws as the rest of us, Citizen.
The freedom of speech does not include the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Or the right to yell "Let's burn the house" at a KKK rally in front of a man's house in the south. There are boundaries to all rights. Otherwise we would never know when the rights of one person must supersede the rights of another.
I mean what about the simple text of the Sixth Amendment: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
The $20 Dollar limit is complete arbitrary and doesn't even make sense in today's era. Really this is an artificial boundary. Rules set in place by men to govern men. Rights with boundaries.
Open your self to challenge your own thoughts and opinions. These are not areas of black and white but of shades of Red, White, and Blue so complex that good, thoughtful men can and will come to reasonable but differing conclusions.
I propose you test this claim by one of the methods the grandparent suggested. The protest-by-occupying-a-random-person's-house idea seems like a good one to pick.
We the People further reserve the right to struggle for life, freedom, and happiness should any subset of the people get funny ideas that they are 'above the law'.