We might disagree on whether the word of the neighbor provided reasonable suspicion to search but where was the probable cause to arrest and cuff?
Even to believe there was reasonable suspicion, it has to be what a reasonable or typical person would think. Would a reasonable person think that someone they don't know sitting on a porch was suspicious and that it was an indication that a crime may have been committed? Of course not. There was no reasonable suspicion.
I find it troublesome when so-called conservatives use Supreme Court decisions as proof of anything. In almost every Supreme Court decision, some of those supposedly scholarly men and women vote one way, some vote another. That, in and of itself, is absolute proof that, as a whole, they don't know what the hell they're talking about. When they say guns can be banned, do you quote them as the answer? Of course not.
At most, in any discussion of law, liberty, rights, and the Constitution, the Supreme Court is, at the very best, something to consider. Just because their judicial precedence trumps any lower court, it doesn't make it right. That the Supreme Court has allowed reasonable suspicion as the threshold for a search doesn't change the fact that the Constitution clearly sets the threshold as probable cause.
In 1968, in Terry, the Supreme Court declared the Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment, unconstitutional when they ruled that a cop can search a person when they had reasonable suspicion that a crime was about the be committed - not probable cause and not that a crime had been committed. And the standard they set? No, not that a reasonable person would suspect that a crime was about to be committed but whether a reasonable police officer would think a crime was about to be committed.
They ruled that the legitimate government interests override the Constitution that created the government. And who gets to decide what are the legitimate interests of the government? We used to think that was defined and limited by the Constitution but it turns out that, according to the Supreme Court, it is the government that gets to decide what are the legitimate interests of the government and when their self-determined interests conflict with the Constitution then the Constitution does not apply.
In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled, in Connor, to expand reasonable suspicion and reiterated the standard that what was reasonable for the police to do is what the police say is reasonable for the police to do, not what the Constitution says they can do.
No crime was committed by Furdge and there was no probable cause. Not that it should matter, but the officer's suspicion was not reasonable and did not justify his actions in violation of the rights of Furdge.
