The judge is noting that there are competing concerns at play here (as is often the case) and clarifying for participants the priority of those concerns.

Specifically, the statutes that authorize these policing actions are inferior to the constitutional guarantees in this case given the situation on the ground.

I think you've got it wrong. The rights as defined in the Bill of Rights apply more strictly to the federal government than they do to the states. In fact, it took the Fourteenth Amendment and over a hundred years of judicial interpretation to "incorporate" a subset of the Bill of Rights to apply to state governments.

Their only identification is a little patch which reads “POLICE”. You’re saying that’s fraudulent?