Police are allowed to do that. Just like if you were to decline doing a DUI Test they cuff you and take you down to the station and you get locked up for 24 hours. It's a protocol. The cop did what he is supposed to do.

That's ******* pigs for you.

If you had nothing to hide, why didn't you consent to a search?

An officer can only detain someone based on probable cause or clear indication that a crime has been committed. This is pretty well established case law as well with Florida v. Royer where detention without probable cause had the case dismissed and Terry v. Ohio which states that while under certain circumstances you can be frisked, absent those circumstances you can not be detained for refusal, and that the scope of the search is limited to weapons only. So no it isn't a "fact" the courts have

Terry v Ohio and Michigan v Long dealt specifically with a reasonable suspicion of a crime having been or has been committed and that the frisking was limited to the suspicion of possible harm to the police officer. The searches were only allowed for the scope of weapons and any other contraband did not have to be produced for the cops upon request without a warrant. Aside from that the case itself states absent that scope and outside those provisions a cop can not detain you for refusal to cons

In most states their is a thing where when you start driving you already give consent