Must there be more to the story? Or do you just hope there’s more to the story?

Is it really more reasonable to assume that a cop would recover drugs from wherever, outside or inside the vehicle(the backdoor was already open so we can assume the back was searched prior to recording) and for any legitimate reason slyly toss the tiny, open bag into the back seat.

All the while, have a driver with the forethought to start recording the police encounter after the drugs where found and think that he’ll be able to reverse uno card the cop by catching him putting the drugs back(because why wouldn't he throw the back in the car?). Then he'll claim the cop planted it, ask confusing questions like "Hey bro, what's that you just threw in here?" and edit then video to make himself look innocent, knowing this will cause a stir. 9000 iq move. Surprised someone so smart got caught at all.

Or maybe, the cop was overly confident, tried to plant drugs and thought he was slick enough to get away with. Then tried to play dumb when got caught.

Also why wasn't he wearing gloves before if the evidence was recovered earlier? Why not clearly object to the insinuation if the drugs really did belong to the driver? Why wasn't the driver in custody the moment the drugs were found?

Look, unfounded assumptions are bad and can be dangerous. I'm not saying there shouldn't be due process. But in the court public opinion to give this officer the benefit of the doubt would require so many contrivances to construct any narrative that would make this footage make sense. And to do so would just be silly. Don't be silly.