Stop, in the name of the law
<p>Does the popular media cliche <strong>Stop, in the name of the law</strong> have any founding in actual law or policing practice, either current or historical? Did police ever say this as a matter of course? If so why? If not where did this expression enter the popular consciousness?</p>

<p>In long ago English practice, the phrase used was &quot;<strong>Stop in the name of the King</strong>&quot;. At one time this was, if I am not mistaken, required for a valid arrest. I am talking about a time hundreds of years ago, by the way.</p>
<p>That phrase, in turn, goes back to a still older concept. At one time, in Germanic customary law, each important leader had a &quot;peace&quot; -- an area in and around his dwelling, domain, and presence -- in which any violation of law and custom was an offense against the leader, not just against a victim. Inside his &quot;peace&quot; a leader was allowed to enforce rules without any complaint from a victim. Later the peace of all lesser leaders was subsumed in the Kings Peace, which came to cover the entire kingdom, the area of the king's authority and rule. This concept came over with the Normans, although a version of it had come over with the Anglo-Saxons centuries before.</p>
<p>That is why indictments in England (later England and Wales) long included such language as &quot;... That on or about {date} the said {accused} did, <strong>against the peace of our Lord the King, his crown and dignity</strong>, commit {offense} by {details}...&quot;</p>
<p>I will need to do some searching to find the exact citations to support this, although Charles Rembar's <em>The Law of the Land</em> includes the part about the king's peace.</p>
<p>Specifically, in a footnote on page 192 of my (trade paper) edition (and at location 3345 0f my kindel edition) Rembar writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The concept of a “peace” that is a ruler’s right goes back to Germanic law. It belonged not only to a king but to each leader in the social structure. Every ruler, naturally enough, wanted order in his group, as do modern governments. The difference is that freedom from disturbance was considered the chieftain’s personal privilege, and disorder among those he led was a personal affront. With the strengthening of central rule, the king’s peace overrode all others.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I will need to search further to learn just when the phrase &quot;in the name of the law&quot; became common, and when either phrase ceased to be legally required.  I believe that the phrase persisted in common use long after it was no longer legally required, but I will need citations for that also. I will update this answer with all of that when I can.</p>

<p>I have no idea about current legal requirements in English-speaking countries but just for illustration, the equivalent phrase is legally required by current Czech law (<a href="https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2008-273#p10-5" rel="noreferrer">Act No. 273/2008 Coll., on the Police of the Czech Republic</a>):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(5) Pokud to okolnosti dovolují, je policista před provedením úkonu, při němž dochází k přímému vynucování splnění právní povinnosti nebo k přímé ochraně práv za použití síly nebo hrozby jejího použití (dále jen „zákrok“), povinen použít slov „<strong>Jménem zákona!</strong>“ a odpovídající výzvy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My (plain English) translation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If the circumstances permit, a police officer must use the words &quot;<strong>In the name of the law!</strong>&quot; together with an appropriate request before carrying out any action which entails direct enforcement of a legal obligation or direct protection of rights using force or a threat of force (hereinafter referred to as &quot;intervention&quot;).</p>
</blockquote>

<h1>Not in <a href="/questions/tagged/germany" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;" rel="tag">germany</a></h1>
<p>In Germany the phrase police uses in the Tatort series as well as Polizeiruf 110 - a pair of police/crime drama series that have been around for 50 years by now - is generally a variant of <strong>&quot;Halt! Polizei!&quot;</strong>, translating to &quot;Stop! Police!&quot; The word halt at times is replaced by other words to demand a stop, or the order is swapped (<em>Polizei! Anhalten!</em>)</p>
<p>This two-word command however is the official method - and finds itself on police equipment. The paddle with the red light to stop cars? This is officially called a Winkerkelle. It has written &quot;Halt Polizei&quot; or &quot;Halt Feuerwehr&quot; around the light, at times replacing <em>Halt</em> with <em>Stop</em>. The same words of <em>Halt Polizei</em> also are on the tape used to secure crime scenes.</p>
<h3>Military Guard</h3>
<p>Military guard detachments guarding military security areas (e.g. bases, airfields, and shooting ranges - generally everything that is behind a fence) demand stopping following ZDv 10/6 (<em>protection and security of the Bundeswehr</em>) &amp; 14/9 (<em>special allowances on the use of force for military guards</em>) using the order &quot;Halt! Stehenbleiben!&quot; (<em>Stop! Stand still!</em>), followed by the escalation of &quot;Halt! Oder ich schieße!&quot; (<em>Stop! Or I will shoot!</em>), or alternatively shooting into the air in a sharp angle. The direct follow-up for non-compliance on that escalation step is shooting aimed.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a></p>
<p>In many U.S. states, ordinary citizens have a statutory legal obligation to follow a lawful order of a law enforcement officer (most often, this comes up in traffic situations and when evacuations are necessary). The scope of this legal obligations is explored, for example, in the linked <a href="https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/MooneyComment_6w54gon8.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2020 Yale Law Review article</a> by James Mooney. The abstract of the article explains that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Forty-four states, the District of Columbia, and the federal
government make it a crime to disobey the “lawful orders” of police
officers. But there is significant uncertainty about what makes an
order lawful. This uncertainty leaves people in the dark about their
rights and obligations, risks unfair convictions, and allows police to
needlessly escalate confrontations due to civilian confusion or minor
noncompliance. This Comment proposes a model statute that would
clarify and limit officers’ authority while informing civilians about
the legal risks of disobedience.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The exceptions, by the way, are Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Virginia, and West Virginia (see footnote 34 in the linked article).</p>
<p>Saying something like the phrase mentioned is an order accompanied by a means calculated to inform the person hearing it that it is a lawful order of a law enforcement officer.</p>

police media