How can you tell if you have to follow a police officer&#39;s instructions?
<p>If a police officer gives me an order, how can I tell whether or not I'm legally obligated to follow that order? If I ask the officer, is he/she required by law to answer truthfully?</p>

<p>If the police get to order citizens to do whatever they want, under whatever circumstances that they want, then go ahead and post that as an answer.</p>

<p>You don't know. You can't know. And you can't force the officer to tell you.</p>

Detention Status

<p>As a practical matter, you have no way of knowing if you are compelled to follow an officer's order because you are being detained unless the officer volunteers that information (your detention status) which they are not compelled to disclose and have every incentive not to disclose.</p>

<p>Consider the situation when the officer does not have <em>reasonable suspicion</em> do detain you. If the officer instantly informs you that you are "free to go" then you are likely to leave and end the encounter immediately. However, if the officer says nothing, then you might stay and inadvertently say or do something that would give the officer reasonable suspicion to detain you from that point forward. Your behavior during that detention could lead to probable cause, arrest, etc. Every officer knows they have nothing to gain by being quick to tell you you are free to go.</p>

Deceptive Conduct

<p>To compound the issue, police encounters are particularly problematic because police officers have a lawful right to engage in <strong><em>deceptive conduct</em></strong> during an investigation including but not limited to <strong><em>lying</em></strong>. You, on the other hand, can be prosecuted for lying to the police conducting an investigation. (<a href="http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/police-officer-truthfulness-and-the-brady-decision/" rel="noreferrer">See this article for more information</a>.)</p>

Hobson's Choice

<p>Therefore, all things considered, police encounters present a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice" rel="noreferrer"><strong><em>Hobson's Choice</em></strong></a>. Either comply with every order in an effort to end the encounter quickly. Or try to press the officer to determine whether you are "<strong><em>being detained</em></strong>" or "<strong><em>free to go</em></strong>." The former course of action voluntarily cedes some of your rights. The latter risks "provoking" the officer into making your encounter more difficult, painful or costly than it otherwise might be.</p>

Never Consent to Searches

<p>That said, you are never under any obligation to consent to a warrantless search of your home or vehicle. Typically, saying, "I do not consent to searches." is usually sufficient if asked. Evidence obtained from warrantless searches is barred from being used at trial unless you waive this right by consenting to the search. <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3519/consent-to-searches-who-wins-my-word-against-yours">See this question (and answers) if you are concerned about the officer falsely claiming you gave consent if you didn't</a>.</p>

Never Talk to the Police

<p>As a legal matter, talking to the police can never help your case in court. Anything you say to the police that might help your case (i.e., exculpatory) is not admissible as evidence because it's <em>hearsay</em>. On the other hand, anything you say to the police can and will be used against you. In fact, <strong><em>even if you are completely innocent of all crimes AND you are completely 100% truthful to the police, you can still give the police all they legally need to convict you of a crime simply by talking to them.</em></strong> Whereas, without your statement, they would not have had sufficient evidence to convict. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE" rel="noreferrer">See this Youtube video for more details and examples of how this can and does happen every day.</a></p>

Practical Matters

<p>The above analysis presents the reader with some practical concerns.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>You don’t want to risk being harmed by an officer in fear for his safety.</p></li>
<li><p>You don’t want to be handcuffed and taken to the police station if you can avoid it.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>You must obey all unconditional commands of a peace officer. It does no harm to inform the officer that you are willing to comply with all unconditional legal commands and ask him or her if a given command is, in fact, unconditional.</p>

<p>Some attorneys go in the opposite direction from the "never talk to the police" rule and advise that, say in the case of a domestic violence dispute, the best course of action is to answer police questions matter-of-factly, never lie and never admit guilt. That course of behavior can avoid a potential trip to the police station in handcuffs in the back of a police car even if you are never ultimately arrested.</p>

<p>TL;DR: Police encounters are tricky. It's difficult to know what to do. The best course of action is to educate yourself about your rights and the law and apply judgment and common sense to guide your behavior to achieve the best outcome.</p>

<p><em>I am not an attorney. I am not your attorney. This answer is not legal advice. Please consult an attorney to obtain proper legal advice.</em></p>

<p>First, you have to <a href="https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/when-encountering-law-enforcement-questioning" rel="noreferrer">know your own</a> <a href="https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-if-youre-stopped-police-immigration-agents-or-fbi" rel="noreferrer">rights</a>.</p>

<p>There are detailed laws that describe what police can do and how they are supposed to do it.  Unfortunately, <strong>none of their duties include "informing citizens of their legal rights,"</strong> with the sole exception of informing a detainee of his right to a lawyer, and then only if the officer cares about the admissibility of the detainee's statements in court.  The police have the same rights to lie in their official capacity as do all citizens in their personal capacities.  I.e., <strong>unless an officer is giving sworn statements, he can lie without legal repercussion</strong>.</p>

<p>Furthermore, it appears that police give unlawful orders and take unlawful actions with enough frequency that many large departments are engaged in constant legal battles with watchdog and advocacy organizations like the <a href="https://www.aclu.org/defending-our-rights" rel="noreferrer">ACLU</a>.</p>

<p>So, if you are given an unlawful order you have two choices:</p>

<ol>
<li>Resist and hope that the officer chooses not to escalate the situation by, for example, arresting you.</li>
<li>Follow it anyway to reduce the risk of an escalating conflict.</li>
</ol>

<p>If you suffer harm or your rights are wrongfully infringed by a law enforcement officer the best you can hope for is that someone in his chain of command steps in to stop the impropriety.  Otherwise, the reality is that any vindication will come (if at all) at the end of <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/q/54/10">a long judicial process</a>.</p>

<p><strong>Police officers do not get to order citizens to do "whatever they want"!</strong> </p>

<p>In traffic stops, police often ask (in a tone that could be construed to sound like a demand) to search your vehicle during a traffic stop. More often than not, people assent even when they have illegal drugs, weapons, and all other manner of illegal things! The police do not have a right to search your car just because they are suspicious. </p>

<p>However, they also don't need a warrant if there is probable cause to legally search your vehicle. Probable cause means the police must have some facts or evidence suggesting a crime is taking place. Some example of PC are (1) an informant/witness told the police they saw you place something illegal in your car; (2) they see something illegal during the stop - like a weapon or a drug baggie - in plain view: (3) you or a passenger makes an admission (it happens more than you think); (4) they smell marijuanna in states where it has not been decriminalized <em>and</em> where you do not have a passenger (when you have a  passenger, smell is no longer adequate probable cause in a decriminalized state, as the  passenger could have been smoking/carrying it). If there is no passenger, probable cause may exist if you are exhibiting signs of operating under the influence.</p>

<p>These are only some limited examples. The point is that an officer’s hunch (even reasonable suspicion) without evidence of illegal activity is not sufficient to search your car. Before searching, he must observe something real. </p>

<p>If an officer <em>asks</em> to search your car and you have something you do not want found, say NO. Especially if you are not impaired and there is nothing illegal in plain site.  Always. Profiling happens all the time and people get arrested and convicted all the time from the fruits of consented to searches that they would/may not have done, or would/may not have had the right to do in the event they did it regardless, giving you a viable way to limit the state's (or Fed's) evidence. They may call in drug dogs (they do not always hit if this is what you are hiding), they may say "if you are not hiding anything, what do you care" - at which point I would say "I care about my right to not be unreasonably detained and searched", especially for no good reason. Nothing good can come from allowing a search for which no cause exists; even if you are perfectly clean. It just perpetuates the abhorrent behavior.</p>

<p>Moving traffic violations (e.g. speeding, broken tail-light, expired sticker) are not considered probable cause to search.</p>

<p>When it comes to asking you to identify yourself, the standard is lower. They need have only a reasonable suspicion a crime is taking place.</p>

<p>ID laws can be complicated on their face, and even more so as they get interpreted by state law courts. The Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have <em>reasonable suspicion</em> to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as “stop-and-identify” statutes. These laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.</p>

<p>As of only a year ago,  24 states had stop-and-identify laws and others were contemplating them. Regardless of your state’s law, you should not be forced to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in illegal activity.</p>

<p>The police need reasonable suspicion to detain. So if you say "I'm doing nothing wrong, am I free to go?", or "are you detaining me?" and the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and don’t answer any more questions. </p>

<p>If you’re detained, you pretty much have to give your identity, b/c withholding will just heighten the possibility of being arrested. If you don't think there is reasonable suspicion you have the right to say no, but be aware of the potential consequences. On the other hand, if you’re on probation or parole, in most states revealing your identity will alert them to this and then they will usually have the right to conduct a legal search without probable cause. At this point, you need to exercise your right to keep your mouth shut (remain silent :~)and invoke your right to counsel.</p>

<p>Remember that the officer’s decision to detain you will not always hold up in court. Reasonable suspicion is a vague legal standard, somewhere less that probable cause but loosely defined. So if you’re searched or arrested following an officer’s ID request, you may have a defense that there was not reasonable suspicion; hence, everything to follow is fruit of the so-called poisonous tree.</p>

<p>Lastly, if the police reasonably suspect that you're armed and dangerous, they may conduct a "stop and frisk", which is a quick pat-down of the person’s outer clothing. They may not reach into your pocket if they don't feel a weapon. That is not to say they won't or don't, but they are not legally allowed to do so. </p>

united-states police