in Arizona. Are all adults required to stop and engage any law enforcement when directly or indirectly addressed by them? Are there any specific methods of making the request known that are not covered? Such as at points of visual contact that are not legal stops. Where an officer makes eye contact while passing by. Giving a wave of the hand, A head nod gesture, or low shout from across the street. Indicating they have the intent to speak to you.
1 Answer
Are all adults required to stop and engage any law enforcement when directly or indirectly addressed by them?
Basically.
Police have a right to make a "Terry stop" if they have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity might be occurring, but only have to tell you the reason after the fact in litigation contesting the validity of the stop. The name of this stop is a reference to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968) which has been applied in Arizona, e.g., in the case In Re Roy L., 197 Ariz. 441, 444-45 (Az. App. 2000).
So, as explained below, if an officer approaches you, ask if you are free to leave. If you are free to leave, you may calmly walk away. If the officer says that you are not free to leave, then the officer may ask you for your name or ID. In Arizona, you must give the officer your name or ID so the officer can identify you. You do not need to answer other questions about what you are doing, where you are going, or why you do not want to talk to the officer.
What constitutes a communication sufficient to let you know that you have to stop is a question to be interpreted in light of all of the facts and circumstances. There is no magic set of words or gestures that trigger a duty to stop.
As a practical matter, ignoring a request from a law enforcement officer to stop is more likely to result in escalation from the law enforcement officer and a bad outcome of the incident, than not doing so.
Some of the key statutes are as follows:
Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person’s refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
and
Arizona Revised Statutes § 28-622. Failure to comply with police officer; classification
A. A person shall not willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer invested by law with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
According to Maricopa County (home to Phoenix, Arizona):
What is reasonable suspicion?
Reasonable suspicion requires the officer to have specific facts, not just a hunch, that a person is involved in a crime.[1] If an officer has reasonable suspicion, he is able to briefly stop a person to ask questions to confirm or refute his suspicion.
If an officer approaches you, ask if you are free to leave. If you are free to leave, calmly walk away.
If you are not free to leave, the officer may ask you for your name or ID. In Arizona, you must give the officer your name or ID so the officer can identify you.[2]
You do not need to answer other questions about what you are doing, where you are going, or why you do not want to talk to the officer. Your refusal to answer questions is not evidence of your involvement in a crime.[3]
If an officer stops you, he or she may frisk – or patdown – you for weapons if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe you are armed and dangerous.[4]
If the officer, during the pat down, can tell by touch alone that the item he is feeling is illegal, he can remove the object.[5]
[1] Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968); see, e.g. In Re Roy L., 197 Ariz. 441, 444-45 (App. 2000).
[2] A.R.S. 13-2412; A.R.S. 28-1595.
[3] Floridav. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991).
[4] Statev. Serna, 235 Ariz. 270, 271 (2014).
[5] Minnesotav. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 372 (1993).
These are the guidelines that Phoenix, Arizona police officers think that they have to operate under even one could dispute Maricopa County's interpretation in some fine detail.
