From spotting a suspicious object on a sidewalk to responding to a driver who refuses to roll down their window, police officers routinely face unpredictable situations that require fast, informed decisions. But what are the legal boundaries of their authority in these encounters?
This article examines five real-world patrol scenarios and outlines what officers can — and can’t — legally do in each situation. Backed by landmark court rulings and legal precedent, the explanations clarify key concepts such as reasonable suspicion, probable cause and citizens’ rights during stops, searches and arrests.
Whether you’re an officer, attorney or curious citizen, understanding the laws that guide these moments can help make sense of what happens in the field — and why.
1. A man walking down the street appears to have an illegal weapon. What can a police officer do?
Seeing a prohibited weapon in the hands of someone in public creates reasonable suspicion necessary for an investigative detention, also known as a “Terry stop.” The name comes from the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio 398 U.S. 1. The court ruled that an experienced police officer can recognize indicators of criminal activity that may not, in themselves, be enough to make an arrest. An officer making such an observation can detain the person exhibiting the indicators to investigate further. The detailing of these observations is sometimes characterized as “reasonable articulable suspicion,” or RAS.
If the officer can justify why he believes the person may be carrying a weapon that could be used to harm him, he can pat down or “frisk” the person to detect, and if necessary, remove the weapon. The frisk is not as thorough or invasive as a search incident to arrest.
If the officer’s observations turn out to be innocent, they are protected by qualified immunity from lawsuits or arrest, as long as their actions were reasonable. For example, an officer might see someone carrying a four-foot sword in a state that prohibits blades longer than six inches. The officer stops the person, only to discover the sword is a realistic-looking plastic toy. While the individual may file a complaint with the officer’s supervisor, it’s unlikely they would be awarded damages in a lawsuit.
If closer inspection reveals the sword is real and there’s no lawful reason to possess it in public, the officer has probable cause to arrest the individual for carrying a prohibited weapon.
2. A driver refuses to roll down their window during a traffic stop. What can a police officer do?
No state currently requires drivers to lower their windows during a traffic stop. Some motorists refuse to do so entirely or crack the window just an inch in an attempt to keep officers at a distance.
Police can rely on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Pennsylvania v. Mimms 434 U.S. 106 (1977) to further their investigation. The court ruled that police on a traffic stop can require the driver to exit the vehicle and move to the side of the road for further discussion. A subsequent decision in Maryland v. Wilson 519 U.S. 408 (1997) allows the police to control the movement of the vehicle’s passengers as well.
With body-worn cameras now commonplace, countless videos online show drivers refusing to exit their vehicles after being ordered to do so. Some claim they don’t feel safe, insist they’ve done nothing wrong, or demand the officer explain the probable cause for the stop and call a supervisor to the scene. However, during a traffic stop, the officer is responsible for the driver’s safety, as the driver is legally detained and not free to leave. Officers are not required to explain their probable cause or summon a supervisor on demand. While drivers have the right to contest the stop, the proper place to do so is in court, not on the roadside.
If the driver continues to refuse to lower the window or exit the vehicle, the police can use force to remove them. Sometimes this can be done by inserting rubber wedges into the door jambs and getting enough room to unlock the door, but more often, it requires breaking a window. If that becomes necessary, the driver who might have been released with a citation or warning will almost certainly be arrested and jailed.
3. Someone is filming the police during an arrest. What can a police officer do?
There is generally no law prohibiting the recording of events in public view. If an officer makes an arrest in a public place, it’s common for bystanders to record the encounter with their smartphones. While officers may feel uneasy or resent being filmed, they should not attempt to stop someone from recording unless that person is actively interfering with the arrest.
Four states have passed laws restricting how close individuals can get to officers before they’re considered to be interfering with an investigation or arrest. In 2022, Arizona enacted a law banning video recording within eight feet of police activity, but it was struck down on First Amendment grounds for specifically targeting recording. Louisiana, Florida and Indiana later created buffer zones of 20 to 25 feet, though their laws do not specifically mention recording. Indiana’s law was ultimately overturned in federal court for being “void for vagueness.”
Since most officers now wear body cameras, the interaction is likely already being recorded. A greater concern is the risk that a bystander might intervene — either to assault the officer or to help the suspect escape. A 20-foot distance can be closed quickly, especially when the officer’s focus is on the arrest. Hostile crowds may also shout insults or encourage the suspect to resist, potentially escalating the situation and prompting others to get involved.
| RELATED: New La. law creates 25-foot ‘buffer zone’ to keep bystanders back from arrests in progress
4. A person is trespassing on private property but refuses to leave. What can a police officer do?
In most states, police cannot enforce trespassing on private property without involvement from the property owner or their representative. If the owner asks someone to leave and they refuse, the owner can then request that officers make an arrest.
This type of situation is common with so-called “First Amendment auditors” and self-described “citizen journalists,” who often enter public buildings or private property with their cameras rolling. They may record license plates, describe individuals entering or exiting, and try to film offices or documents visible from public areas. Many claim their purpose is to file a Freedom of Information Act request, though their true intent is often to provoke a response.
Some states allow property owners to grant police advance authority to arrest trespassers found on their property. This typically requires the property to be clearly posted with “No Trespassing” signs, and the authorization may need to be renewed periodically. However, many owners hesitate to provide this permission due to potential civil liability. If someone is injured during an arrest made under such blanket authorization, the property owner could face a lawsuit.
Some of these “journalists” are careful to confine their presence to sidewalks and other public curtilage surrounding the targeted property. So long as they do not impede vehicular or foot traffic, this is constitutionally protected activity, no matter how uncomfortable it might make the people being recorded.
If the police find someone on posted land who is clearly not supposed to be there and the property owner or agent is available, they can ask them if they want to authorize an arrest. They usually won’t, again fearing the possible civil consequences.
Unless there is a statute prohibiting recording in a public building, and there usually isn’t, officers who order these citizens to stop recording will be unable to lawfully enforce the order. Since these “auditors” are becoming more ubiquitous, it’s best to seek the legal opinion of the local prosecutor in advance, so there will be some guidance on how to handle them.
5. Someone refuses to identify themselves to police. What can a police officer do?
In general, unless special circumstances apply, individuals are not required to identify themselves to police or carry identification. This principle was affirmed in the 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case Kolender v. Lawson 461 U.S. 352 (1983). The case involved Edward Lawson, a Black man frequently stopped by police while walking in predominantly white neighborhoods near San Diego. Lawson deliberately chose not to carry ID and was repeatedly arrested for Section 647e of the California Penal Code, which required people on the streets to identify themselves. This happened over 15 times, and judges usually dismissed the charges on Kolender’s first appearance. He eventually got one of the cases to trial, and elevated it to the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor.
There are certain situations where individuals are required to carry ID or identify themselves to police. The most common example is driving — motorists must have a valid, state-issued driver’s license in their possession. Many drivers mistakenly assume officers can always look up their information, but verifying identity is at the officer’s discretion. If the officer deems it necessary, they can take the person into custody to confirm their identity through fingerprinting or other means.
Other examples include jobs that require individuals to carry a permit or license while on duty. This applies to professions such as bartenders, cosmetologists, certain heavy equipment operators and police officers.
There are 26 states with “stop and identify” laws, where it is a crime to refuse to identify oneself to police who have made a stop based on reasonable suspicion. The law of Kolender v. Lawson prohibits the state to require the carrying of identification, but people in those 26 states must truthfully state their names if asked. Giving a false name is generally an arrestable criminal offense in itself. The laws do not generally require the person being interrogated to supply their date of birth, but some do require the person to supply their address.
In the states without “stop and identify” laws, unless police have probable cause to make an arrest, they cannot compel a person on the street to identify themselves.
Conclusion
Understanding what police officers are legally allowed to do — and what they’re not — is essential for both law enforcement professionals and the public. From traffic stops and ID requirements to filming in public and trespassing complaints, officers must operate within specific legal boundaries guided by constitutional rights, court rulings and state laws. While these scenarios often unfold quickly and under pressure, knowing the underlying legal principles can help clarify expectations, reduce conflict and protect the rights of everyone involved. Whether you’re an officer, a concerned citizen, or simply curious, staying informed is the first step toward more respectful and lawful interactions.
References
- Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms 434 U.S. 106 (1977)
- Maryland v. Wilson 519 U.S. 408 (1997)
- Louisiana Revised Statutes §14.109, Approaching a peace officer lawfully engaged in law enforcement duties
- Florida Statutes §843.31, Approaching a first responder with specified intent after a warning
- Kolender v. Lawson 461 U.S. 352 (1983)
