Just a few comments for new readers.
There are reams of court cases about whether a certain set of circumstances amounted to a temporary investigative detention. In those cases, the courts are deciding whether the police encounter was consensual. Meaning, did the cop seize the person verbally? Or, was the citizen free to go, but cooperated with the cop anyway?
Now, to see this next point, you have to step back and look at the big picture, reading between the lines, correction, reading between the court cases. Big picture: the only reason the courts are deciding these cases is because it is unclear from the events of the encounter whether the citizen was temporarily seized or not.
Police know this. Police are experts at keeping the citizen uncertain as to his status during an investigatory contact. They like to do it for at least two reasons we've identified. First, if the citizen is uncertain whether he is free to go, he'll remain even if the cops can't legally keep him. Second, if the encounter can be ruled consensual, its much harder for the defense attorney to get the judge to suppress evidence.
So, why let the cop have the initiative and wait for him to tell you whether you're seized. If you ask, chances are good he'll just dodge the question. They do this all day long, every day. Don't think they're not masters at that this game. So, why play their game? Why grant them the initiative by depending on them to declare you are seized? They love your uncertainty--it plays right into their hands and benefits them, especially if they do not actually have legal justification to detain you.
Take some initiative away from them--politely declare that you refuse consent to an encounter: "No offense officer, I know you're just doing your job, but I do not consent to an encounter with you." That erases all question about whether the encounter is consensual. Remember, the only reason courts are having to dig in and look at sets of indicators and circumstances and make rulings is because it wasn't clear. Your express refused consent erases all that, it undercuts all those court cases.
So, just refuse consent to the encounter itself.
And, if the cop asks even one more question, just proceed on the entirely reasonable assumption that you are seized.
Cop: "If you're doing nothing wrong, why won't you consent to an encounter."
OCer: "Why am I being detained?"
See how that question just moves right along from the assumption of a detention? Don't let the cop shake your certainty--its your certainty, not his. For example,
Cop: "Nobody said you're detained, sir."
OCer: "I refused consent, so it can't be a consensual encounter. Am I free to go?"
You see, no matter how the cop wiggles and dodges, it cannot possibly be a consensual encounter because you told him at the very first that you didn't consent to the encounter.
The longer he wiggles and dodges, if he does not have genuine RAS, the deeper he digs himself for a formal complaint or lawsuit. And, if he does have genuine RAS, he's not getting any investigating done while he's playing his word games on you.
