Carl, I found this earlier post of yours; this grey area is what interests me - what constitutes "lawful detention" ?
Being detained on reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is involved in unlawful activity (that does not mean engaged in, but could also mean about to engage in). In other words, they have to have an articulable reason.
Here is some CA and US case law on the matter from the CA Attorney general:
For an investigative stop or detention to be valid, you must have "reasonable suspicion" that: (1) criminal activity may be afoot and (2) the person you are about to detain is connected with that possible criminal activity. (Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119; Ornelas (1996) 517 U.S. 690, 695-696; Sokolow (1989) 490 U.S. 1, 7-8; Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 386.)
To establish "reasonable suspicion," both the quality and quantity of the information you need is considerably less than the "probable cause" you need to arrest or search. (White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330; Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 387; Johnson (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1, 11.) "'[R]easonable suspicion' is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence. . . ." (Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 123; Arvizu (2002) 534 U.S. 266, 274.)
"Reasonable suspicion" is evaluated based on objective facts. Your subjective thinking, i.e., the purpose behind your search or seizure (detention or arrest), should have no bearing on a court's determination of the legality of your action. Your "subjective intentions" are irrelevant in determining whether a detention or an arrest was justified. (See Sullivan (2001) 532 U.S. 769, 772; Whren (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 813; see also Robinette (1996) 519 U.S. 33, 38; Scott (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138; Hull (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1454; Lloyd (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 724, 733.)
If you are trespassing or seen as a suspect, and and police confront you and start questioning you, do they have to identify why they are questioning you for it to be a lawful detention?
They do not have to tell you why they are detaining you in my state. Other states may have differing laws.
I know with traffic stops, I have asked right off the bat what I was doing wrong and police usually refuse to say, they like to question you first and write the ticket before telling you;
There are a lot of good reasons for this practice.
my point is that, if they are not identifying the crime, why should I have to talk?
You don't. But, if you have an obligation to ID yourself and you refuse, you may find yourself in handcuffs.
And regarding this, if you have a po box on your DL, can a police officer legally ask for a physical address or employer when issuing a citation?
He can ask anything. But, if arrested or cited, you will likely have to give a residence address not just the PO Box.
- Carl