The line is essentially going to be drawn pragmatically in most cases, because the precedent is so vague. Judges generally don't take kindly to people impersonating agents, so i would expect a bit of stretch to find an issue.
For example, if you look, the judge says "We do not embrace the government's sweeping position", but then in practice, did exactly this. They went to great pains to find some way to ascribe "value" to the location of another human being.
Yes, which is why I can't figure out how to interpret that case. It seems the judge says you can't ask any questions, since any information has some value.
A police officer can ask questions of anyone, including "can I search this bag?" The legal theory is that an officer is also a citizen, and any citizen can ask that question, even of strangers.
Apparently the uniform and knowledge that it's a police officer isn't supposed to make people feel any extra obligation towards the officer, compared to a stranger.
But there has to be a limit to that, yes? Can the officer for money? Strangers do that.
Anyway, were I to judge this matter, I would say that if a person would reasonably give the same answer to a stranger as to an imposter, then there's nothing of value.
Yeah, and I'm sure as Sunday that most judges won't agree with me.
For example, if you look, the judge says "We do not embrace the government's sweeping position", but then in practice, did exactly this. They went to great pains to find some way to ascribe "value" to the location of another human being.