Let me take one last stab at this thing.....
There is not set list of specific circumstances to answer an all encompassing question as to "am I being detained, or am I under arrest, or am I free to go".
There is one simple standard that a court will use;
Given the circumstances articulated, would a reasonable person feel they were not free to go (or under arrest).
And remember, while their must be an articulable suspicion present for an officer to detain..it requires probable cause be present for an officer to make an arrest.
It is really as simple as that...no more, no less.
Remember, it is possible for a person who is not being detained (or arrested) to believe, do to the actions of the officer(s) involved, that they are being detained (or arrested) even if that is not the intent of the officer.
And now we have come full circle again and are back to the case at hand that originally started this thread.
The individual in the kayak alleged, by the action expressed by the MP officer present, that he was being detained by the MP . The MP officer's alleged intent was not to detain anyone, but make a non-custodial safety inquiry.
The NH Supreme Court heard both arguments. Three of the four justices then determined that the defendant had successfully articulated that he felt he was indeed being detained. They further determined that there was not enough articulable suspicion present to determine the "stop" warranted. Therefore evidence of the life jacket violation was inadmissable as the stop was not based on reasonable grounds.
Having had first hand experience with this particular subject uncountable times over a number of years, I welcome any off-line inquiries about this interesting issue. That said, I have exhausted my kindly alloted bandwidth granted by Don on this particular subject!
Skip