Which case established the principle that individuals can refuse to cooperate during police encounters?

The principle that individuals can refuse to cooperate during police encounters is primarily established through the case of US v. Mendenhall. In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court recognized that individuals are not required to answer police questions or comply with requests when they are not free to leave—that is, when they are effectively detained by law enforcement. This case emphasizes the importance of personal liberty and the notion that citizens maintain the right to refuse to engage with law enforcement unless formally detained or arrested, promoting a balance between individual rights and police authority.

While Miranda v. Arizona is critical for establishing the requirement of informing individuals of their rights during custodial interrogations, it does not specifically address the broader principle of refusing to cooperate. Florida v. Royer pertains to scenarios involving the stop and identification of individuals, focusing on an officer's authority but not explicitly on refusal. Terry v. Ohio deals with the standards for stop-and-frisk procedures, primarily discussing reasonable suspicion in relation to searches and seizures, rather than the refusal of cooperation.