detention, as Devenpeck acknowledges. See 543 U.S. at 155. The non-exhaustive list of states that have adopted such a requirement includes New York, California, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, all of which have enacted statutes to this effect. See N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 140.15(2); Cal. Penal Code § 841; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 263 § 1; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-401(c)(2)c. The Massachusetts statute—perhaps to impose the same standard of truthfulness on both law enforcement and everyday citizens—specifically requires that an officer’s statement be true, and punishes an officer’s false statement by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment for up to one year. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 263 § 1. Georgia’s courts have also established, by precedent, the requirement that an officer inform an arrestee of the cause of his or her arrest. See Dorsey v. State, 66 S.E. 1096, 1097–98 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910); see also Bashir v. Rockdale Cnty., 445 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2006) (reversing summary judgment for officers on the plaintiff’s state-law unlawful arrest claim because the officers did not inform the plaintiff of the crime for which he was arrested).
Most relevant here—as Magallon-Lopez was stopped in Montana by a Montana officer—Montana requires an arresting officer to “inform the person to be arrested of the officer’s authority, of the intention to arrest that person, and of the cause of the arrest.” Mont. Code Ann. § 46-6-312 (emphasis added). Magallon-Lopez has not asserted that his arrest was unlawful under this provision, and Montana’s courts have not extended the statute, applicable only to “arrests,” to Terry-type stops premised on reasonable suspicion, as occurred here. Nonetheless, that Montana and other states have such laws in place may guard against the frequent use of stops similar to the one here.
