Everything I read basically says that you must do what a LEO says to do unless the action ordered is itself unlawful. There are, of course, exceptions and specifics that have been clarified by courts but, generally speaking, it seems that a "Do this..." is a "lawful order".
--BP
Also its a DUI check point a lot of drunks try to keep the smell of the alcohol in the car by only rolling the window down partly, so you see my point about it being a lawful order?
--kx
And people conceal weapons illegally under their clothes, it doesn't automatically mean an order to lift one's shirt is lawful and constitutes a reasonable search barring any other evidence of wrong doing. The pedestrian equivalent of a dui checkpoint was the NYC stop and frisk program(instead of drunk driving being the motivating factor, it's concealed weapons)...they were stopping lots of people, just for being at certain areas at certain times, so then by the previous logic, this was lawful, the officers told them to do something, which in itself wasn't an illegal, so it was a lawful order... A further parallel is that the officers ability to go observe and question someone on the street is not in question, but rather how far they are allowed to go, and with what does a person have to comply. Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional, and lower courts decision has not yet been challenged.
Similarly, one of the issues here surrounding the idea of lawful or unlawful order, specifically in this case, is that SCOTUS did their normal extreme specificity in their ruling in the Michigan case. They explicitly stated that the seizure/detention is ok and that questioning and observation are ok. But remained silent as to what exactly is still considered reasonable under these circumstances. They did not answer the question whether the additional intrusion into someones private space afforded by to what degree a window is rolled down constitutes a search, they didnt address whether that's a form of self-incrimination, and they left the details of what a "proper" checkpoint is up to the states. Additionally, they did not specify whether a person must comply with the questions and observations, just that they may be conducted.
Without knowing the TN law and constitution its pretty difficult to make these determinations. However, based on the Michigan decision, a partially rolled down window does not with an officers ability to communicate with the person inside, which then hinges on does it interfere with the ability to observe. So assuming the officer is only asking for the window to be rolled down so that he/she may look for evidence beyond a barrier, arguably a search, is it a search and is that search reasonable? Is there an expectation of privacy in ones car, from olfactory intrusion? Katz v US would imply that you have an expectation of auditory privacy in your car, so does that extend to smells? It is also worthy to note that Katz spells out that physical intrusion is not necessary for a search to have occurred, so even though the officer doesn't physically intrude into the space, a search could have still occurred.
So is it a lawful order? Does that order, lawful or not, constitute a search? I don't know, but it is dangerous to assume just because an officer says something that it is lawful or that you must comply.
