Well, the police officer has a conundrum. You are supposed to follow a lawful order, and yet police believe any order is lawful. However, the Supreme Court has said that a police officer is not obligated to be truthful. In other words, the Court has declared that the default position is the police are permitted to lie. If they are legally allowed to lie than whatever order the police gives has to be understood to be an unlawful order, not lawful.
Most states define "Pedestrian" to mean any natural person afoot. "Traffic" means pedestrians while using for purposes of travel any highway or private road open to public travel. And, "Person" means every natural person. So, what states have done is convert an unenumerated right to travel into a regulated privilege.
The United States Supreme Court has stated that the right of travel is most likely protected from state interference by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Kent v. Dulles (1958), 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204, 1210 (“The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment”); Williams v. Fears (1900), 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 129, 45 L.Ed. 186, 188 (“the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of * * * liberty * * * secured by the Fourteenth Amendment”).
As a fundamental right, the right to intrastate travel “is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law.” Kent v. Dulles (1958), 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204, 1210.
When gallivanting about and the nice police officer decides to interfere with your jaunt remember he should be presumed to be a bald faced liar.
JMHO