Law enforcement has no obligation to explain the laws to you. One aspect of common-law, is that it is law that is equally applied to all. The logic is, if Bob

Law enforcement has no obligation to explain the laws to you. One aspect of common-law, is that it is law that is equally applied to all. The logic is, if Bob did thing $x, and Sally did thing $x, both should expect a similar outcome. This is because a person has a right to know how specific acts are interpreted by courts, for whatever legislation is being tried against. A person has a literal right in common-law, pre-dating most modern democracies, to know how a thing they do will be interpreted. And this is why most descendants of common-law legal systems, such as the US, put such strong strictures on prior judgements. It's vital. It's missed by many, but this is how people know how the law will be interpreted. And my point in all of this is, yes, 100%, under common-law, someone has to give you an idea of how your actions will be interpreted. It's core to common-law, and US law, is predicated upon common-law, criminal or civil. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", however, that does not remove the right to be informed of the law when asked! (Let's not dive into the few places that have napoleonic civil code in the US, and stick to federal law at least)