'Particular Individual' makes no sense

It's unfortunate. I know they were trying to mimic how cops use ridiculous lingo (legalese, by the way, so it's not random), as in 'decentralized' when talking about tackling someone. DECENTRALIZED?! Where did THAT come from?

Well, it has a very specific legalese meaning that might not correspond to english whatsoever.

A good example of using english-sounding legalese with specific, hidden meaning, is when a cop asks 'do you understand?' - it does not have anything to do with comprehension. It means 'Do you stand under my authority?'. This means that affirmation to this question would immediately CREATE AUTHORITY, so now they can basically do 'whatever they want', because you consented to standing under their authority!

So, in that kind of a sense, 'particular individual' might sound very corporate, very legalese, very typical for cop lingo, just like 'decentralize', but as I mentioned, it's unfortunate that the moviemakers, probably unwittingly, chose THIS particular (no pun intended) pairing of words.

First of all, those future dumbos in this movie would never be able to write or pronounce complicated words like that correctly. Second of all, their 'customers' would never understand what that means. Third of all.. and this is the kicker..

..cops would, and do NEVER use the word 'individual'.

There is a very deep legalese reason for this - they want you to identify as 'citizen' (human beings don't have government-issued (another legalese word, BTW) ID, only persons do, and persons are pretty much always 'artificial persons', almost never 'natural persons', although you sometimes see this written in official documents (I have seen it), but even this refers to 'artificial person' nowadays pretty much)..

They want you to identify as either citizen, person, ward of the state (as weird as that sounds, and as used to we are to it meaning only people that have been specifically 'taken into care' because they lack functionality or something), and so on. The person's name is written -almost- like the human's, but there's always a difference. Last name, first? Person. Last name capitalized? Person. Both names fully capitalized? Person.

Any of these weird ways, it's always referring to the person, with which you can perform a 'joinder', which then creates authority. Human beings only have to obey the law, persons are under government rules, codes, acts, statutes, so they have to obey all the zillions of legal system's rules. Law and legal system are different and separate, but the system tries to mix them together into one.

Individual, however, is how you refer to a HUMAN BEING, never a person. A person can't be 'individual', because it has no soul, no individuality, no life. It only exists on paper as data, numbers, etc. This is the legal fiction called 'artificial person' (you can research this easily, the courts usually use Black's Law Dictionary), that has all kinds of obligations.

If cops can't make you create a joinder between the human being and the person, they can't so easily boss you about, and lawfully, you have NO obligation to do anything they tell you to do, unless peace has been breached (law broken). Even the cops don't always know all of this, they just 'do their job' with the routine they have been trained with.

This means, they could NEVER, ever, not even in the dumbest future of all, call anyone 'individual' (particular or otherwise), or they would lawfully ADMIT that they're talking to a freeman on the land, not a person, not legal fiction, and thus do not have authority over them, since they have not broken the law.

Law is simple, it's based on the ten commandments - don't murder, don't steal, don't fraud - that sort of thing. Of course there's a bit of detail created by the precedent cases over history, but it only has the things people generally have consensus over throughout all time.

So, yeah.. it's unfortunate that they chose THAT word pairing instead of something like 'this particular person', which would've been perfect.

It's possible they did this deliberately, to add another layer of subtle humor, where the cops are so stupid and ignorant, they even don't bother creating authority but immediately release it, and then unlawfully do whatever anyway (this latter part is not that far from truth, sadly)..

In any case, it sadly makes no sense that the cops would use that, unless the humor is really, really more subtle than anyone could usually expect, in which case I rescind my claim about it not making sense.