The Secret Service, charged with assuring the safety and security of the sitting president, would prevent him from being arrested. It would be foolish for a municipal or state law enforcement agent to try, and there are any number of provisions by which federal law enforcement agencies (including the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Marshals Service, Department of Defense Policies, et cetera, could claim jurisdiction, take the over custody of the president, and then release him or her.
Although there is Constitutional protection of the Office of the President of the United States from being removed from authority, there is, perhaps surprisingly, no special protection of the president as an individual under the Constitution or United States Code against arrest or prosecution of crimes while in office, but there is a tradition and supporting opinions in various Federalist Papers and elsewhere that a sitting president should be able to operate freely without threat of arrest until he or she leaves office. The president can only be removed from office by the process of impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate for “high crimes and misdemeanors”, a standard that is vague enough to have been interpreted as perjury and obstruction of justice for lying under oath about consensual extramarital sex. (Bill Clinton was impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate on a vote that was mostly along party lines despite the essential facts of the case not being in dispute, presumably on the basis that getting a blowjob from an intern is not a "high crime or misdemeanor, which is probably a good thing because we’d have to reflect on the many former presidents who should have been impeached and were not.)
The president is not technically immune from civil suits, and in fact is frequently the target of such suits for various reasons (the investigation and impeachment of Bill Clinton started in part in response to a harassment suit by Paula Jones), but generally speaking may be given special consideration in being compelled to testify in deference to the requirements of the Presidential Office, e.g. a suit being deferred until leaving office, giving testimony by pre-recorded video, dismissal for being judged as politically motivated, et cetera. The president is not immune from violation of criminal statutes, hence why the incoming President Ford pardoned the outgoing President Nixon, but there is a rational argument for why a sitting president should not have to respond to local or state law enforcement lest he or she be hamstrung by politicallly motivated prosecution by unelected officials or agents who were only elected by a small segment of the population.
Bribery, graft, theft, extortion, racketeering, direct solicitation of money or real estate in exchange for services or influence, use of executive authority to intentionally violate individual rights, and conspiracy with others to do the same or conceal illegal activities before, during, and after the fact are all illegal and covered by federal statutes (Hobbs Act, Travel Act, RICO, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, mail and wire fraud provisions of interstate commerce laws, Federal Acquisition Regulations, et cetera), which is intended to prevent the officials including the president from just taking money or using influence of the Office of the President to enrich himself or otherwise commit illegal acts against the public interest.
However, short of openly committing a “high crime or misdemeanor” there is little that the president actually can’t do within the scope of Constitutional authority (as spelled out in Article 2 of the US Constitution), including issuing executive orders which direct action in violation of statute law or suspending such law, or making executive agreements with foreign governments and non-governmental actors (although to received funding or be instituted as treaty obligations they typically have to be ratified by the legislature). Such orders can only be contested by Federal court challenge or impeachment. The president can also invoke executive privilege and state secrets privilege to avoid disclosure of actions and orders, effectively shielding himself or herself from normal judicial review of executive decisions unless there is reason to believe that the actions were overtly criminal. About the only thing the president cannot do within the bounds of executive authority is simultaneously hold office and also be a member of the legislature or judiciary, introduce legislation, or dismiss members of the legislature, judiciary, or officials appointed by Senate confirmation.
The expectation is that a president will not use the enormous power entrusted in the office for personal enrichment, intentional violation of Constitutional protections, or to deliberate attack individuals for personal or partisan reasons, which is an assumption that we may be rethinking pretty shortly. There is certainly nothing preventing the president from holding a second job, having an outside stream of income, investing or owning companies or interests that may benefit from executive decisions and actions, or using executive authority to favor future interests. Although the president and cabinet members have traditionally put companies in which they have a controlling or significant interest or major assets into a blind trust managed by a supposedly impartial agent entrusted to oversee the trust without direction or regular communication with the owner, there is no Constitutional or legal requirement to do so
Here is a position paper from the Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository that briefly discusses the various pertinent Constitutional provisions and decisions, opining “Apart from these points about history and tradition, my basic constitutional argument is more structural than textual, sounding in both separation of powers and federalism,” i.e. the separation of financial and personal conflicts of interest is more about a tradition of integrity and respect for the office in order to permit the president to operate without undue restraint than any legal strictures, which is again something we may be reconsidering in the near future.
Stranger