trader_4
Mon, 17
Oct 2016 15:55:36 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:33:57 PM UTC-4, Roger Blake
wrote:
On 2016-10-16, Diesel wrote:
That's the mindset that allows cops to do whatever they please
most of the time. The driver was invoking his rights as a
citizen of the United States.

Absolutely. The cops had no evidence that a crime was being
committed. The driver was not pulled over for erratic operation
of his vehicle, nor was their any alcohol smell.

There is no requirement to answer police questions and you are
better off *not* doing so. ESPECIALLY if they are accusing you
of a crime, as any defense attorney will tell you.


And I would disagree. I was stopped once at a DUI checkpoint
after I had been drinking. I fully cooperated, when asked, told
them that I had a couple drinks with dinner, they asked a few more
questions, sent me on my way.

The cop obviously wasn't doing his job then. You should have been
(since you volunteered it) submitted to field sobriety tests to
ensure you were still safe to drive. Just another example of cops
picking and choosing what laws they'll enforce and when they'll do
it.

cop smells a whiff of alcohol on me, he'd be within the law to
have me take field sobriety tests, then a breathalyzer if they
thought I failed those. Would I be better off? Suppose the
breathalyzer shows .09, I'd be toast.

Technically, as soon as you said "Yes" to his have you had anything
to drink, he was already within the law to test you. And, he should
have.


--
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin