On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:57:15 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
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.


BS. That is not the protocol, at least not here in NJ. The police
engage with stopped drivers and determine if the person appears to
be intoxicated and not fit to drive. Just because you're honest and
tell them you've had a couple drinks, doesn't mean they automatically
give you the field sobriety tests. They use your appearance, your speech,
how you're acting to determine if you appear to be drunk. And lying
about it, if the cop smells a whiff of alcohol, now he has two things,
one is you have had something to drink, the other is that you're lying.


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.


Only according to you and your ways. In my world, it worked out fine.
You can probe around the margins of the law all you want. Feel free to
hold up traffic, make a scene and explore uncharted territory. How
about in that youtube video, after taking enough BS, the cop just says that
he smells alcohol and ordered the guy out of the car to take the field
test? Now what? Refuse that, refuse to open the door, and test
what happens next? IMO, if he did, the cops would be within their
rights to force him out of the car. You and that guy can feel free
to resist, argue the law, wind up in jail and then sort it all out in
court, where you'd likely lose. Me, I cooperate and I'm on my way in
a minute.