Because you don't have to answer the question, that's why. He is being reasonable. They should have told him to move along after he refused to answer it the first time. Getting three different cops to come up and repeat the question was ridiculous.

Also...
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1347317501

Has anything come of this?

Well that's a very 5 year old attitude. "I don't have to!" They are just trying to catch people driving under the influence, and refusing is slowing down their effort. If everyone refused, what would be the point of doing anything in law enforcement. Just fucking answer the question like the other 99% of people and stop being a doucher.

I would recommend this movie for anyone. It has a pretty good plot twist. Watch in HD Fullscreen!

It's difficult for me to put in words how fucked up what you just said is.

If you have committed a crime, or a police officer has a reasonable belief that you have or are about to commit a crime, then they are justified in stopping and questioning you.

If you have committed no crime, and there is no reason to believe you have or are about to, then the police have no right to stop and question you. While some police may do so anyways, you are under no obligation to answer any question while they fish for something to charge you with. Keep your mouth shut.

It doesn't matter if you're walking down the street or driving in your car. The man chose not to answer a question from a police officer that he was under no legal obligation to answer. It's very simple, and it's the right thing to do in almost all circumstances.

How about if police officers started going randomly door-to-door in your neighborhood, walking up to houses and asking whoever answered if they could come inside and search the place for anything that might be illegal? Are you saying that everybody should say yes if they're sure they don't have anything, and that people who refuse are morons just holding up progress?

Police don't/can't do this because everybody who has ever watched TV knows that cops need a warrant to come in your house and look for shit. Even if you're 100% sure you've got nothing wrong, there is no way you'd let a cop inside your house if they were just out randomly looking for somebody to arrest for something... you know you don't have to. It's perfectly legal for them to ask, but no f'ing way are you gonna go along with it.

It's the same thing with sobriety checkpoints. Simply operating a motor-vehicle at night does not equal a reasonable suspicion that you might be drunk. The cops can slow down traffic and peer inside your vehicle as you pull up to them, and ask you as many questions as they want, but you are under no obligation to answer... this issue is the most basic foundation of civil liberty. Most people do give a response because the Hollywood doesn't make movies about "Sir, you need a warrant to ask me if I've been drinking tonite", so people assume they must give an answer.

Each state has different guidelines on how they justify what is essentially a violation of your 4th Amendment right not to be fucked with for no reason. In some states, sobriety checkpoints are outright illegal.

You shouldn't be so dismissive of your rights or your liberties, and you certainly shouldn't call somebody childish because they chose not to compromise theirs.

I'll just cut/paste the entirety of the Wikipedia page for you... even SCOTUS can't agree on the base Constitutional legality of sobriety checkpoints.

Legality in the United States
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This fundamental right has a tense relationship with sobriety checkpoints. At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.

Driving under the Influence of alcohol is a special type of crime, as driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) over a set limit is defined as the crime; it is not necessary to drive recklessly or cause an accident in order to be convicted. To determine BAC accurately, it is generally necessary for the driver to subject himself to tests that are self incriminating, and drivers sometimes exercise their right against self incrimination to refuse these tests. To discourage this, some jurisdictions set the legal penalties for refusing a BAC test to equal or worse than those for a failing a BAC test.

In other jurisdictions, the legal system may consider refusing the roadside alcohol breath test to be probable cause, allowing police to arrest the driver and conduct an involuntary BAC test. The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.

While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.

Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.

Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that an exception was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. On the other hand, dissenting Justice Stevens countered that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

Jurisdictions that allow sobriety checkpoints often carve out specific exceptions to their normal civil protections, in order to allow sobriety checkpoints.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints to be constitutionally permissible, ten states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. Two other states (Alaska and Montana) do not use checkpoints even though they have not made them illegal. [12]

Legal guidelines for checkpoint procedures
In approving "properly conducted" checkpoints, Chief Justice Rehnquist implicitly acknowledged that there must be guidelines in order to avoid becoming overly intrusive. In other words, checkpoints cannot simply be set up when, where and how police officers choose. As often happens in Supreme Court decisions, however, the Chief Justice left it to the states to determine what those minimal safeguards must be, presumably to be reviewed by the courts on a case-by-case basis.
In an effort to provide standards for use by the states, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently issued a report that reviewed recommended checkpoint procedures in keeping with federal and state legal decisions. ("The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement", DOT HS-807-656, Nov. 1990) An additional source of guidelines can be found in an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint:


A checkpoint in the United States
Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.
A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.
Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.
The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.
Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.
Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.
Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.
Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.

Mk. I didn't read all of that, but I still stick with it's douchy. Any checkpoint I have gone through has been a simple, non intrusive "How are you? License please." Seconds later, if you have no warrants for your arrest, or you don't look geeked out of your mind on meth, or don't look drunk... "have a nice day/night". I really don't see the issue with this. Sure, the guy has the "right" to not answer, but why the fuck not.

I think the main issue I have is with people posting it on youtube like they are some kind of goddamn constitution fighters. You posted a fucking video of you being a douche. Good job.

Because he has the right not to, that's why the fuck not. Exercise them or lose them.

Kitty approved -

autism isn't retardation.

God told us not to answer, and we must follow God's words.

We can lose them whenever our government wants us to not have them anymore. I'm with Carlin, in that we have temporary privileges. People are delusional, or seeing what they want to see when they think we have some sort of "god given rights". We have rights, then the government takes them away. If they can be taken away, they are not rights.

:giggle: Well, I'm not exactly in a debate or reading of long text mood. I'm trying to keep my shit together at the moment. This could be debated until either side is blue in the face, and I will still stick with I think these people on youtube videos are being assholes. By all means, exercise your "rights", but in this case, I see no reason to not cooperate with the evil nazi pigs that everyone seems to hate. Good job, you showed them! really changing things for the better. I think it's more of a cop hate thing, than a rights thing. If all of these people were so worried about their rights, they would be fighting for all of our other more important rights that have been and are being taken away, slowly, day by day.

We ARE the government, are you kidding me?

i hope God smites thee.

You have a warped idea of what it is to be a human being and the role of OUR government. You pathedic little sheep. BAaaaaaaaaaaaaa