[dirtboy]

There is a reason the officer needs (not wants) to engage the driver in conversation. The need is derived from identifying impaired drivers.

Hey, why stop with conversation? Let's just pull everyone out of their cars and make them do a sobriety test without any kind of probable cause. It's for the children. /sarcasm

I'm sorry, but if a cop were ever to ask if he could search my car, I would refuse unless he could demonstrate probable cause or that they were engaged in a time-critical search such as an Amber alert. I don't have anything more on my record than a few traffic tickets, and if I'm gonna drink beer, I do it at home.

And then, if they insisted on searching anyway, after the bogus search, I would sue the crap out of their jurisdiction for allowing officers to trample on the 4th amendment. I'm glad some people are standing up to over-zealous enforcement actions.

[ellery]

Agreed. Government's "protection" of our rights atrophy if we don't exercise said rights. There are many places you can get arrested for legally and openly carrying a firearm, just because the cops aren't used to seeing citizens exercise their second amendment right.

The fourth and fifth amendments work the same way. This kid exercised his rights, even though it would have been easier to just go along/get along. Good for him.

[B-Chan]

I'm sorry, but if a cop were ever to ask if he could search my car, I would refuse...

I hope you like jail food...