[MortMan]

What is confrontational is obvious. I haven't spoken to whether or not it's within the kid's rights to refuse to say where he's going. It certainly is. On the flip side, I find nothing "right-trampling" about revealing my destination to a police officer. I realize they have a job to do, and I'll give them some latitude. Until they take an attitude or action against me that crosses the line, I'll give them that.

Actually, the kid DID answer the police officer's question, thereby engaging him in conversation. Saying "I don't want to talk to you" is enough conversation for the officer to determine if the kid was slurring his words, or if he smelled of alcohol.

The "right trampling" part of all this is that the kid was punished (yes, that's the right word) for giving the officer an answer he didn't like. Detaining the kid in this situation is a definite abuse of power, especially given that the kid followed all instructions given by the officer. The illegal entry into and search of the kid's car is unconstitutional (he was not ASKED for his keys - he was ordered to give them over, and he was denied the right to move his car himself).

Police officers have a job to do, but evading their constitutional limits isn't in that description, FRiend.

[dennisw]

The "right trampling" part of all this is that the kid was punished (yes, that's the right word) for giving the officer an answer he didn't like. Detaining the kid in this situation is a definite abuse of power, especially given that the kid followed all instructions given by the officer.

He did not follow instructions because he refused to engage in conversation with the officer. This took place at a drunk driver roadblock. The police want to talk to you because that's how they can tell if you need further attention (a roadside sobriety test) or tell you to be on your way.