Replies

I'm amazed at how the tone of civility has completely disintegrated on this topic. Police officers uphold an oath to SERVE AND PROTECT their communities. While some may do this more zealously than others, officers deserve civility and respect from those they serve.

Can someone please tell me what was so unconstitutionally offensive about the officer's initial question? What the hell is wrong with answering the police officer in a civil, cooperative and honest manner? Especially of you have nothing to worry about and have done nothing wrong?

This kid made an issue out of a non-issue - the officer asked where he was going, but the kid got self righteous and defensive. IMO, the officer was justified by asking "Where are you headed tonight?" if, after looking at the kid's license info, it was determined that the kid was heading the opposite direction of where he actually lived. And especially so if it was late at night (prime time drinking hours). The officer(s) were very civil in this situation in light of the arrogance of this twerp.

"I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you officer..."?????

This statment reeks of "I'm above the law, you lowly law enforcement officer...how dare you set up this roadblock and infringe upon my right to give you as much sh*t as I think you deserve because I have an axe to grind against you and your Gestapo like tactics!!!"

This kid came to a POLICE ROADBLOCK - did he expect a once over glance from the officer and an ass kiss apology for the "inconvenience" of being stopped??? Nope...this kid had an agenda. As stated many times previously, who comes to a police roadbolck with a video camera rolling unless they are out to create a situation? Those who go looking for trouble are pretty successful in finding it (or creating it themselves).

Yeah, this kid is a real *patriot* for being nothing more than a wise-ass and wasting more of the officers time than they could already spare. Say what you will about the legitimacy of these roadblocks, but the cops were just doing what they were assigned to do. I'm sure they were thrilled to death to have this piece of work stop and create more havoc and headache for them.

Can someone please tell me what was so unconstitutionally offensive about the officer's initial question?

1. It's none of the officer's business.

2. It's not in the enumerated powers of the government (or, by extension, its agents) to gather information on the comings and goings of its citizenry under threat of arrest for a non-answer.

3. The government does not have rights. It has enumerated powers. Government (or agents thereof) may not act beyond the limits of those enumerated powers. This officer attempted to do so.

What the hell is wrong with answering the police officer in a civil, cooperative and honest manner?

Please explain where the enumerated powers of government allow law enforcement officers to compel answers to their nosy questions.

IMO, the officer was justified by asking "Where are you headed tonight?" if, after looking at the kid's license info, it was determined that the kid was heading the opposite direction of where he actually lived.

He is an adult, not a minor child. The comings and goings of adult citizens are not the business of law enforcement in the absence of probable cause to believe that the citizen in question has committed a crime. Not being willing to answer nosy questions does not rise to the level of giving the officer probable cause.

Can someone please tell me what was so unconstitutionally offensive about the officer's initial question?

At times there may be good and legitimate reasons for not wanting to tell cops where you're going. For example, someone who is driving to the campaign office of a candidate opposing the local boss might well prefer not to tell the police his destination.

While it's doubtful that this driver was on this occasion going anyplace he wouldn't want anyone to know about, requiring drivers to always state any non-controversial destinations would inherently flag any controversial ones. Imagine someone asked the following questions in court:

Q: Did you sleep with Mrs. Smith?
A: No.
Q: Did you sleep with Mrs. Jones?
A: No.
Q: Did you sleep with Mrs. Johnson?
A: No.
Q: Did you sleep with Mrs. Reardon?
A: That's none of your business.

The witness' willing answers to the first three questions effectively forced him to answer the fourth even if he was not compelled to answer. By contrast, had he answered "That's none of your business" to the first question, the lawyer would not have been able to extract information that was none of his business.

There goes more of that 'If you don't have anything to hide, citizen, you have nothing to worry about. So, if you have nothing to hide, you surely won't mind me searching through your belongings while you sit over there on the curb' mentality.

In your eyes, someone videotaping encounters with the police is doing something wrong, yet police who are throwing up roadblocks and asking citizens 'Your papers, please' are doing something right.

Thanks for posting, Captain America.