The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

WYO · July 12, 2001, 09:26 AM

I have no problem with people asserting their rights. If paying $100 for a gadget makes them feel better, fine. The problem arises if their understanding, or the gadget's understanding, of those rights is incorrect. When someone stands pat on rights they do not have, they exacerbate their problem. As noted by Coronach, there are situations under which the police may order people from their vehicles. Also, if a person will not identify themselves to the police who stop them for a traffic violation (most DUI stops involve a predicate traffic violation), the police have no way of being assured that the violator will go to court to answer for the citation, resulting in a custodial arrest rather than a citation for the predicate violation. (Hence LawDog's arrest for failure to maintain lane.)

Also bear in mind that, while failure to participate in a DUI investigation may help in defending the DUI (but not the license revocation), stonewalling is more likely to result in a custodial arrest, which is stupid if the person would have been cleared because s/he is not drunk.

Also remember that the police officer has to think of DUI in terms of their own conscience and what could happen if the behavior is allowed to continue unabated. While I can understand the argument that there is no harm, no foul in an intoxicated driver who causes no personal injury or property damage, at the moment of the stop the officer has to be concerned with what will happen in the future if the driver is permitted to continue.

July 12, 2001, 09:26 AM	#18
WYO Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2001 Posts: 365	I have no problem with people asserting their rights. If paying $100 for a gadget makes them feel better, fine. The problem arises if their understanding, or the gadget's understanding, of those rights is incorrect. When someone stands pat on rights they do not have, they exacerbate their problem. As noted by Coronach, there are situations under which the police may order people from their vehicles. Also, if a person will not identify themselves to the police who stop them for a traffic violation (most DUI stops involve a predicate traffic violation), the police have no way of being assured that the violator will go to court to answer for the citation, resulting in a custodial arrest rather than a citation for the predicate violation. (Hence LawDog's arrest for failure to maintain lane.) Also bear in mind that, while failure to participate in a DUI investigation may help in defending the DUI (but not the license revocation), stonewalling is more likely to result in a custodial arrest, which is stupid if the person would have been cleared because s/he is not drunk. Also remember that the police officer has to think of DUI in terms of their own conscience and what could happen if the behavior is allowed to continue unabated. While I can understand the argument that there is no harm, no foul in an intoxicated driver who causes no personal injury or property damage, at the moment of the stop the officer has to be concerned with what will happen in the future if the driver is permitted to continue.