I think you would be within your rights to tell the officer it is not their business without reasonable suspicious of criminal conduct. "Pound sand" might cause a ruckus but still...

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Not surprising, as your own post indicates you may well have a drinking problem.

Lemme' ask you something" If you were walking down the street (and, just for fun, let's assume you're sober) and a cop approached you and asked you what you were doing, where you were going, etc., would you sue the police department for violating your "rights"?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Nobody would sue, but any American who respects and understands his or her rights would politely decline to answer any of those questions.

Americans have a reputation for being among those who know the least about their rights - except for the basic standardized freedom bullshit they always puke up.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

I recently tried to have a discussion on constitutional rights with some Aussies. Didn't go over too well when we realized they didn't really have a constitution, per se......

So, why would you suppose we have this bad reputation, and where do we have this bad reputation? Amongst what people?

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

My wanting to have a drink with Miranda means I may have a drinking problem? Funny. If having an occasional drink with a friend indicates a drinking problem, then yes, I must be an alcoholic.

No, I wouldn't sue, because I'm not one of those sue-crazy types. Since I'd probably be caught off gaurd, I'd probably answer their questions politely - that's what I do when a cop asks me a question. Then, after coming to my senses, I'd ask them why they were asking me such questions. Depending on their answers, I might ask them for their badge numbers.

Edit: If a cop were to stop and question me right now, I'd probably give him some pretty wise-assed answers.
Q: What are you doing?
A: Walking
Q: Where are you going?
A: That way (pointing in a forward direction)

Have I come close to suggesting that a person couldn't do that?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Hey, you're the one said he goes stumbling home from the neighborhood bar...

Good...

And do what with them?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Again, I'm not the one who said that Steve. If you're going to accuse some one of having a drinking problem, please keep your posters straight.

That depends on the cops, and the situation. I don't want asshole cops in my town harrasing people. However, if they were polite about it, and appologized for wasting my time or some such, I'd probably do nothing with their badge numbers.

But they still would've "harrassed" you, right?

So what would you do with their numbers?

Or is it okay if someone "harrasses" you, provided they're polite about?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I don't particularly care what you "call".

I know it happened, because I was awoken at three in the morning to go get the guy...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I'd say it poses a problem, I can never have just *a* drink.


But, if just having a drink is the criteria when checking someone for a drinking problem, then half of this forum ought to be in the Betty Ford clinic right now.

__________________
"We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell." - Oscar Wilde

That was me, actually. And that was many, many moons ago, when I was young and had the time to carouse. Please try to keep your posters straight. If anybody has earned the right of being called a "drunkard" based on our comments in this thread, it would be me, and possible Miranda.

Hey Miranda!

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Well, we've already established that it is illegal for them to stop and question me without probable cause - so yes, they would've "harrassed" me. However, if they were polite about it and appologized, I would forgive them and do nothing with their numbers. After all, they're only human, and I recognize the fact that they've got a tough job being in law enforcement. On the other hand, if they were assholes about it, I may be tempted to file some sort of complaint against them with the department - I've never had to actually go that far, though.

When it comes to DUI checkpoints, I've never really given it much consideration one way or another. With the ones by me, the spectacle is visible from some distance, and I'd imagine that people driving intoxicated just turn around and take side streets to get around it. I've gone through a few of them, and was only once even asked to roll down my window. My general perception was that that the whole thing was a feel-good waste of time and my tax money.

As to the constitutionality of any such thing, I don't really think of driving as any kind of right, which I believe lowers the expectation of privacy that one might have while on the road. Don't get me wrong, the whole practice of DUI/seatbelt checkpoints strikes me as a vaguely Orwellian institution that would suit Mother Russian better than these United States, but I don't have a constitutional argument against it, per se, as much as an argument that it's simply a useless waste of time (given that police patrolling the roads are more likely to spot weavers/drifters than they are smoking cigarettes and bullshitting by the side of the road while causing traffic backup).

Another theme that I've seen in my perusal of this thread is one of my favorites - "if you're doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about". That rather craven sentiment has always, for some reason, reminded me of the teacher's pet in school, growing up. Obviously, there isn't any real parallel to the discussion in this thread, but, still, I can't get the image of this kid from my high school officiously informing my friends and I of that when we found it objectionable to have to blow in the activities director's face on the way into prom to prove we weren't shnockered. By all means, I'll suffer any indignity and inconvenience that anyone might impose in order to prove how virtuous I am. But, I digress with this trip down memory lane.

I think that the fundamental problem with this line of reasoning, in general, is that it produces a mentality where authority is given a carte blanche. That's all well and fine for elementary school children, but we live in a world where the authority figures and subjects of authority are all adults with various opinions and a stance on otherwise equal footing. I refuse to accept, at face value, that any policy or implementor of that policy is doing things simply for the Greater Good. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Of course, in a situation where someone is driving visibly drunk and pulled over by the police, there isn't much room for interpretation or philosophical discussion - we have a law breaker and a law enforcement officer correctly enforcing the law. Where I grow more concerned is the "ends justify the means" attitude implicit in the statement "if you're doing nothing wrong, what do you have to worry about"? That is, expanded, this sentiment seems to suggest an attitude of "I trust those in authority to get it right all of the time, so I won't concern myself with the details of application. Rather, I'll simply accept as a matter of absolute faith in those in charge that good will be rewarded and evil will be punished and thus anything they choose to do by way of enforcement is, ipso facto, fine with me."

Undoubtedly, this is a very idealistic attitude toward law and order. I, personally, don't share such optimism toward any governing or authority body. This is not to say that I inherently distrust any authorities - just about every interaction that I've had with police in the last five years has been cordial and generally helpful to me. However, I do allow for the possibility of error, abuse of power, etc. As such, I prefer to see some sort of avenue for people who feel they have grievances to pursue them. I categorically do not take the attitude of endless trust that, simply because I do nothing wrong, my world will be filled with nothing but penny whistles and moon pies.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson