Quote:
Originally Posted by Dueller
"[I was arrested for public drunkeness]...I had the right to remain silent but not the ability." --Ron White
The OP asked the basic question Why would anyone incriminate themselves. It was in the context of a suspected DUI stop so this discussion has degenerated into a debate over implied consent law.
As to core original question people let's change the facts a bit. Suppose you are pulled over because your car was observed a a murder crime scene. The officer approaches and in the course of a brief investigatory stop asks you are there any weapons in the car. You have a CCP AND THERE IS A PISTOL IN YOUR CAR. WHAT IS your answer? What if he then asks do you know anything about murder of John Doe? Do you say we'll I only shot him twice in the leg but I'm no murderer much like a "I've only had two beers" response to have you bee drinking question.
|
Is there really a parallel their? Its perfectly legal for all but the smallest guy or the largest beer to have 2 and drive. Leg shooting, not so much.
If you tell an officer you had two beer is their a legal basis for him to envoke probable cause or whatever the jargon is? If so is this any different than "I prefer not to say officer".
I fully support our 5th amendment right, but grayscale for me is what constituents evidence for probable cause? I am sure this is abused frequently, and is more alarming than a cop forcing a test on somebody with legitimate cause