That is because that is the way you want to see it. I am relating what the reality of the situation is because the job has to be completed. The things I posted that the officer has to determine are not optional the law requires it to be done. If you don't want to talk with the officer that is fine you don't have to. You have that choice. However, the officer does not have a choice. Those things that he must determine don't go away because you have chosen not to answer the officer's questions. All of the other methods to determine the needed information take time to obtain. There is no way around the fact that if the officer has to obtain the information through these other methods, the traveler will have to wait for that information to be found. Is that last sentence sound nicer than the officer detained me to find the information that I didn't want to give him. I think it does but the result is the same. Like I said, I am trying to tell folks the reality of the process. It starts with the choice the traveler makes.

What I don't understand when discussing this topic is why folks believe if they choose not to answer the questions the officer is just going to throw his hands up in the air and say oh well have a nice day. He can not do that. I am not saying submit because it is easier not even close. I am trying to convey information concerning the process. The officer is being paid to do the job. The officer is given tools to complete that job in the form of databases, the authority to search, and seizure authority. All of these take more time than just being able to receive the information from the traveler. The amount of time it takes to complete that job doesn't matter to the officer. It is the result that matters. He has to have enough information to make a correct, articulable decision. That is because the officer may have to be able to defend that decision later. It is not intimidation. It is part of the process that must be done with or without the cooperation of the traveler.

FB