You can’t interfere with an investigation. Refusing to let them test your tint is not valid under the fourth (NAL). It applies to not providing them information.
Example (NAL): You don’t have to tell them your name. They can charge you for obstruction, but if you have the means to fight it, I think that would be a beatable charge.
My example is people who scream why five hundred times in the backseat after failing a field sobriety test or deliberately trying to run (or other cases when there’s obvious reason for the arrest). This is very different from contesting, such as the college student athlete who is suing a department because an officer power-tripped and arrested him when he was obviously fine / not impaired.[0]
You can’t interfere with an investigation. Refusing to let them test your tint is not valid under the fourth (NAL). It applies to not providing them information.
Example (NAL): You don’t have to tell them your name. They can charge you for obstruction, but if you have the means to fight it, I think that would be a beatable charge.
My example is people who scream why five hundred times in the backseat after failing a field sobriety test or deliberately trying to run (or other cases when there’s obvious reason for the arrest). This is very different from contesting, such as the college student athlete who is suing a department because an officer power-tripped and arrested him when he was obviously fine / not impaired.[0]
[0] https://reason.com/2024/02/14/iowa-cops-arrested-a-sober-college-student-for-driving-intoxicated-his-lawsuit-is-moving-forward/
I said fifth. you don’t have to do their investigation for them or aid in any way.
Whoops, I mixed them up. My mistake. Fifth for remaining silent, fourth for unreasonable searches.
4th should apply too, but yeah, you can’t make someone incriminate themselves lol.