Fred Maske

Dude owns the DUI stop. Tells the cops the constitution just worked. ​When this driver rolled up to a nighttime New Mexico State Police sobriety checkpoint, he knew exactly how the law worked, and he put on an absolute clinic in asserting Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights without ever losing his cool. ​Instead of rolling his window all the way down, handing over his license, or volunteering answers to roadside questions, he cracked the glass just an inch or two, enough to communicate, but deliberately blocking the officers from leaning inside. ​What followed is a textbook demonstration of how roadside detentions legally function: ​The Window Crack & The Initial Pushback: The stopping officer immediately asks him to roll down the window. Rather than complying or arguing, the driver goes straight to the core question: "Am I free to go?" ​When the trooper attempts to initiate investigative questioning, "Have you consumed any alcohol tonight?", the driver refuses to take the bait. He doesn't confess, make excuses, or get hostile. He repeats: "Am I free to go? We can do this all night long. Am I free to go?" ​Calling in the Supervisor: Unsure of how to bypass a citizen asserting their rights, the trooper calls for backup: "Hey Chief, how do you want to handle this one?" ​A supervisor steps in and attempts a standard roadside maneuver: the "plain smell" check. She tells the driver: "Can you roll your window down just a little bit because I'm so short and I can't smell into the vehicle?" ​The driver stays calm and firm: "I prefer to leave it right here. No, thank you." ​The Decisive Legal Checkmate: Knowing the officers are trying to stall and find reasonable suspicion, the driver asks the single question that strips away all police discretion: ​"Am I being detained, sir?" ​On camera, the supervisor has to answer truthfully: "No, sir." ​"Am I free to go?" ​"Yes, sir." ​Within seconds, the driver puts the car in drive and leaves without rolling down the window, answering a single question, or handing over ID. ​Why Did This Actually Work? ​Many people assume police checkpoints give law enforcement unlimited authority, but the law says otherwise: ​Strict Limits on Checkpoints (Michigan v. Sitz & City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt): Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Michigan v. Sitz, 1990), suspicionless DUI checkpoints are only permissible under narrow exceptions to the Fourth Amendment for brief, standardized administrative screenings. In New Mexico, state constitutional law under City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt (1987) places even stricter limits on officer discretion, requiring checkpoints to be tightly managed with minimal intrusion. ​The Fifth Amendment Remains Intact: A sobriety checkpoint does not eliminate your right to remain silent. You are under no legal obligation to answer investigative questions like "Where are you headed tonight?" or "Have you had anything to drink?" Refusing to answer is not an admission of guilt. ​Denying the "Plain Smell" Doctrine: Officers routinely ask motorists to roll their windows down completely to smell for alcohol, burnt cannabis, or masking agents, and to look inside for open containers. Because cracking the window satisfies the ability to communicate safely and there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, the driver was under no legal order to roll the glass down further. ​The Terry Detention Threshold: To hold a driver beyond the initial brief administrative stop, officers must have specific, articulable reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot (e.g., slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, odor of intoxicants, erratic driving). The driver spoke clearly, calmly, and rationally. Because the officers had zero observable indicators of impairment, they had no legal basis for an investigative detention. ​The moment law enforcement admits on camera that you are not being detained, the seizure has ended, and legally, you are free to go.