Marquette players who are cited for "underage" in a club
In this case a man who informed his fellow citizens there was an unconstitutional soberity checkpoint ahead, was harassed by the police. Indeed, checkpoints are often advertised in newspapers beforehand, in an effort to give an apperance of being constitutional. They are unconstitutional because there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime.
They might be good public policy but when it comes to the Constituiton, they don't have much, if any standing. By the way, citizens have the right to inform their fellow Americans of government actions, especially checkpoints that were publicized already. What they also have a right is against self incrimination.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees to citizens the right not to make statements that would incriminate themselves. But, police commonly ask people do they have a gun or a weapon when stopped, even for a traffic offense.
While the police can ask this, a person who has an illegal weapon (such as not in full compliance with a state gun law) is not mandated to state they do have a weapon, because that would be a 5th Amendment violation. Now, if someone is in full compliance with a gun law, that would be a different issue, because it wouldn't involve a 5th Amendment right.
The police can also ask you where you are going but you are free to ignore him or her, especially when it involves a burnt out license plate light, as in the link just above.
Of course what is your right, and what a cop chooses to respect during a stop, are two totally different things. If the officer is a member of the ACLU, you are probably in good shape.
Passengers of course, during a traffic stop, unless there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime that the passenger might be involved in, do not have to produce I.D.
Oh by the way, Marquette basketball players were cited for being underage in a club in downtown Milwaukee. They are of course, adults. Old enough to sign contracts and fight for their nation, but not to drink. I wonder how they were found out to be under 21. Did police demand I.D. and if so, is that not a violation of reasonable suspicion? After all, someone 20 does not enact reasonable suspicion by an officer that the person is under 21.
Does not the criteria of reasonable suspicion exist for those who might possibly look under 21, but don't clearly look under that age?