LAWYER: If Cops Ask "Where You Coming From?" - Say THIS (Simple Phrase)

Overview

The video argues that a police officer’s seemingly friendly question during a traffic stop—“Where you coming from tonight?”—is not harmless small talk. The creator claims it is a deliberate first step in a DWI (drunk/impaired driving) investigation, trained using guidance from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Core Claims: How the “Trap” Works

• The question is “phase one” of a DWI investigation

  • The presenter says DWI training manuals instruct officers to start with casual, open-ended conversation (e.g., where you’re headed/coming from) to get the driver talking before stating the true basis for the stop.

• It creates opportunities to gather evidence

  • The presenter claims the officer can use the driver’s answers to build a timeline, infer alcohol exposure, and set up contradictions.

• “No good answer” argument

  • The creator describes a sequence of follow-up questions:
    • If the driver admits being at a friend’s house, then the officer asks how long, then asks whether the driver drank—so that either:
      • admitting alcohol becomes an inculpatory admission, or
      • denying alcohol allows the officer to accuse the driver of lying (which the presenter claims juries judge harshly).

• Divided attention / impairment detection

  • The video emphasizes that the goal is not only the content of answers, but also observing the driver’s ability to multitask (e.g., retrieving documents while answering). The presenter claims inability to do this is treated as impairment evidence in training.

• Even “perfect” answers are used

  • If a driver gives an apparently clean explanation (e.g., coming home from work), the presenter claims officers will push for more details to watch speech, eye movements, and response delays, which are then written into reports as signs of impairment.

• Report-writing strategy that punishes either behavior

  • The presenter claims officers are trained to interpret:
    • too much talking, or
    • too little talking as consistent with impairment—so either way can be used against the driver.

Recommended Response (“Exact Words”)

The presenter advises refusing to answer the “where you coming from” question and instead using two sentences:

1. “Officer, I am exercising my right not to answer any questions.”
2. “Is there anything you need from me regarding the reason for this stop?”

Reasoning Given

• This is portrayed as legally “redirecting” the interaction back to the traffic violation (e.g., speeding) and placing the officer in a constraint where they can’t legitimately expand the stop into a DWI investigation based on the refusal to answer.

If the Officer Insists It’s “Just a Simple Question”

• The video advises politely repeating the rights-based redirect and asking whether the driver is free to leave.

If the Officer Escalates

• If the officer demands the driver get out of the car, the presenter cites Pennsylvania v. Mims as context for officers claiming “officer safety” to justify further actions.
• The presenter instructs:
  • maintaining silence,
  • not cooperating with additional questioning, and
  • refusing consent to search.

Bottom-Line Message

The creator concludes that a traffic stop should be treated as a criminal investigation rather than a conversation, and that constitutional rights must be exercised to avoid falling into trained conversational and evidentiary traps.

Legal / Case References Mentioned

• United States v. Brigham
• United States v. Wood
• Pennsylvania v. Mims

Presenter / Contributor

• Jeff (referred to as “Jeff,” e.g., “Jeff, look…”)