stated earlier in this opinion, Defendant’s detention was brief during the initial contact, and nothing about the context, content, scope, or purpose of the question about drinking has been attacked. Defendant attacks the question because it was not in the script. We are unpersuaded. The breach of procedure in this case was too insubstantial to constitute constitutional harm. At the point the question was asked, the deviation did not change the detention from one of reasonable detention to one of unreasonable detention or require an individualized suspicion of intoxication. The constitutional status of the roadblock remained intact during the brief, minimally intrusive initial contact, and the reasonableness of the initial contact and detention was not diminished by the questio r.1997) (<HOLDING>). What is required is keeping the exercise of
holding that a traffic stop is valid under the fourth amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring holding that traffic stops based on probable cause are valid even if the officer stopping the vehicle suspects that the occupant is engaged in other illegal activity holding that reasonable suspicion standard applies to routine traffic stops holding that a public officer has no discretion or authority to misinterpret the law holding that no authority exists demanding that an officer be held either to a script or denied reasonable discretion which is necessary to conduct a series of traffic stops occurring in a free and unstructured world