Assuming you're talking about the handheld roadside units and not the calibrated stationary units, those 'slight inaccuracies' can be the difference between being let go or giving the cop any evidence to claim you're intoxicated and hauling you into the station for processing. And again, the cop is only looking for excused to list as grounds for further suspicion and justification for hauling you in. Don't do their jobs for them by voluntarily participating in any investigation that isn't required by law.

If you're referring to my comment about potentially refusing the breathalyzer at the station knowing it likely constitutes an admission of guilt; that can be the difference between being just over the limit or facing an Aggravated DUI charge for having a recklessly high BAC and finding out there are some distinct increases in penalties between the two. Realistically, someone with a BAC that puts them into Aggravated DUI territory isn't likely to be thinking clearly enough to make that decision, but still with mentioning.

Obviously, no one should drink and drive in the first place, but if someone finds themselves in such a situation and is arrested it's likely better to know the difference in consequences, legally.

The roadside field sobriety test exists purely for the cop (s) to claim they saw further evidence you were intoxicated or under the influence and can be refused in most of not all states. It is never going to prove you are sober and is not in anyone's best interests except the cop's; check your state laws and never consent to the sobriety tests.

Similarly, the hand held portable breathalyzer can be refused in most of not all states, but if they (cop) decide to arrest you and bring you to the station then refusing the calibrated breathalyzer test machine (or blood or urine tests in some cases) there typically is worded as an admission of guilt in many states. Check your state laws and never agree to any breathalyzer unless doing so explicitly results in license forfeiture or implied admission of guilt. Even then, it may still be in a person's best interests to refuse.

If you owe the bank a million dollars, you have a problem.

If you owe the bank a billion dollars, the bank has a problem.

If you owe the banks tens to hundreds of billions of dollars based upon hocus-pocus stock valuations and branding hype, a big chunk of the system has a problem.

Speak to them through the closed/locked door, DO NOT open the door or exit your home unless they are serving a warrant, at which point you should be asking to see it.

Stepping outside can potentially impact your protection under different interpretations of constitutional rights and also opens the doors to a litany of manufactured charges/claims from the police to justify entering the home or seizing individuals.

• They got aggressive and threatening and/or assaulted an officer.
• I saw ______ inside the home when they opened the door.
• I detected the scent/signs of ______.

Getting back into your house once outside is infinitely more likely to trigger the cops to escalate the situation compared to never exposing yourself to that rush by not opening the door to begin with.

Not to mention the garbage where somehow an officer can place their foot/body into the open doorway of you open the door at which point if you attempt to close the door they claim assaulting an officer.

Don't open the door. Don't go outside to speak with them. If they've got a warrant they're not going to be asking.