OK I'll play your silly game cite where the police can tell you to take your hands out of your pocket?
I believe this policy might be derived out of the officers concern for the safety of self and those around them. There are many lethal weapons that can be concealed in a pocket. For instance I can conceal my full sized Springfield XD in my sweatshirt pocket. Additionally when I'm standing around in the cold I like to use said pocket to keep my hands warm. Knowing that other people can also hide weapons in similar pockets I see it very reasonable for someone whose life is on the line when dealing with you to request(order) you to keep your hands in plain sight instead of inside cavernous pockets containing who-knows-what.
Realistically the only way for an officer to know what a person may be concealing in their pockets is to search them themselves. Unless you're advocating a desire for officers to start patting down everyone they encounter in their duties without first obtaining RAS I would be careful about using this as an argument. I REALLY don't want police officers having to turn into TSA agents.
Where they can draw the line between fearing for their own safety and the inconveniencing of others is an interesting question, but violating our rights is a good sign that they've crossed said line. As to what provision specifically grants them the authority to order you to do so(keeping your hands in plain sight), IANAL so I don't know the specific code but I suspect it exists and this specific order would be legal.
Please cite in federal, state or local law where you are allow to watch TV?
Here is where we have a problem. In our society laws are written to prevent actions from being allowed(making those actions illegal). They are not written to make actions permissible. Just as we obtain the ability to Openly Carry a firearm because no law exists to prevent it, where there is presently no law that exists(to my knowledge) to prevent us from watching TV, the action is LEGAL.
I'm guessing you know this, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're implying that because an officer has the right to tell you to do one thing out of reasonable fear for his safety that he has the right to tell you to do anything he wants is just plain bs. We are not required to obey unlawful orders, we are required to comply with lawful orders to the extent required by law.
How do you think the police detect that it is possible that someone is driving impaired?
This is not my problem, this is THEIR(police officers) problem. It's not our job to make ourselves available for interrogation at the whim of another person. Ordering someone to do that requires a subpoena. The OP declared his intention to plea the fifth and not speak to the police. This is NOT an admission of guilt whatsoever, it's a statement designed to inform the officer that they would NOT be getting an opportunity to get him to make any such statement via deception or any other form of intimidation.
As far as I think most of us are concerned, if a person exercises their Fifth Amendment rights they should not be forced to speak another word to the officer. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, in the youtube audio the ignorant officer then blatently lied and said "You're not under arrest, so that doesn't apply" BS. "We just have a few questions for you, you're not under arrest...you don't need a lawyer." I'm sure there are MANY convicted persons who regret believing in those words. Police are not our friends, and as long as there's a strong mentality of "Us vs them" and the "Blue Code of silence" in the force I see no reason to inconvenience myself to make their lives any easier.
There's a youtube video from a law professor full of reasons why you should NEVER speak to the police under any circumstances. Especially when you've done nothing wrong. I'm also fairly certain that the officer insisting that he continue speaking with the OP after he declared his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and requesting legal counsel constitutes a violation of protocol in and of itself. But this isn't about that.
The fact that the OP(and others) is not comfortable dealing with what they perceive as a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights; and exercise their Fifth Amendment right to shield themselves from it makes police angry or frustrated is irrelevant. It is not a crime to make a person or group of people uncomfortable or pissed off. I'm an atheist, I don't believe god exists. I'm pretty sure I just pissed someone off with that sentence, but it's not a crime to do so.
As to whether the current Supreme Court decision can be the be-all-end-all determination as to whether DUI Roadblocks are constitutional, I'd like to remind you that at one time that same court ruled in FAVOR of slavery/discrimination. The fact that they later went on to rectify their mistake and overrule that decision means that they are not infallible and their decisions CAN BE WRONG.
As to whether or not this is one of those times remains to be seen, I know that many people think it is. That belief does not make them hypocrites, it makes them patriots. Warrantless wiretaps, imperialism, imprisonment without due process, torture. Just because our government or those acting on its behalf do something does not make it right or just.
Unlike the TV commercial where the cab of the vehicle is filled with beer that sloshes out to the pavement, they have to use things like erratic driving, or the smell of alcohol. It is generally accepted that smells do not penetrate glass. So if you don't want to roll down the window you are impairing/obstruction the ability of the officer to fulfill the legally allowed purpose of the DUI checkpoint.
I certainly agree that erratic driving(and even the smell of alcoholic beverages - alcohol is odorless) is a good sign of intoxication. However, it's not our duty to violate our privacy in order to convince an Officer that we're NOT violating the law. Innocent until proven guilty in this country, remember? It's not our job to prove ourselves innocent of a crime to LEO's by jumping through their hoops designed to entrap and deceive.
Not wanting to roll down your window is not obstructing their ability to do their job, and I'm fairly certain that's why the OP's case is going to be dismissed in the end. It's the whole slippery slope problem. It's just a "little" thing they want you to do, it's nothing too invasive. All of those "little" things add up. First any expectation of privacy in your vehicle is gone, then your expectation of privacy outside your home(traffic & surveillance cameras everywhere), then your expectation of privacy.
What if officers took this desired mentality a step further and started going door to door making sure nobody had illegal drugs, or pirated movies & music. What if they started allowing and performing random scans of your Hard Drive from the internet to make sure you didn't have those things? What if they had the ability to turn any cellphone into a surveillance bug without your consent? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear...right? Why not comply? You haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear...why not open your door/drop your firewall and let them look inside?
Is drunk driving a problem? ABSOLUTELY! If the goal of the police force was truly cracking down on DUI wouldn't they use the method that was statistically proven to work...Saturation patrols.