The officer had the opportunity to continue the conversation instead of being offended by the answer. He could have said, for example "OK. Can you please explain why?" The point is, the officer is there to make an assessment based on how well the driver can articulate a response. Continuing the conversation around a different path would have served the same purpose.
The officer had the opportunity to continue the conversation instead of being offended by the answer
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
He didn't answer the question. The driver told the officer he was unwilling to answer the question. That is a response. That response tells the officer that this individual has a problem. The officer then puts increased pressured on the subject to comply by making a more absolute command. At that point the subject has no choice but to cooperate or the officer will force compliance. That's how it goes down. time after time. The officer can push any buttons he chooses to force compliance. We can cry about fairness or our rights, but the officer is in charge at that moment. Police are expert at assessing the degree of threat or danger in a situation. that is their job.
That would presumably be just as personal. On the other hand, I would think that "Do you know where you are?" would be an excellent question for judging the competance of a driver without any personal intrusion. After all, the present location of the vehicle could hardly be considered a personal secret. To be sure, some drivers may be quite legitimately lost; such drivers should be able to articulate their difficulty and a request for assistance.