Missouri: Police Roadblock Harassment Caught on Tape.

TheNewspaper.com ^ | 12/30/2006 | Brett Darrow

[The KG9 Kid]

Missouri: Police Roadblock Harassment Caught on Tape
St. Louis County, Missouri threaten to arrest a teenager for refusing to discuss his personal travel plans.

A teenager harassed by police in St. Louis, Missouri caught the incident on tape. Brett Darrow, 19, had his video camera rolling last month as he drove his 1997 Maxima, minding his own business. He approached a drunk driving roadblock where he was stopped, detained and threatened with arrest when he declined to enter a conversation with a police officer about his personal travel habits. Now Darrow is considering filing suit against St. Louis County Police.

"I'm scared to drive for fear of being stopped at another checkpoint and arrested while doing nothing illegal," Darrow told TheNewspaper. "We're now guilty until we prove ourselves innocent to these checkpoint officers."

On that late November night, videotape confirms that Darrow had been ordered out of his vehicle after telling a policeman, "I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you, officer." Another officer attempted to move Darrow's car until he realized, "I can't drive stick!" The officer took the opportunity to undertake a thorough search of the interior without probable cause. He found nothing.

When Darrow asked why he was being detained, an officer explained, "If you don't stop running your mouth, we're going to find a reason to lock you up tonight."

The threats ended when Darrow informed officers that they were being recorded. After speaking to a supervisor Darrow was finally released.

"These roadblocks have gotten out of hand," Darrow told TheNewspaper. "If we don't do something about them now, it'll be too late."

A full video of the incident is available here. A transcript is provided below as the audio is at times very faint.

[DaGman]

I wanted to respond, clicked "View Replies" and figured you've been flamed enough!

[Lloyd227]

"Anxiously awaiting your answer to end world wide drunk driving without LE intervention....."

LOL (that's "laughing out loud" just in case....)

I have no concern whatsoever for whether anyone ever comes up with an answer "...to end world wide drunk driving".

Seriously, I don't have any concern whatsoever for this problem. The reason I don't spend time worrying about it is because there is no answer to end world wide drunk driving and you sir are a complete idiot if you think smart@ss egotistical law enforcement officers harrassing a 19 year old kid and threatening to make up a reason for his arrest is going to end this world wide problem you perceive.

Apologies for the roughness of this response, but it's heartfelt and I mean it. Anyone who thinks this type of behavior is going to have any effect whatsoever is just plain delusional

[elkfersupper]

I don't mean to pimp the guy's website, but there is another excellent post today.

It's probably worthy of its own thread, but I don't have the time or energy.

Who Cares About Drunk Drivers?

[elkfersupper]

Anxiously awaiting your answer to end world wide drunk driving without LE intervention.....

Ban private ownership and operation of automobiles. That is the endgame anyway.

[Lloyd227]

Great article - recommended reading for anyone with even the slightest concern for the encroachment on our individual rights.

Thanks for posting

[spunkets]

"The "kid" rolled up to the road block with camera rolling. Are you really naive enough to think that he is an innocent kid.

Was the kid headed to commit a crime?

" The man is trying unsuccessfully to "set up" and bait the officers into infringing upon his "rights" and to portray the police in a bad light."

BS. The record was for documentation purposes. Since when is documenting police action a set up and bait scheme.

"Asking where you are headed tonight is not a personal question, unless you are overly defensive."

It's a personal question regardless. Defensive is irrelevant unless you want to include the questioners offensive stance.

" He could have answered the question by saying, just up the road to the next town, or some other such generalized answer."

Which might have been a lie. It's also not the end of the question answer session.

" At that point the officer rightfully became suspicious of the motivation for refusing to answer such an innocuous question."

The cop was on a fishing expedition. Anyone that's not a part of his little social group is suspicious.

"At that point the officer rightfully became suspicious of the motivation for refusing to answer such an innocuous question. Was the boy under the influence? Was he mad about something that had just occurred? Was he hiding something?"

Yeah right. Kid must have been a criminal. How about this? In a free country, it's none of your business, or anyone elses! That's the end of it!

" Cooperation will ease the officers suspicions while resistance, no matter how subtle, will increase them."

Yeah right, BS and put up with the same.

"People with a chip on their shoulder about police authority usually act defensively, arousing further suspicion.

The authority is being used for a fishing expedition, which is unconstitutional. It salso unconstitutional for the police to make up laws and rules arbitrarily on the side of the road. No one needs to answer any questions unrelated to the stop, which, "where you headed" is.

"At any time the boy chose to cooperate, the officer would have deescalated the intimidation."

So it was intimidation! That's what it's all about anyway-intimidation. Notice the cops said they'd find something to charge him with! That's BS plain and simple!

[photodawg]

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.

[photodawg]

I was guilty and had been caught. The younger of the two officers wanted some "action" though. He sticks his head up to my window, "DO YOU THINK YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR PLATES?".
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

I hope you responded by saying "No sir, I just didn't get a chance to renew them." I know I'm wrong for driving without them." While you were thinking " this stupid clown is a real a-hole!".

How did you make out?

[rit]

OK. Let me recast it as "The officer had the opportunity to continue the conversation instead of being offended by the reply".

The officer is there to make an assessment as to how well the driver can articulate a response. A specific one word answer the driver could have given was "home". Instead, the driver replied with what... about 11 words... "I do not wish to discuss my personall life with you." Those are more words than most provide at DWI stops which typically go like:
Q: Where are you going?
A: Home
Q: Where are you coming from?
A: Work
Q: Where do you work?
A: Shoprite

The officer could have continued the conversation about other things to make an assessment instead of getting annoyed at the reply.

[Artemis Webb]

I was either smart or stupid depending on one's point of view. I simply answered "No officer" and went about the business of collecting my ticket.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... I wanted to respond, clicked "View Replies" and figured you've been flamed enough!"

Thank you for that. I'm even happy to report that some people saw through my comment at #2 and gave me a big thumbs up.

Let's you and me sit back and see who else might 'get it', shall we?

[Lloyd227]

Photodawg why don't you just drop and lick his.... boots... yeah, his boots... you seem to be so gung ho about defending these authoritarian jerks...

I sincerely hope the boy sues and wins and I hope this "officer" and his supervisor get put on dog catcher duty

[Artemis Webb]

I agree. The driver was rude. Is it a requirement of the law that you have to be polite to the police?

[monkfan]

"If there's a new way. I'll be the first in line. But, it better work this time!"

Please tell me you didn't just quote Megadeth.

Somehow, I just can't picture Dave Mustaine being in favor of DWI checkpoints. More to the point, I don't think he'd be in favor of jackbooted cops harassing 19 year old kids with irrelevant questions.

[supercat]

The 4th ` clearly says "-- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, --- against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, --" "Thus the Constitution protects people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least "probable cause" that they have committed a crime."

The Constitution does not explicitly define what "unreasonable" means, nor does it refer to any right of the people to be secure against 'reasonable' searches. To be sure, the reason for that is simply that the Founders thought some things so obvious as to not need mention. They weren't expecting Clintonian parsing.

[supercat]

He could have said, for example "OK. Can you please explain why?"

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.

[rawcatslyentist]

Frog you!

Hows that for being polite?

You are truly ignorant of police procedures!

Not a flippin clue!

Please argue with any and all armed individuals you happen to meet. Police, military, private citizen, why not go for the trifecta!! Your existence will be a short one.

[Artemis Webb]

You do not seem to understand that I could not possibly care less about your sacred "police procedure". I am far more interested in the Constitution and the police officer's involved in this articles indifference to it.

Go play with your frog.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"years of endless propaganda"

Goebbels is all you can come up with?

Pathetic poser!

The only way to 100% prevent drunk driving is to chop off everyones arms and legs.

Oh shure you think this is extreme. Well not as extreme as a comfy pillows, reclining lounge chairs, and smiley stickers for mohamicidal maniacs.

What is so "offensive" about random sobriety checkpoints?

Does it "infringe" on the right to endanger society at large by intoxicated driving?

That's right there next to the right to privacy and abortions!

[rawcatslyentist]

>"You're the one who attempted to claim that "LE intervention" would end "world wide drunk driving"."

Care to quote me on that statement Albert?