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.

[rawcatslyentist]

Wow your ability to comprehend the link between antisocial behavior and drug impairment is truly unimpressive.

How was a random sobriety check "harassment"?

How could the officer know that the plainly uncooperative kid wasn't carrying

a Drugs
b booze
c puppet porn
c bootleg saddam execution videos
d Loaded Guns

So the psychic policeman decided to "harass" this upright non cooperative citizen just because he wanted to? You really should do a few ride alongs just to see what they see. You have not a clue what kind of world it is. It isn't 9-5 sanitation pickup, garbage doesn't bite, stab, kick, hit, club, shoot, or sue you. Other than that it is extremely similar to sanitation pickup.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"there is no answer to end world wide drunk driving"

You slur, are cerially in error. There are a couple of ways of completely ending world wide drunk driving.

They are not socially acceptable though. Total Global Nuclear Destruction is one of them. The other it the amputation of everyones arms and legs.

Being a smart@ass isnt too bad.

It's just not a healthy habit to take up in the presence of armed individuals.

So to take control of an uncooperative citizen, who may be armed, and on PCP, what would you do?

WWYD?

Offer him candy? Smiley stickers?

You should consider a career in LE. The dentists would appreciate it, almost as much as the people you donate your organs to.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"I don't think "

Admitting your problem is the first step to recovery.

Good luck with that!

[rawcatslyentist]

Since you are a notable Constitutionalist where was da kidz rights violated?

Police procedure isn't sacred. It just helps them stay alive. That's all. Well them and us.

Please feel free to be belligerent with every armed individual you meet though.

[zeugma]

>"years of endless propaganda"

Goebbels is all you can come up with?

Well, from your other posts on this topic, most of us have figured out you're a bootlicking toady, and a moron, but I'll spell it out for you anyway. The term "propaganda" has positive or negative meanings depending upon context. In the context I used the word, it is exactly the description for the mass media campaigns in question. Why not try reading for comprehension instead of a knee-jerk response.

 What is so "offensive" about random sobriety checkpoints?

As many other people have described on this thread in detail, they are an anathema to a free society. Just because one is travelling on the public highways is not reason to suspect that person is guilty of a crime. In a free republic you are not presumed guilty just because the state wants to have an excuse to raise some extra revenue.

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

Yes it does, if the agents of the state have no reason to think you might be intoxicated. Observing a motorist driving in an unsafe manner is a completely different thing, and might well rise to the level of 'probable cause' to justify taking a closer look at a driver. Just the fact that you happen to be behind the wheel on a certain random street does not.

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

Abortion is not a topic I discuss on this board, but privacy? Hell yes. Do not the 4^th and 5^th amendments to the Constitution imply a right to privacy in your affairs? If not, what is their purpose?

Folks like you will welcome the police state with open arms. Your lack of understanding of what it is to live in a free republic sickens me.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, quoted in Citizen's Rule Book, Whitten Printers, Phoenix AZ

[Artemis Webb]

You seem to have a narrow view of "belligerence". Since when is telling an officer you "don't want to discuss your personal life" belligerence? Perhaps if rawcatslyentist had his way we should all kneel before the officers and pay tribute?

[rawcatslyentist]

As many other people have described on this thread in detail, they are an anathema to a free society.

That's how Hitler gained power? Random sobriety checkpoints.

You're a towel!

If you actually believe I am promoting a fascist police state, you are suffering from paranoia. Then again maybe not. Maybe they are after you.

Lighten up Francis!

[rawcatslyentist]

Do you actually for a minute think I am promoting a fascist police state? If so you are suffering from paranoia.

You're a towel!

[microgood]

What is so "offensive" about random sobriety checkpoints?

I guess I'll never know since in both the states I have lived in it is Unconstitutional(Wyoming and Washington).

But for those of you who live in fascist hellhole states that allow it, I guess the fact that they are totally ineffective, a waste of taxpayer resources, are used for every purpose but to stop drunk driving, and are most likely training you to be sheeple for the upcoming police state (which seems to be working as you are proof at least that it can in some cases), probably nothing.

[microgood]

I guess the fact that they are totally ineffective, a waste of taxpayer resources, are used for every purpose but to stop drunk driving, and are most likely training you to be sheeple for the upcoming police state (which seems to be working as you are proof at least that it can in some cases), probably nothing.

Should read(I hit the wrong button):

I would guess except for the fact that they are totally ineffective, a waste of taxpayer resources, are used for every purpose but to stop drunk driving, and are most likely training you to be sheeple for the upcoming police state (which seems to be working as you are proof that it can in some cases), probably nothing.

[FreePoster]

The first officer was mostly likely following his intuition (as he must) that told him something was suspicious about this kid who gave the legitimate, but evasive, reply to his standard question. It's not unreasonable the the officer might even feel taunted by the response. It wasn't hidden drugs or alcohol but a hidden camera that the driver had on his mind (possibly showed in his face).

The driver is right that he shouldn't be detained and have his car moved for no cause. But he is almost begging for trouble. He didn't do anything wrong, technically, but he made himself look suspicious, whether or not that was his intention. Most likely just an innocent accident of being a teenager, an impractical application of being principled.

Give the cops a break. They're not trying to create a police state. They're trying to keep drunk drivers off the road, etc. and it's not all a straightforward thing to do. They have to ask questions like that to get a sense of who they're dealing with. If the kid just said, "I'm headed home," or just said what part of town, that would probably be enough, and it's not like the officer is going to probe much further in any way unrelated to driving and sobriety. If he's really worried about his privacy, the destination wouldn't even have to be true (just plausible, who's to say he doesn't change his mind along the way).

[Brett Darrow]

"The first officer was mostly likely following his intuition (as he must) that told him something was suspicious about this kid who gave the legitimate, but evasive, reply to his standard question."

That would be a "hunch" and that is not enough to create reasonable suspicious especially at a DWI checkpoint as much as officers wish it did.

"Give the cops a break. They're not trying to create a police state. They're trying to keep drunk drivers off the road"

Well I might believe that if they had proof that checkpoints were effective. I also might believe that when they stop hassling people that obviously aren't drunk.

"They have to ask questions like that to get a sense of who they're dealing with. If the kid just said, "I'm headed home," or just said what part of town, that would probably be enough, and it's not like the officer is going to probe much further in any way unrelated to driving and sobriety."

Oh really? You don't think it would have gone on and on until the officer got me to say something that he wanted? What does my destination having anything to do with sobriety? My willingness to answer that question and not others makes me suspicious. That's why you don't answer ANY questions.

[Lloyd227]

"So to take control of an uncooperative citizen, who may be armed, and on PCP, what would you do?"

On PCP or armed or not..... first thing I'd do is leave him alone and mind my own business if he hasn't yet caused any harm or broken any laws that I have evidence for. It is certainly NOT acceptable to just assume every citizen who happens by your road block is on PCP and armed then proceed to treat them as if you know they're guilty of something and you just need a few moments of conversation to determine what it might be they can be arrested for.

So step 1 is respect the rights of the citizens you work for and serve. Step 2 is repeat step 1 and if you can not accept the fact that you do work for the citizens or the fact that the citizens do have rights which you have no authority over, then you really ought not to be in the law enforcement profession.

Cheers,
Lloyd

[photodawg]

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


''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

What don't you understand about resistance. By refusing to answer an innocuous direct question at a legal traffic stop by a duly constituted police officer, the subject was making a statement to the officer that indicated there was reason to further detain this individual. It isn't the number of words necessary to arouse suspicions, but the tenor of the response to the questions. the officer's instincts were obviously correct in this instance because the subject was video taping the conversation.

[photodawg]

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.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Our legal system is based on law, not resistance to the law. Everyone gets his day in court. In fact the court is weighted towards the rights of the individual. If you were illegally stopped or your rights violated the smartest most effective defense is not resistance, but due process. You did the right thing.

[zeugma]

I suppose it is better to be a "towel" (?) Than a toady for any authortarian measure that comes down the pike.

>> As many other people have described on this thread in detail, they are an anathema to a free society.

>That's how Hitler gained power? Random sobriety checkpoints.

Strawman. Try reading again for comprehesion this time.

As strongly as you defend these random citizen checkpoints, one would think they you have a bit of a financial interest in them, unless you're not just another JBT wannabe yourself. 

 

[Poser]

"How could the officer know that the plainly uncooperative kid wasn't carrying

a Drugs
b booze
c puppet porn
c bootleg saddam execution videos
d Loaded Guns"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the police are specifically restricted to determining sobriety and are not allowed to fish for other violations at sobriety checkpoints. In that case it's none of his business what the kid might be carrying.

The officer was clearly wrong here. A rude response is just as good as a pleasant response for determining sobriety. The kid did just what the cop needed. He opened his window and talked. That is all the cop was allowed to observe unless there was a smell of alcohol or an indication by his speech that he was intoxicated.

The cop should have said, "Thank you. You may continue."

[photodawg]

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


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Have you ever walked in those boots or been helped in a time of need by one of those overzealous defenders of the citizenry? Who was it that rushed into the world trade center as it collapsed. Who was it that sent hundreds of their brethren to an early grave sacrificing their lives for the citizens they are sworn to protect.

I know how to defend my rights and my interests. That defense does not involve defensiveness, disrespect, or resistance to authority. It involves due process. If I remain cool and respectful my rights will be protected and I will prevail. You sir have an obvious chip on your shoulder and will mistake license for freedom for as long as you continue to exhibit this infantile behavior. To you, I appear to lick the boots of authority, to me you appear to get your rocks off opposing its rightful exercise. Spend some time with some officers. Talk with them about some of the arrests they have supervised. Talk to their wives and families. It may change your narrow perspective.

Finally, just out of curiosity, I'd be interested in knowing if you advocate legalizing marijuana or if you occasionally drink and drive. Or perhaps if you occasionally drive more than 10 mph over the posted limit, or refuse to use seat belts.(smile)

[zeugma]

Our legal system is based on law, not resistance to the law. Everyone gets his day in court. In fact the court is weighted towards the rights of the individual. If you were illegally stopped or your rights violated the smartest most effective defense is not resistance, but due process. You did the right thing.

 

It is true in criminal court that in some ways the court system is weighted  towards the individual, but in traffic court, the compelte opposite is true, as they are just vehicles to raise revenue for the state. Most of the time, this revenue is raise merely on the word of a single police officer.

I am fairly disappointed that the young man in the stop that is the subject of this thread notified the officers they were being taped. It would have been very interesting to see what the cops would have testilied to prior to them being aware of the tape. I understand why he mentioned it, as it's a tense situation, and I'm sure he didn't feel like having the cops escalate it further by making up some excuse to arrest him to prove their power over him. It's just unfortunate that we didn't get to see the full candid shot of what would have gone down absent their knowledge they were being monitored.

[NittanyLion]

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

In other words, you believe that asserting one's rights constitutes probable cause for a search. If that's the case, do you think the 4th Amendment carries any weight at all? And if so, how do you square that with your comments above?