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.

[McBuff]

yes dear. ..whatever you say, dear. ..yes. . yes

How's that? Feel better now. . .Good.

[tpaine]

Do you really believe that USSC 'rulings' are infallible?

One can keep repeating oneself over and over, being devoid of logic and reality, but it doesn't change the reality of the law.

Supreme Court rulings are opinions, not law. -- And see Marbury about how 'laws' that are repugnant to our constitutions principles are null & void from enactment.

Just because YOU don't feel or think it is constitutional, doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Look in a mirror kid, recite that to yourself, and wonder why you're in opposition to our 4th Amendment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that DWI traffic stops are constitutional. So if you come on here and state they are unconstitutional, you lived in fantasyland.
If you disagree, then challenge it in court, [we can't, - in CA. See # 903] but the courts have already ruled.

Your fantasy is in believing that Court rulings are 'final'. The people of 11 States [so far] realize that DUI roadblocks are unconstitutional. More will follow, and break the back of this stupid infringement.

[tpaine]

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."

-- How can you 'square' the SCOTUS ruling with the clear words of the 4th Amendment? -- Do you really contend that Court 'rulings' are infallible?

Simple. The Fourth Amendment says people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.
There's nothing prohibited warrantless searches if the cop conducting them thinks they're reasonable.

Big difference between a cop on the job seeing something suspicious, and doing a stop & search. -- And a policy of DUI roadblocks that routinely involve warrentless searches.

[rbmillerjr]

"Look in a mirror kid, recite that to yourself, and wonder why you're in opposition to our 4th Amendment"

When people right desperate things like this, it usually means they disagree with the reality of a situation. I know you are having a hard time interpreting constitutionality, so I'll repeat again...The SC has ruled that DWI and DUI checkpoints are constitutional.

You keep bringing up "infalliable" as it related to the SC, this is just an inferiror straw man. Of course the SC is simply part of the system of laws in our country. But they do have the final say on the constitutional assessment of a law, and they have had their say here.

[tpaine]

Look in a mirror kid, recite that to yourself, and wonder why you're in opposition to our 4th Amendment.

When people right desperate things like this,

Me, desperate? I'm not in opposition to our Constitution kid, -- you are.

it usually means they disagree with the reality of a situation.

Our Constitution is real, and the USSC really did ignore the 4th in their DUI roadblock 'ruling'. -- They admitted it.

I know you are having a hard time interpreting constitutionality, so I'll repeat again...The SC has ruled that DWI and DUI checkpoints are constitutional.

Read the links I and others have provided to prove our point that the SC was ~wrong~. Just as they have been so many times in the past.

You keep bringing up "infalliable" as it related to the SC, this is just an inferiror straw man. Of course the SC is simply part of the system of laws in our country. But they do have the final say on the constitutional assessment of a law, and they have had their say here.

You're simply wrong to say they "-- have the final say on the constitutional assessment of a law --"

Again; - read Marbury. Marshall admitted in 1803 that the SC is also bound by the basic principles of our Constitution. -- 'Laws' that are repugnant to our constitutions principles are null & void from enactment, -- and no SC 'assessment' can make them valid.

[bondserv]

How does a Free Citizen keep a "small number" from becoming "large"? Oh I know, by being a sheeple.

I wouldn't expect a "It takes a village" comment like that from you.

Never underestimate the ingenuity of a free citizenry that are well versed in the practice of personal responsibility (which eliminates the whole of Europe and Liberals worldwide). There are still enough principled people in the churches of America who understand the concept of "Freedom in Christ" as set forth by our founders. Knock out Christian principles and freedom flees.

This is our only hurdle in Iraq. The Iraqis will never adopt Christian principles, thus, trust can never be established with the Iraqi police when we leave. Our only hope is that our troops rub off on enough people there, that an awakening takes hold.

[photodawg]

And remember, according to liberals, only the police and military should have guns...

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

What are you trying to say?

[rbmillerjr]

"Me, desperate? I'm not in opposition to our Constitution kid, -- you are."...

Add to your desperation, condescendingly calling me kid repeatedly. I'm well past half my age of life expectancy. Not as bad as saying I'm against the 4tha Amend. lol, but still desperate.

"USSC really did ignore the 4th in their DUI roadblock 'ruling'. -- They admitted it."

Wrong again. They state clearly that a temporary roadblock checking for DUIs is a minimal intrusion and thus reasonable. Read the Constitution. Read the 4th Amendment.

"You're simply wrong to say they "-- have the final say on the constitutional assessment of a law --"

LOL. The simple reality is that you don't have "rule of law" without a final judge...liberals would love that, a black hole of litigious cases meaning nothing, all revolving around a narcisim of rantings, "my opinion is what matters". The reality is that the Supreme court is the final arbiter in constitutionality. There is one thing that has primacy over the Supreme Court -the next Supreme Court.

[photodawg]

Nonsense. The cop could have talked about anything else. The kid just did not want to discuss his personally life. The cop could have continued the conversation on any other topic.

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

The "kid" rolled up to the road block with camera rolling. Are you really naive enough to think that he is an innocent kid. 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. Asking where you are headed tonight is not a personal question, unless you are overly defensive. The roads are populated with citizens who have a perfect right to know they are safe and protected. The boy didn't have to tell the officer anything personal. He could have answered the question by saying, just up the road to the next town, or some other such generalized answer. 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. Was the boy under the influence? Was he mad about something that had just occurred? Was he hiding something? Cooperation will ease the officers suspicions while resistance, no matter how subtle, will increase them. People with a chip on their shoulder about police authority usually act defensively, arousing further suspicion. At any time the boy chose to cooperate, the officer would have deescalated the intimidation.

[rednesss]

"Are you a convicted felon or one possessing an unsound mind?"

No and no. I am however it seems one of a dwindling number of induhviduals in this country that have read and understood the U.S. Constitution. I even carry one around in my vehicle. You can get one relatively cheap from the Cato Institute.

http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=40&pid=144278-A

I think it should be mandatory for all LEOs to carry a copy of the constitution and to be able to recite it. Monthly refresher classes would be good for them. Fortunately I live in a state that hasn't been overtaken by Stalinist boot lickers and I don't have to put up with checkpoints. Over-taxation would be a bigger priority for me.

[photodawg]

This is profiling. 19 year old kid, cop thinks drugs or alcohol. Funny how this kind of profiling is no problem, but other kinds are totally non-PC.

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

The kid refused to answer question number one. That's not profiling that's police procedure. The officer, as everyone knows, is trying to find lawbreakers. If you give them a reason to be suspicious, you will get intense questioning regardless of your age, sex, race, or anything else. The kid refused to answer because he knew it would arouse the officers suspicions. The kid knew he was innocent of any criminal activity and was trying to document an inappropriate police response. What occurred however, was entirely within the bounds of appropriate police work.

[JamminJAY]

I guess what you are saying is be polite and cooperate while being intimidated?

No thanks, I just turn it around to what is at hand – Why are you stopping me? I am busy.

Ask yourself why they publish average intrusion time after a check point. I’m not big on small talk.

[photodawg]

Interesting story. The right of free speach includes the right not to speak, which has been upheld in courts before.

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

Interestingly, the right to free speech involves your legal freedom to speak without government reprisal or legal consequence. That does not include how your speech affects someone with legal authority to asses your behavior. If the officer is trying to make an assessment of whether you are competent to drive an automobile, what you say or don't, while legally protected speech, will determine his assessment of you.

[StolarStorm]

Yes, bow down before your masters.

[StolarStorm]

Sam Adams didn't respect tyrants either and look where that got us all!!!!

[Brett Darrow]

"Wrong again. They state clearly that a temporary roadblock checking for DUIs is a minimal intrusion and thus reasonable. Read the Constitution. Read the 4th Amendment."

Would pulling someone one of their car, searching it, moving it, threatening the person with arrest, and running their license when they don't want to tell the officer where they're going be minimal intrusion?

[tpaine]

Look in a mirror kid, recite that to yourself, and wonder why you're in opposition to our 4th Amendment.

When people right desperate things like this,

Me, desperate? I'm not in opposition to our Constitution kid, -- you are.

Add to your desperation, condescendingly calling me kid repeatedly. I'm well past half my age of life expectancy. Not as bad as saying I'm against the 4tha Amend. lol, but still desperate.

It's your childish repetitive debate style I refer too -- not your actual age. -- You're defending roadblocks, I'm not.

it usually means they disagree with the reality of a situation.

Our Constitution is real, and the USSC really did ignore the 4th in their DUI roadblock 'ruling'. -- They admitted it.

Wrong again. They state clearly that a temporary roadblock checking for DUIs is a minimal intrusion and thus reasonable. Read the Constitution. Read the 4th Amendment.

I've read them both. Nothing is said about "minimal intrusion" being reasonable. -- That's hyperbole from the authoritarian position.

I know you are having a hard time interpreting constitutionality, so I'll repeat again...The SC has ruled that DWI and DUI checkpoints are constitutional.

Read the links I and others have provided to prove our point that the SC was ~wrong~. Just as they have been so many times in the past.

You keep bringing up "infalliable" as it related to the SC, this is just an inferiror straw man. Of course the SC is simply part of the system of laws in our country. But they do have the final say on the constitutional assessment of a law, and they have had their say here.

You're simply wrong to say they "-- have the final say on the constitutional assessment of a law --"

LOL. The simple reality is that you don't have "rule of law" without a final judge...

Our final judgment on individual rights is our Constitution's rule of law under due process.

Justice Harlan on that subject:

     "-- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . .

DUI roadblocks are "substantial arbitrary impositions".

liberals would love that, a black hole of litigious cases meaning nothing, all revolving around a narcisim of rantings, "my opinion is what matters". The reality is that the Supreme court is the final arbiter in constitutionality. There is one thing that has primacy over the Supreme Court -the next Supreme Court.

Read the 10th & the 14th. The 'final arbiter' of Constitutionality is whether our rights to life, liberty, or property are being infringed upon by powers not delegated.

There is no power to block roads [for DUI control] delegated to ~any~ legislative body in the USA.

Again; - read Marbury. Marshall admitted in 1803 that the SC is also bound by the basic principles of our Constitution. -- 'Laws' that are repugnant to our constitutions principles are null & void from enactment, -- and no SC 'assessment' can make them valid.

[rit]

If the officer is trying to make an assessment of whether you are competent to drive an automobile, what you say or don't, while legally protected speech, will determine his assessment of you.

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.

[Lloyd227]

"What kind of country have we got when little smartasses think they have some right not to answer a policeman's questions?"

No, the correct question is what kind of country have we got when smartass egotistical and power starved @ssholes are wearing badges and carrying a gun? The facts are, this kid did NOT have any reason to discuss his personal life with the officer and the officer had no right to detain him.

I'm 47 years old and have 4 sons of my own, all driving age and I've seen this sort of harrassment first hand (and it IS harrassment).

These officers need to be taught who it is they work for and learn to behave.

I sincerely hope this kid files and wins a lawsuit against the St Louis Police Department.

Cheers,
Lloyd

[Lloyd227]

"Dude, you could have avoided all that shiite if you had just been a tiny bit more civil to the first officers question...

Dude, all this could have been avoided if the officer had minded his own business and if he held any respect at all for the rights of a citizen.

My hat's off to this kid for having the balls to do something about it and the self control to pull the conversation off in a civil manner.