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.

[NittanyLion]

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.

Threatening to create something with which to charge him is "appropriate police work"?

Interesting take...

[AlexW]

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

What kind of country do we have when the traditional policeman is being replaced by jackbooted thugs.

This is a trend that has been going on for the last ten or twenty years, depending on where you live.

[rit]

...the subject was making a statement to the officer that indicated there was reason to further detain this individual.

Hardly. The subject was making a statement to the officer that indicated he did not wish to discuss his personal life, nothing more, nothing less. You can support the officer's action in this particular case, but I wouldn't.

[never4get]

"Kudos to the kid for doing something many don't have the stones to do."


If the kid did not a tape running God only knows what they would have done to him...Cops drunk with power. "he will find a reason to arrest you"...that piece of garbage cop should be thrown off the force...that one statement makes every other cop doing his job look bad.

[rbmillerjr]

"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."

Correct...and who decides these things? The US Supreme Court.

"You're defending roadblocks, I'm not"

True, as they are constitutional and serve a good purpose. We lose about 5-6 times more people on our roads to drunkend drivers than we have lost in Iraq in the entire war.

"You're 'laughing' because you can't refute my facts about our Constitution"

I'm laughing because it's funny when a person loses an argument and can't accept it. A minimis temporary DWI roadblock has BEEN RULED CONSTITUTIONAL AND THUS IS SO. Your only refutation is that "you" know better. It's anarchical constitutionalism. How ironic that it closely resembles the liberals' relativism approach. Sorry for lauging, but it is funny as hell.

[Lloyd227]

"opposing its rightful exercise..."

Perhaps I come on a bit too strongly, but... key word here is rightful and there was nothing right about getting pissed off because this kid does not wish to discuss his personal life. Don't even try to use the heroism of men and women who are true heroes to excuse how this officer (who I might add apparently had a chip on his shoulder) got so flustered at a kid who actually knew his rights that he had to resort to threatening the kid with making up a reason to arrest him.

I have absolutely no problem with the rightful exercise of authority. In this incident, this cop seems to not know what rightful excerise is, and apparently neither do you.

And, I have no interest in satisfying your curiousity by discussing my own driving habbits or any views I might have regarding the use of illegal drugs. You have no reason to know that information as it's simply none of your business. :-)

[monkfan]

"Admitting your problem is the first step to recovery."

So, tell us what else you know about recovery. We could use a few minutes of silence.

That is, if you're not too busy swingin' to the Symphony of Destruction.

[Charlespg]

It would be nice if a group of Citizens filed a class action lawsuit against MADD

[tpaine]

"-- reality is that the Supreme court is the final arbiter in constitutionality. --"

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.

Correct.

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

..and who decides these things? The US Supreme Court.

Nope, 'we the people' are the final arbiter.

You're defending roadblocks, I'm not.

True, as they are constitutional and serve a good purpose. We lose about 5-6 times more people on our roads to drunkend drivers than we have lost in Iraq in the entire war.

You just admitted that our rights to life, liberty, or property cannot be infringed upon by powers not delegated, yet you would do so to "serve a good purpose". Bizarre & contradictory.

LOL.
No, you are defending your interpretation of the US Constitution, which is incorrect.

You're 'laughing' because you can't refute my facts about our Constitution. Poor fella.

I'm laughing because it's funny when a person loses an argument and can't accept it.

It's funny indeed that you claim I've lost this argument, seeing you've agreed that our rights to life, liberty, or property cannot be infringed upon by powers not delegated, -- was correct.

A minimis temporary DWI roadblock has BEEN RULED CONSTITUTIONAL AND THUS IS SO.

Court 'rulings' are opinions and do not make it "SO". Nor does writing it in all caps. -- Try stamping your feet.

Your only refutation is that "you" know better. It's anarchical constitutionalism.

No, it's simply reading & understanding the clear words and the basic philosophy of our Constitution.

How ironic that it closely resembles the liberals' relativism approach. Sorry for lauging, but it is funny as hell.

Laugh on jr. You can't hear the laughter back at you, but rest assured, it is there.

[rbmillerjr]

There you go again.

"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."

You conceded defeat on this point by only putting my partial response. Let's try again sonny. Your above quote is correct. Unfortunately for you the US Supreme Court is entity that decides constitutional issues in this country. This point alone defeats your sophomoric analysis.

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

Sure there is. It is done all over the country. The state laws stating this have been taken to the Supreme Court and they have ruled DUI roadblocks are unconstitutional.

Me:..and who decides these things? The US Supreme Court.

You: "Nope, 'we the people' are the final arbiter."

That would only be true in a pure democracy, we live in a republic with a constitution that divides powers into three branches of govt. (Executive,legislative, judicial)

"It's funny indeed that you claim I've lost this argument, seeing you've agreed that our rights to life, liberty, or property cannot be infringed upon by powers not delegated, -- was correct."

You have lost the argument. It's about a prima facie as you could want. Then you compound your loss by committing fallacy after fallacy. For instance in the above point, you, for the 2nd time, left out my complete answer. lol. You are defeated and you know it.

"Court 'rulings' are opinions and do not make it "SO".

Umm, you really need to do more research or lose your handle name. You dishonor that person. Supreme Court rulings interpret law when there are questions as to the intention of the Constitution and founders. They in fact the final ruling on disputes in law.

[supercat]

True, as they are constitutional and serve a good purpose. We lose about 5-6 times more people on our roads to drunkend drivers than we have lost in Iraq in the entire war.

Even if that statement were true (the definition of "alcohol related fatality" is so broad as to cover many crashes not at all caused by drunk driving) the extremely small number of DUI arrests at these checkpoints suggests that if anything they make the roads more dangerous by diverting officers from other more effective ways of catching drunk drivers.

[photodawg]

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?


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

The boy exercised his rights. He was not arrested for it. The policeman is also within his rights to construe the boys refusal to answer a direct question as insufficient cooperation. The bottom line here is the kid was stopped, interrogated and detained for a few minutes and then was allowed to drive off. The audible parts of the video document a businesslike respectful police officer. there is really nothing here. Please spend some time in non western non democratic countries before you go off on police authority and constitutional rights. This incident is petty and really not worth all the consternation being given to it. Its really very similar to the pacifists screaming about 3000 dead in iraq as American Imperialism.

[photodawg]

Threatening to create something with which to charge him is "appropriate police work"?

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

You didn't read the transcript carefully enough.

transcript
Brett: Why am I being detained officer? (directed toward Officer #4)
Officer #4: You better stop runnin your mouth or the other officer will find a reason to lock you up tonight.
(Audio can now be heard again)
3:22
Brett: You're saying you're going to make up a reason to arrest me?
Officer #4: No I didn't. I said we would find a reason.
Brett: Okay. I just want to let you know all of this is being recorded.


Yes that is appropriate police work. The boy is now questioning the officer about his motivation.The boy is now assuming the officer would "make up" a reason to arrest him. This is after the boy refused to answer a direct question. Officers are trained to understand these dynamics. Lives are at stake.

[rbmillerjr]

That's a valid opinion and fact regarding the effectiveness. I haven't really researched that aspect. But like most government programs and endeavors, it wouldn't surprise me if it were fact.

But the Supreme Court isn't going to (or at least they shouldn't) look into the effectiveness of it, but merely the constitutionality. The effectiveness comes into the realm of the legislative branch (policy making) and the executive branch (implementation).

[Tigercap]

Kudos to the kid!!!

I respect the law and most police, but I'm sick of these jackasses suffering from SPS (small penis syndrome) being jerks to people just because they can.

[NittanyLion]

The policeman is also within his rights to construe the boys refusal to answer a direct question as insufficient cooperation.

Well, let's make a couple things clear. First, the policeman has no rights - he has only enumerated powers. A minor distinction that has a major impact. Second, the "boy" asserted his constitutional right - if that is "insufficient cooperation" then you are admitting that the 4th Amendment carries no weight.

The bottom line here is the kid was stopped, interrogated and detained for a few minutes and then was allowed to drive off.

Good restatement of the facts of this case. Moving on...

The audible parts of the video document a businesslike respectful police officer. there is really nothing here. Please spend some time in non western non democratic countries before you go off on police authority and constitutional rights.

So if I understand you correctly, you're willing to allow erosion of constitutional rights because it's worse in other countries. That's certainly an odd take, because this country became great by following the standards set in the constitution - not following others. I'm unable to find the section of the constitution that allows searches without probable cause so long as the authorities are respectful, but perhaps I'm missing something.

This incident is petty and really not worth all the consternation being given to it. Its really very similar to the pacifists screaming about 3000 dead in iraq as American Imperialism.

And there comes the slur. At least you were able to avoid invoking Nazism, but I'm sure you must know that these sorts of statements only serve to detract from your overall argument.

[FreedomPoster]

Oh, just horse apples. And I'll stop there.

Wear your chains lightly.

[NittanyLion]

The boy is now assuming the officer would "make up" a reason to arrest him.

Of course he is. What do you think was intended by the statement, "You better stop runnin your mouth or the other officer will find a reason to lock you up tonight"? No reasonable person could draw any other conclusion than that the officers were going to make up a reason to arrest him.

[Tigercap]

The kid is correct. Damn correct! He answered that we wasn't drinking, he nor anyone has to tell them "what they're doing". Too many f'n cops think their badge is a free ticket to continue their mindless high school bullying days.

[Tigercap]

screw that!!! I'm no "pig-hater" (nice strawman btw). But, the kid answered in a clear plain way within his rights.