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.

[Tigercap]

wrong. simply wrong.

[timm22]

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.

Ok, let's assume for a moment that the officer was not talking about finding, not fabricating, a reason to arrest. If you are trying to find something, it means that you are looking for something that isn't otherwise immediately apparent.

Do you think it is "appropriate police work" for an officer to go looking for a reason to arrest someone when there is no immediate, apparent reason to do so? Is it appropriate for them to engage in this behavior at a roadblock?

Is it appropriate for the police to look for an excuse to arrest an innocent citizen in response to the citizen "running his mouth"?

[timm22]

Ok, let's assume for a moment that the officer was not talking about finding, not fabricating, a reason to arrest.

Sorry, typo.

[supercat]

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.

DUI checkpoints are absolutely terrible at catching dangerously drunk drivers. If the government really wanted to set up a checkpoint to catch dangerously-drunk drivers it could simply use some safety pylons construct a relatively-easy obstacle course and have cars drive through it. This would impede traffic flow somewhat, but far less than stopping motorists. It would require far less manpower than stopping every motorist, but would be more effective at catching dangerously-drunk drivers than stopping every fifth motorist.

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).

The complaint isn't merely that DUI checkpoints are ineffective, but rather that--given the manner in which they're conducted--many so-called "DUI checkpoints" are really nothing of the sort. There is no conceivable way in which having drug dogs sniffing cars at a "DUI checkpoint" will increase the effectiveness of the checkpoint in catching drunk drivers. The purpose of the checkpoints is to conduct unconstitutional fishing expeditions. Sticking a "DUI checkpoint" label on an unconstitutional drug checkpoint doesn't make it constitutional.

[supercat]

Is it appropriate for them to engage in this behavior at a roadblock?

As I've noted earlier in this thread, the Supreme Court could curtail the abuses caused by its earlier ruling, without having to contradict it, by finding that DUI checkpoints are constitutional if and only if they are restricted to either (1) looking for people who are DUI, and (2) acting upon prima-facie plain-view evidence that a crime has been committed. It should not be sufficient to have probable cause to believe a crime may have been committed; prima facie evidence of the actual crime would be required (e.g. if a cop pulls over a motorist and observes a bullet-ridden corpse in the passenger seat, the cop should be entitled to investigate it).

[tpaine]

There you go again.

Nope. There I go, - yet.

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.

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.

You conceded defeat on this point by only putting my partial response.

Wrong, I posted your entire response with part of my comment after your reply of "Correct."

Let's try again. Your above quote is 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.

Unfortunately for you the US Supreme Court is entity that decides constitutional issues in this country. This point alone defeats your sophomoric analysis.

Sophomoric point - in that the USSC issues opinions that in themselves are not laws, -- thus legislative or executive power must concur in the Courts 'ruling'. --- Even then if 'we the people' disagree, [as we did with booze prohibition] the governments position is "null & void". - See Marbury.

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.

And the people of 11 States [so far] have disagreed and 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."

-- we live in a republic with a constitution that divides powers into three branches of govt. (Executive,legislative, judicial)

Yep, I've made that argument, and you agree once again.

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.

Dream on. -- I've answered you completely; -- feel free to claim otherwise.

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

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.

As booze prohibition proved, even a constitutional amendment 'interpreted' as valid by the USSC cannot make a "final ruling". -- We the people overruled a repugnant amendment [a supreme law] by civil disobedience, and then repeal.

All you neo-prohibitionists need to deal with that fact.

[rbmillerjr]

"There is no conceivable way in which having drug dogs sniffing cars at a "DUI checkpoint" will increase the effectiveness of the checkpoint in catching drunk drivers."

Good to see somebody debating worthwhile points. I agree with you. Drug checkpoints have been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. The addition of drug-sniffing dogs is not germane to finding drunken drivers. In addition, opinions have led Court watchers to believe that the Superemes may rule against dogs if a case of merit gets the the SC. At this point, I believe that dogs have been allowed in past opinion ****(but importantly they haven't been germane to the facts of the case.) That will be one that I'll be interested in seeing when it comes.

"The purpose of the checkpoints is to conduct unconstitutional fishing expeditions"

The court has clearly ruled that checkpoints may not be set up to fish for general crime. They have to be set up for DUI or other specific warranted cases (like when in the DC metro area they set up checkpoints looking for fleeing felons etc)

[timm22]

As I've noted earlier in this thread, the Supreme Court could curtail the abuses caused by its earlier ruling, without having to contradict it, by finding that DUI checkpoints are constitutional if and only if they are restricted to either (1) looking for people who are DUI, and (2) acting upon prima-facie plain-view evidence that a crime has been committed.

I wish the Supreme Court would take steps in the direction you describe. Of course, I believe the Supreme Court should reverse its position authorizing such checkpoints, as painful as it may be for them to reverse precedent.

[supercat]

The court has clearly ruled that checkpoints may not be set up to fish for general crime.

On the other hand, some statistics I've seen suggest that in most "DUI checkpoints" not only is the percentage of stopped motorists arrested for DUI less than 0.5%, but the percentage of arrested or cited motorists who are arrested for DUI is often well below 5%.

I wonder what court challenges there have been to police claims that those are "DUI checkpoints", other evidence notwithstanding.

[supercat]

Of course, I believe the Supreme Court should reverse its position authorizing such checkpoints, as painful as it may be for them to reverse precedent.

What was particularly outrageous in the precedent case was that rather than trying to rationalize a claim that the Fourth Amendment wasn't violated, it overtly stated that it didn't matter if it was. And I would agree that such a precedent needs to be overturned on principle as well as practice.

Nonetheless, narrowing the scope of what constitutes an allowable "DUI checkpoint" would be a good first step. That wouldn't resolve the whole issue, but would considerably reduce pressure on the Court to uphold its pro-checkpoint decision.

After all, if police decide they don't want to bother with checkpoints that comply with Constitutional rules, that would clear the way for the Court to decide that it had overestimated the exigency posed by drunk drivers.

[BearCub]

There is a reason the officer needs (not wants) to engage the driver in conversation. The need is derived from identifying impaired drivers. The need is derived from law. Evading conversation is interfering with the officers duty.

Oh shut up, bootlicker. If the officer needed to know if he was hearing impaired, he could have said "CAN YOU HEAR ME?'.

No reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause. These cops need to be retrained and/or punished for being idiots.

[BearCub]

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.

BS. The only questions you MUST answer when dealing with the police are those that pertain to your identity. A refusal to answer other questions does not constitute "insufficient cooperation" (whatever that is). Another bootlicker.

[supercat]

The only questions you MUST answer when dealing with the police are those that pertain to your identity. A refusal to answer other questions does not constitute "insufficient cooperation" (whatever that is). Another bootlicker.

Suppose an officer were to ask "Do you know where you are?" I wonder under what types of responses could constitute probable cause for DUI, considering that there would be no reason a stopped motorist could consider his present whereabouts a personal secret. To be sure, some non-DUI motorists might be lost, but I would expect they'd be able to clearly tell the officer something of where they were trying to go (not necessarily their destination; perhaps a road they were looking for). While there may be some motorists who would rather remain lost than let a policeman know what they were looking for, I would think most motorists in such a situation would be glad to have assistance.

[elkfersupper]

The officer then puts increased pressured on the subject to comply by making a more absolute command.

Interesting choice of words....."subject".

Here all along, I thought we were "citizens", not "subjects".

Cops these days have an attitude. In their minds, one is either a cop or a suspect.

I, for one, am tired of it.

[photodawg]

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.


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

Read the transcript carefully. "Find a reason to lock you up" simply means, the boy is overstepping the bounds of acceptable conduct and could be taken down to the station if he got out of hand. Is that intimidation, yes. Is that illegally arresting someone? of course not. The officer is letting the suspect know that he has the discretionary authority to bring someone down to the station if they are not cooperative. This kid was resisting authority. Not in a violent way, or even in an arrestable way, but in a way that conveyed to the officer that the subject did not fully respect his authority.
Notice that when the boy warned of the taping, the officer immediately replied "we are too".

[photodawg]

Is it appropriate for the police to look for an excuse to arrest an innocent citizen in response to the citizen "running his mouth"?


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

No, because if that was the case, the officer would have taken the boy down to the station for running his mouth. It isn't appropriate so the officer didn't do it. He let the boy "run his mouth" and then respectfully warned the boy not to continue so the situation wouldn't get out of hand. Obviously the officers involved exercised enough restraint as did the boy, to result in the youth getting back into his car and driving off, tape in hand, with no ticket, or arrest or physical confrontation.

[elkfersupper]

Give the cops a break.

I'll give the cops a break when they stop trying to randomly turn every dirt path in America into a toll road.

[elkfersupper]

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.

On which planet, and in which country do you live?

[NittanyLion]

Honestly, your intepretation is preposterous. I don't even know how to respond to such a bizarre conclusion. No reasonable person can possibly believe that's what the officer meant.

[photodawg]

Interesting choice of words....."subject".

Here all along, I thought we were "citizens", not "subjects".

Cops these days have an attitude. In their minds, one is either a cop or a suspect.

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

If you check my posts I use the word citizen and subject interchangeably so as not to become boring and redundant.

_____________________________________________


Cops these days have an attitude. In their minds, one is either a cop or a suspect.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

This is a pretty broad brush statement indicting all "cops" and assuming attitude and motivation you can't possible know exists. Be careful what you assume.