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.

[dirtboy]

Because asking that question is sometimes a precipitator for finding valuable information about threats to public safety.

Ah, so now a DUI checkpoint is also allowed to be a fishing expedition for other crimes as well, eh?

Heck, cops also should just be able to stop you on the street and ask where you are going, then. And come into your home and make sure you aren't doing anything illegal. Think how safe the public will be then.

[Poser]

"Asking this question or similar ones is an easy, preliminary sobriety test. Thanks to this moronic kid and others like him, future checkpoints may have to put everyone who is stopped through the full sobriety test - walk the line, breath into this end, etc."

Ridiculous BS. The cop asked a question for the supposed purpose of determining if the driver's speech was slurred and if the driver was thinking clearly. The driver gave a clear answer without slurred speech. End of interrogation. Purpose achieved.

Thank you sir. Have a nice day. You may proceed.

[Lutheran Loft II]

stevio,
I agree that sobriety check points are BS. It doesn't cut down on drunk driving which should be the goal. If all the repeat offenders were taken off the road for good this would to a great extent cut down on drunk driving. It's all set up so that if you are against check points you must be for drunk driving. To that all I can say is lots of sober drivers drive much more dangerously than lots of "legally" drunk drivers.

[P-Marlowe]

The cops actions are criminal

I think you are carrying this a bit too far. The cops may have acted like idiots, but idoicy is not (yet) a crime. The young man probably has a viable civil claim against the cops for any damages he can prove that were the result of his brief and unauthorized detention. But clearly the cops did not commit a "crime" here. It is pretty stupid to say to a citizen that if you don't cooperate they will "find a reason" to arrest you, but it is not criminal. If they had "found a reason" then most likely that evidence would have to be thrown out as there would be a presumption that the evidence had been planted or fabricated. That is why it is really stupid to say something like that.

All the boot licking cop worshipers on this thread should accept the facts and get over it.

Your maturity level is probably much lower than that exhibited by the cops here. Frankly, you kinda sound like a boot licking cop hater to me.

This cop was in the wrong and he was in the wrong by a mile.

I would agree, but his actions were not "criminal". They were just stupid.

Don't number me among your cop hating comrades. I think very highly of cops and 99 times out of 100 I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Here there is no room for doubt. They harassed this kid. That was wrong. But it was not criminal and in the grand scheme of things, it was fairly minor.

[cookcounty]

"We have not yet reached the point to where we need police permission to travel from one point to another, though from your post, you will be happy when we do."

Not sure where asking where you're headed is about "permission." It's a public roadway and public roadways are the scene of 40,000 deaths a year (that's 50X our loss rate in Iraq). The police are there to protect the public and that means routinely eliciting volunteered information from drivers. The officer did not handle it well thereafter, but that doesn't mean the kid wasn't a jerk. I cannot imagine speaking this way to an officer at a check point. If the kid is just cruising around, he can just say he's taking the car for a spin. Why start with hostility? It's like the kid was trying to prove something.

[SauronOfMordor]

Why do police officers not have equal rights under the constitution? Are they from another country? Are they not citizens also?

They have rights, but their powers and authority are limited (or at least need to be). If a civilian stranger came up to me and asked where I was going, I would tell him to go to hell. The kid her was far more polite than that in addressing the officer, in deference to the officer's office

[dirtboy]

Why do police officers not have equal rights under the constitution?

If you were to prevent me from going about my way by force or threat of force, you would go to jail in most cases.

A cop has that power under law. With that power comes responsibility to not abuse it. Asking questions of someone that do not pertain to the specific law enforcement issue at hand is abusing the power of a police checkpoint. If someone pulls up, they should be checked for sobriety and that's that.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

LOL You'll figure it out when your son becomes a teenager.

Yeah, because I was never a teenager myself (eyes rolling).

[cookcounty]

"Heck, the very notion of a drunk driving checkpoint is a violation of requiring probable cause to stop someone."

If a kid gets himself hopped up and the cops miss him in a checkpoint and the kid kills your daughter will you be OK with that?

Rights are impacted by the venue in which we are. You have a right to yell "Fire!" in the woods but not in a theatre. You have a right to drive drunk on your farm but not on the public road. All our rights are circumscribed according to reasoanble measures, and drunk drivers kill a lot more Americans than IEDs. What's wrong with cops asking obviously normal questions of a motorist at a sobriety checkpoint? "Where are you headed" is the first thing you'd ask somebody who is obviously going somewhere.

What should he ask? After the driver rolls down his window should he ask "What's he capital of Transylvania?" "Does a pink shirt look too gay?" "Are you a Democrat?"

....how about if the officer asks ".....Can you think of an appropriately impersonal question with which to inquire of you, which would not make you uncomfortable or embarrassed?"

---Would that be prissy enough to calm your fears and dry your palms?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Thanks to this moronic kid and others like him, future checkpoints may have to put everyone who is stopped through the full sobriety test - walk the line, breath into this end, etc.

This bit of hyperbole is highly unlikely. Rather more likely is that during future roadblocks, the cops will be discouraged from interrogating peaceful motorists about their private business.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

If a kid gets himself hopped up and the cops miss him in a checkpoint and the kid kills your daughter will you be OK with that?

Talk about your loaded questions . . .

"If a bunny hops across the road and its cuteness kills your mother, your father, your wife, your daugher, your son, and your granny, and decapitates your godson, will you be okay with that?"

[dirtboy]

If a kid gets himself hopped up and the cops miss him in a checkpoint and the kid kills your daughter will you be OK with that?

How about the cops go looking for drunk drivers instead of waiting for drunks to come to them?

You have a right to drive drunk on your farm but not on the public road.

I also have a right to not be searched without probable cause. Checkpoints violate that.

What should he ask?

How about asking his name and whether he has been drinking?

[Lloyd227]

They used the authority of their position to threaten and innocent civilian with the loss of his freedom.

Look it up

[rawcatslyentist]

His car was searched without probable cause or a warrant.

Flunking a simple sobriety test IS reasonable cause.

Kiddo FAILED to answer or respond correctly to a simple question=Probable Cause.

[dirtboy]

Flunking a simple sobriety test IS reasonable cause.

The kid didn't flunk the sobriety test.

Kiddo FAILED to answer or respond correctly to a simple question=Probable Cause.

Gee, lemme get review that "right to remain silent" bit and get back to you on that one.

You are not obligated to do any more than provide a cop license and registration. Folks like you scare the crap out of me because you see the exercise of basic Constitutional rights as some kind of criminal act.

[rawcatslyentist]

SO you're one of them! You're an Anarchist worshiper!

It might be funny except it isn't.

Slur we must all follow laws, or the result is anarchy!

All laws restrict freedom!

You are misguided in your statement of my worshiping cop/state.

You have a paranoia complex. Random sobriety checks do NOT equal Nazi Stalin Mao or Castro.

This kid FAILED a simple sobriety check.

I'll write this slow so you might better comprehend it.

The kid FAILED a simple sobriety check.

If you have nothing better to do with your life, I suggest you argue with the police whenever and wherever possible! If that is your defenition of freedom!

[dirtboy]

This kid FAILED a simple sobriety check.

Saying it twice does not make it so. Please show where the kid failed a sobrity test. If he had, he would have gone to jail.

[rawcatslyentist]

Gee you are unable to comprehend simple questions also.

The cop didn't care one whit about where the kid was going.

The officer did NOT care where the kid was going.

The officer was not trying to prevent the kid from going anywhere.

The officer was evaluating the kids ability to adequately respond to simple conversation.

The kid FAILED to accurately respond to an innocent simple question.

This is not a nazi/commie police state. Random sobriety checks do not mean you have to heil hillary or the gestapo will break down you door. (Unless your name is Koresh or Gonzales.)

[rawcatslyentist]

>"Would you allow Democrat cops to harrass Republicans because the Demorat was just acting on his first amendment rights????"

Ask El Rushbo or Scooter about that sometime.

[takenoprisoner]

db: "His car was searched without probable cause or a warrant."

rawcat: "Flunking a simple sobriety test IS reasonable cause"

How so? He was never given a sobriety test even after removing him from his car. Obviously everyone there knew he was sober. Are you suggesting that responding incorrectly to an LEO is now probable cause to have your car searched without a warrant?