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.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson"

I know you're on the kid's side, but I've noticed something that appears again and again in this thread that I think is appalling:

Look at the FR profiles of many of the staunchest cop defenders here that think the police should have yanked the kid from the car by his hair, clubbed him with their nightsticks, and slapped him around a bit.

These posters' profiles have the most curious quotations on our nation's foundation on liberty and justice, literary references to founders of modern libertarianism, treatises on natural 'Rights', and historical anecdotes celebrating the divine inspiration behind the US Constitution.

... Then they come in here and proclaim dat measly little punk shoulda got clubbed in the head for sassin' a cop. Even weirder, they threaten the same abuse to fellow posters who point out this great hypocrisy they're burdened with as if they could reach through the Internet and grab someone by the throat.

I'm no psychologist, but that's just schizophrenic. The very epitome, in fact, of what DU posters think a Freeper and all 'Big C' Conservatives are in person. This mal-conditioning probably all started for them at toilet training.

Posters like these should do everyone a favor and redirect their impotent hostility with a good solid blow to their monitor screen with a claw hammer followed by snapping their keyboard over their head like a soda cracker.

[rednesss]

Amen brother, you keep preaching and I'll turn the pages. That's why my sneaking suspicion is that a large majority of the "beat the punk down" posters are either cops, married to a cop, or have a close relative that is a cop. The fact that they can't square their beliefs in a free society with the blurring emotion of loyalty to a loved one should not come as a surprise. Most have never had to deal with a badge with an attitude. Except of course motorcycle cops, I swear motors would give their grandmother a ticket.

[P-Marlowe]

People who have been drinking or doing drugs sometimes get belligerent. People who have something to hide sometimes get belligerent.

So what you are saying is the the cop was probably drinking or on drugs and he was trying to hide it, huh?

That makes sense. That's probably why he had such a short fuse.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Sorry I'm late, but, I tire of these "molestation points" too. Both for drinking and for seat belts and any other thing, just for the fun of it.

About time someone starts remembering the FOURTH Amend....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[rednesss]

They're for the children, thus anything is allowed. Now you and your outdated constitution scurry away now.

[the OlLine Rebel]

LOL

;-D

[MortMan]

The question asked was non-threatening. It's asked hundreds of times of hundreds of people, and historically speaking, it's only those with something to hide from the cops that refuse to answer it.

The cop got an answer he didn't LIKE, so he harassed the kid. The question was answered - in a full sentence, according to the transcript. But it wasn't the answer the officer WANTED, so he escalated the situation.

[rednesss]

Well he didn't want to get interviewed so the cop forced an interview. </sarcarsm> What the cop meant was that Brett didn't want to get interrogated, so the cop decided to force a roadside interrogation. But dang it, he forgot his standard issue rubber hose and bright light.

[NativeSon]

Amendment IV

Where is the outrage over civil rights violations? Why are so many willing to take it?

This kid has the foritude to stand up for his Rights! We need more of his kind.

I for one am very sick of these Gub'mint fishing trips and I let them know it.

[rednesss]

"I for one am very sick of these Gub'mint fishing trips and I let them know it."


Don't take it out on the poor guys in the field. Zey are just vollowing orderz. Zey have a tough job. Your silly, antiquated expectations of privacy are not compatible with the future of security. The Government will protect you from everything, most importantly yourself. Now move along before you get tasered. Compliance is compulsory, resistance is futile.

[BearCub]

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.

It's not a matter of being considered a secret. I don't have to answer the question because I don't want to. No other reason is necessary. Refusal to answer does not create reasonable suspicion, which is the standard the police must use.

If one were drunk, any DWI attorney would tell you shutting is the most prudent course of action (not that I have experience with that, mind you). Shut up and hand over your license, insurance and registration if applicable. Those are the only things the police are entitled to.

[supercat]

It's not a matter of being considered a secret. I don't have to answer the question because I don't want to. No other reason is necessary. Refusal to answer does not create reasonable suspicion, which is the standard the police must use.

The reason I suggested the particular question that I did was that, to the extent that DUI checkpoints are allowable at all, they are predicated on a cop's authority to ensure that people operating a vehicle are able to do so safely and competantly. While even competant drivers get lost, effective travel typically requires knowing something about one's route and paying at least some attention to one's whereabouts.

While it may not be quite as informative as things like the line-walking test, asking a sober driver where he is would seem to be a way of determining his sobriety in most cases without requiring him to leave the vehicle or reveal anything that could even potentially be personal.

[sport]

Until they bitchslap him.

Then he will sing a different tune.

[BearCub]

SuperCat, The cops can certainly ask the questions. But a refusal to answer can't be construed as reason to detain the driver further. In fact, it has been ruled in multiple courts that turning around to avoid a checkpoint doesn't provide 'reasonable suspicion' that a driver is drunk. You can avoid a checkpoint with complete impunity.

Once again, it boils down to: I can refuse to answer that question because I'm allowed to - the particular reasons I choose to do so are none of your business. If I'm driving recklessly then arrest me for that. If not, this is America and I can proceed unimpeded, wizout paperz.

[jongaltsr]

Ha !

[NativeSon]

Compliance is compulsory, resistance is futile

Makes you wanna' go out and buy more ammo, doesn't it?

[takenoprisoner]

"Now move along before you get tasered. Compliance is compulsory, resistance is futile."

Today, schools are providing their resource officers with tasers. So compliance conditioning will now begin at an early age.

Fat lazy narcissistic "Americans" have dumped the blood of our founders into the waste treatment facility. In the future, all the descendants of today's fatlazy narcissistic "americans" will all be slaves to the one central authority who oversees their subjects with tasers and guns.

Seemingly you offered your comment in jest. The fact is, it is a stark reality.

[rednesss]

"Makes you wanna' go out and buy more ammo, doesn't it?"


Yeah but I'm reminded of Waco and Ruby Ridge. Now I'm not saying that they weren't a little nutball. But if you've ever watched Waco: Rules of Engagement on the Documentary Channel or the Ruby Ridge documentary, that course of action should give you pause. I still think Janet Reno should hang from the neck until she is dead, dead, dead. If you haven't watched them, do, there's some nice footage of old Chuckie Schumer during the congressional hearings afterwards sticking his foot in his mouth.

[MEGoody]

The cop got an answer he didn't LIKE, so he harassed the kid.

No one likes smart assed answers from a brat kid.

That aside, belligerence is a sign of drinking and drug use. The cop didn't handle it right, but it is the right thing for a cop to follow up when someone shows such signs and they are behind the wheel of a car.

The question was answered

In a belligerent manner, as I've already pointed out.

[MEGoody]

So what you are saying is the the cop was probably drinking or on drugs and he was trying to hide it, huh?

Do you think that is clever, or do you really have that much trouble comprehending? Just trying to understand if I should fake a laugh or be sympathetic.