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.

[Diddle E. Squat]

http://www.thenewspaper.com/

Sounds like an independent media source, right?

But on their homepage sidebar their true agenda is displayed:

"This is a journal of the politics of driving, with extensive documentation of issues involved in red light and speed camera enforcement."



So this is actually just a dishonest attempt to pawn off editorialized activist tripe as coming from an independent media source. I guess they are afraid that fewer people would take them seriously if their spammed articles were from a more accurately labeled source, such as www.antitrafficenforcement.com

[RobRoy]

Oops. It was confusing. The limit is now 50. Sorry about that. No, I wasn't intentionally confrontational. I was assertive and not intimidated. I think when cops have a strong belief a stop is going to court they weigh whether or not this is one of the ones they want to push that far.

Mine wasn't.

I actually had one cop yell at me once and almost immediately back down.

I had pulled out from behind a slowpoke on a freeeway onramp through the gore strip, floored it and crossed three lanes of traffic. When he pulled me over, he said "WHAT WAS THAT ALL ABOUT BACK THERE...sir?. My wife thought he was cute, in a motherly way. I think it showed. It was actually kind of funny. She thought we should have tried to set him up with our 19 year old daughter in the back seat.

[sam_paine]

BeHoldaPaleHorse: First, I am a medically retired cop courtesy of of a punk with a gun. (Cost me one of my two favorite lungs.) Second, the Constitution does not contain any clauses to the effect of "all this goes on hold if the cop feels like it." If the cop cannot remain within the boundaries of the Constitution, then he needs to find something else to do for a living.

BenMugged: I spent 20 years in the service protecting your right to free speech. I withdraw my gift.

BeHoldaPaleHorse => HERO.

BenMugged => ZERO.

With Liberty and Freedom FOR ALL, not just your cronies!!!

[monday]

"Unfortunately for him the police acted professionally,"

You mean UNPROFESSIONALLY.

[blu]

OK, ya got me there. The kid didn't "win" anything...he was merely allowed to continue to live under the protection of our constitution -without being required to obtain legal counsel. Too bad it took such extreme measures.

I have a copy of a "Bust Card" I give to my students (when they look like the kind who may need it- and "look" means much more than blue hair and a pierced tongue/lip/bellybutton). Some day, I really must take it down to the local cop shop and ask the guys and gals in brown how they'd react to it.

[Ecliptic]

"Khrushev said that the they will bury us without firing a shot. Guess this kid is just one of his foot soldiers."

If you read his full speech, you would see he said they would destroy us economically ...

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

"You think that is gonna somehow exonerate the cops."

I haven't seen anything yet that shows the cops need "exoneration". Since they taped it all, it will show that they followed proper protocol......the punk demonstrated from the git that he was uncooperative - plenty satisfactory for the cops to take a closer look in proper performance of their duty as regards traffic safety.

I suppose all you folks think that the cops shouldn't have arrested any who were found to be intoxicated during this check-point operation?

This punk PLANNED to be "victimized", but he only succeeded in causing the cops to follow their lawful procedure.

[Defiant]

You're joking, right? This kid is a hero in my book. He's quick-witted, too. Very impressive for a 19 year old. I appreciate the police, but I don't think they ought to give a person grief for not wanting to talk to them about their personal plans. The response should have been, "Fair enough. Have you been drinking? No, ok have a nice evening."

Lucky for the kid he had it on tape. I am curious what kind of setup he had that was able to catch all the discussion. A few years ago, some cops were taped beating a guy up pretty bad at Qualcomm Stadium, and they threatened to arrest the guy who took the video unless he gave them the tape. The guy did, and then, mysteriously, the tape vanished.

[The KG9 Kid]

Wormwood speaks for me in his #235 reply to you.

No, this was NOT like those six imams that caused a ruckus on a commericial plane. Those were customers onboard a commercial jetliner who refused to comply with safety regulations and instructions from the airline attendents that they were beholden to observe in order to fly as passengers.

This incident involved a young man who declined to answer a question on his travel intentions at a police roadblock after presenting his valid license and proof of insurance. The police then searched his vehicle based upon no suspicion and told him that they'd 'find something to take him to jail for' after evidently doing damage to his car.

I hope that you're able to distinguish between these two incidents, and if you are, please respond in the affirmative. I refuse to believe you're this obtuse.

[Phil Southern]

Everyone knows the score here......cops verses citizens....today the cops have the advantage and are consolidating. What's new?

[Labyrinthos]

This kid will win no lawsuit.

That's becaue the county's insurance carrier will settle big time long before this case gets to a jury.

[monday]

"No. More like his liberal teacher had 'prompted' him on how great it is to get police brutality on film."

If police acted professionally it would be impossible to get anything on film. Am I to understand that police brutality, your words, is acceptable to you and that catching it on film is not?

[John D]

If he had acted deliberately suspicious or cause a full blown incident I would feel differently.

---

Do we know he didn't? I have a feeling he was looking for a confrontation (why else would he be driving around with a camcorder running). I know from personal experience because it is something I have done many years ago when I was a teenager.

[TexasTransplant]

>>>>>"Yes, I did. ..the kid is full of himself and he has an agenda. He was approaching the cops in bad faith. . .this is the real world I'm talking about. ..don't approach the police in bad faith. .DUMB. . .say "yes sir, I was on my way to krispy kreme to pick up some honey-glazed for my mommie"<<<<<

You prefer a LIE to the Truth?
You would also probably agree with "don't ask don't tell"... correct? (Clinton appreciates your support), the Officer knee deep in a lie when he claimed he was just trying to make conversation.
What do you want to bet that close to the #1 or the first thing that a Police Officer is Evaluated or Graded on is "Truthfulness" just like in the Military and just like in the Military Truthfulness goes out the window for special interests.
TT

[RobRoy]

>>This kid will win no lawsuit.<<

Punitive damages. Assuming the transcript is accurate, this is a no-brainer.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

I haven't seen anything yet that shows the cops need "exoneration".

First, there is the small matter of a search without probable cause.

Second, there is the small matter of exceeding their authority to the point of threatening this man with jail time for being insufficiently servile.

I suppose all you folks think that the cops shouldn't have arrested any who were found to be intoxicated during this check-point operation?

They should not have been running a checkpoint--it detains innocent and guilty alike without probable cause.

This punk PLANNED to be "victimized", but he only succeeded in causing the cops to follow their lawful procedure.

Please show where in their "lawful procedure" that they are allowed to gather information as to your comings and goings, or where cops are allowed to threaten you with jail time for being insufficiently servile.

[The KG9 Kid]

You're right. They must be lying. Those rotten snot-nosed punks from TheNewspaper.com, thinking they can just drive their piece-o-crap snot-nosed punk cars whereever they want not answering police questions!

... Oh, wait. Sorry. I had you confused with another poster.

[3niner]

I've had worse and I was not confrontational with the cop like the snot-nosed kid was.

The kid was not confrontational, until after he had been repeatedly confronted by the cop. Refusing to tell where he is going, is not confrontational. Insisting that someone provide this information, under threat of arrest, is confrontational.

[FreedomCalls]

The kid was technically within his rights, but he expressed them in such a rude, confrontational way, that the officer then reciprocated

No, the police acted in a confrontational way. They blocked the road with several police cruisers with lights on, stopped the driver from proceeding, and approached his window wearing guns on their hips. When the driver politely declined to discuss his personal life, the armed police removed him from his car, searched it, detained him, and threatened him with arrest. Who's being confrontational again?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Who's being confrontational again?

Why, the kid, of course! He didn't bow and scrape to his betters! </sarcasm>