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.

[School of Rational Thought]

"Get a grip, these guys were on the clock, were they out responding to home burglaries or out solving crimes, he no. That costs money. They we doing something to generate revenue, that is make money.

It is such a crock that they say they are out to serve the public when 99% of what they do is fleece the public. It is what unionized government workers do."

The government might have ocme across ten carloads of illegla aliens and would just let them go too. Because it costs money. Let the government make money on deportations and they would skyrocket.

[DCPatriot]

IMO, we should all be grateful that this kid INTENDED to set up the police officers conducting the DWI checkpoint.

At the very least, numerous police departments across the country just passed emails and memos warning them to tread lightly in their job enforcement.

[TexasTransplant]

>>>>>>" I spent 20 years in the service protecting your right to free speech.

I withdraw my gift"<<<<<<

You spent? I served 28 years so a$$holes like you could retire and bloviate. Sorry to hear it was such a chore for you.

TT

[Jonx6]

ping

[Fierce Allegiance]

Very typical abuse of justice. I'm quite srupsised he didn't end up falling down severla flights of stairs in the middle of that orad, and end up with a b-light to the head and a broken spine causing permanent paralysis like one of my friends got.

Surely, not ALL cops are scum, but there certainly are plenty that are!

[3niner]

...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.

An audio/video record favors the honest party, in a confrontation. It's good that the police have video cameras in police cars, but they should expect honest citizens to use the same tools.

In fact, digital video technology has improved greatly in the last few years. It will not be long before many people wear tiny video cameras and record on a whim.

Honest citizens are likely to start investing in car video systems that will record in all directions outside the car, and record inside the car. With today's technology, one could create a system with tiny (<1/8" lens) cameras that would record into buffer memory, hidden deep within the structure of the car.

If I were to design a system, it would always record into the buffer memory, and a panic button would activate an uplink, which would start uploading the video to a secure location. The system would be hooked into car power, but would have its own hidden batteries, to keep it running if the car were stopped, and the main battery disconnected.

I would also make it receive and record from the personal system, worn by the driver, up to perhaps 100' from the car.

I expect that some people will be using these kinds of systems within 5 years.

When this becomes common, it will become much easier to weed the "bad cops" out of the police forces. The "good cops" tell us there are only a few of the "bad ones". It won't be long before we find out how true this is.

[razorback-bert]

At one DWI checkpoint once upon a time.

cop: why are you driving tonight?

me: because my dog is a lousy driver.

I got a smile and pass through the next three times.

[School of Rational Thought]

Yeah cops can have a tough job and therefore should be allowed to violate our rights.

Perhaps the cops should have pummeled the kid with their clubs. You never know, they might get shot by some methhead. Tough job, they shouldn't have to respect us.

[Popocatapetl]

There are several rules of thumb that should be followed when stopped by a police officer, when the situation shows signs of becoming uncomfortable. That is, when the officer behaves in an unusual manner, causing you to become suspicious.

First of all, if an officer orders you to do a physical action, you must do it immediately and you cannot stop doing it until ordered. For instance, if they ask you to put your hands on the car, then stand behind you and ask you a question, if you so much as remove one hand from the car and partially turn to respond, you are resisting arrest.

A good way to respond to a physical action command is the military trick of repeating back the command. "I am now putting my hands on the car!" This has an oddly calming effect on a tense situation, and it also helps to remind you of what you are being ordered to do. "I am reaching into my glove box to get my registration and proof of insurance."

If you suspect the officer is angry, disturbed or otherwise showing signs of becoming aggressive or violent, sidetrack the conversation by saying that you are carrying "valuable property", and request the presence of a police supervisor. Politely refuse to describe said property, except to say that it has a value greater than $500.

If at any time the officer declines to contact a police supervisor on request, you are in danger. Be extremely careful from that point on.

If an officer asks you an unexpected question, which you feel is inappropriate, a good response is to reply with the question "Am I under arrest?" If they do not say "Yes" or "No", or try to intimidate you in any way at that point, then clearly state "Please direct all statements and questions to my attorney."

This magical phrase is far more effective than asserting your Miranda rights, which have been severely undermined by Supreme Court decisions. This is because lawyers are very protective of their right to direct their clients, as being at the heart of defense. So memorize that statement.

Any response to a question or statement made by the officers after that point is almost assuredly inadmissible, along with any subsequent evidence discovered after that point.

Never confess, even if you think you are guilty. Many people have been convicted for crimes which they thought they had committed, but hadn't. For example, they think they have killed someone, because they "looked dead", and are convicted of attempted murder even though they had no intent to kill, and the person they thought dead was just unconscious.

Never volunteer information. Criminal trials are haphazard and chaotic affairs, and often revolve around extraneous subjects, rather than the specifics of the case. You never need to chit-chat with a policeman about anything, no matter how seemingly unimportant. It would be ridiculous to be convicted of a crime you didn't commit because you have a copy of Ann Coulter's latest book in your bedroom, which you discussed with an officer while making bail.

Policemen have a hunter's eye. So if they are interested in you, there is something unusual about you that has attracted their attention. Try to find out what it is ASAP.

Often, it is now common practice for them to carry voice activated recorders; so assume you are being recorded when you talk to a policeman. (Ironically, this is usually done to help the officer fill out an accurate report, later, so it isn't an indicator of a bad cop.) Lots of policemen do get agitated when you are recording or videotaping them, however, so if you do, do not mention the fact.

[sam_paine]

[cops] are intimidated because they know they are wrong and I assert myself in a way that they get the imopression that if they pursue a ticket, they will be in court. ... Where the cops respect the rights of the citizens and know they cannot intimidate them.

While I wish our meekest among us could feel as comfortable as you, and that our police were driven by "to serve and protect" where they, too, were as concerned....

...you are probably correct that only the hardasses will be able to protect their own rights.

[School of Rational Thought]

Are you trying to make a point?

[nkycincinnatikid]

This fellow is very ,very fortunate to have been recording the incident. He was well on his way to a dui that night.

[varina davis]

Yep!

[School of Rational Thought]

lol.... if stupidity were a crime you would be arrested and serving a life sentence.
I spent 20 years in the service protecting your right to free speech.

I withdraw my gift."

You should have asked to be paid.

We need more police to protect our freedom of movement.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Play friendly, and you will be surprised how easy life can be!

Why should the kid play friendly with a law breaking law enforcement officer?

[sam_paine]

I have a feeling he was looking for a confrontation (why else would he be driving around with a camcorder running).

If the cops are doing nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about.

Weeee! Sorry for repeating this....but these are the only threads where I can post that from my perspective!

[Fierce Allegiance]

The kid dideverything he could to avoid onfrontation. the cop agitated the situation by violating the kids rights.

I am not a pig hater, I just have seen the results of scumbag cops picking on a kid and permanently diabling him, and then denying the whole incident occurred, threatening witnesses and their families, and extensive intimidation & harrassment.

Nope, i don't hate cops, and have several friends who are, but there is a fair percentage who are pure scum.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

"...he tried to set them up. He won. They lost."

WRONG.....bad attitude/uncooperativeness is reasonably worth a suspicion of 0.02%

Chapter 577
Public Safety Offenses
Section 577.020

August 28, 2006


Chemical tests for alcohol content of blood--consent implied, when --administered, when, how--information available to person tested, contents--videotaping of chemical or field sobriety test admissible evidence.

577.020. 1. Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent to, subject to the provisions of sections 577.019 to 577.041, a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, saliva or urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of the person's blood pursuant to the following circumstances:

(1) If the person is arrested for any offense arising out of acts which the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe were committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition; or

(2) If the person is under the age of twenty-one, has been stopped by a law enforcement officer, and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person was driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or more by weight; or

(3) If the person is under the age of twenty-one, has been stopped by a law enforcement officer, and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person has committed a violation of the traffic laws of the state, or any political subdivision of the state, and such officer has reasonable grounds to believe, after making such stop, that such person has a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or greater;

(4) If the person is under the age of twenty-one, has been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint or roadblock and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person has a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or greater; snipped

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5770000020.htm

[nomorelurker]

I'm probably inept at this but could not discover when you joined etc. But having said that I agree with most of your post.

[Fierce Allegiance]

The brat should have been arrested.

Sorry, i must have missed your /s. Surely you can't be serious. If you are, you are one of the biggest idiots posting on FR, EVER!