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]

I don't see what's the problem. JimRob would post just like this way back in 1998 or earlier. It's no criticism on him at all.

Coming around the corner on ten years later, I can find very few people here who subscribe to the old mission statement of restoring the Constitutional republic as it was meant to be by our Founders. I have to wonder if a majority of Freepers even know what the hell that means anymore. Just look here in this thread at the obnoxious partially coherent cop abuse lovers what shoulda' beat dat punk kid down in the street for sassin' a cop. He ain't got no right to clam up when the police are asking him questions!

Back in the old days on FR, someone who posted like that would have been hounded off the forum and told to never return. Sharp-eyed lookouts would lay in wait for those who tried to come sneaking back in. Otherwise, you couldn't even get the regular posters to acknowledge your existence if you didn't have a valid email address in your tagline. If you posted anonymously, you were instantly assumed to be a disruptor until otherwise proven innocent.

[PLMerite]

"Think "I'm on my way to the local crack house" would have satisfied the officer?"


Isn't lying to a cop a crime in itself?

[AFreeBird]

Exactly! People have the right to remain silent, but they better be prepared to do so from a jail cell.

One, I suspect he was prepared for it, hence the video camera. Two, and this is more important; we live in a free country, or we are supposed to, and not having to show papers and just cause to travel to wherever the hell we want to is a basic right. The Young man was not breaking any laws, and the officers were prepared, and even stated that, they would find a reason, to lock him up.

I have respect and admiration for the tough jobs LEO's have to do, but they have to walk a fine line, because when they cross that line, EVERYONE loses.

Your statement is scary. Sorry, but it is. My forefathers didn't suffer hardships, adversity and wars so I would have to give an itinerary, and justification of my travel plans, to the authorities. I don't care how difficult their jobs are; these cops, however briefly, stepped over the line. It can't be tolerated by a free people. The young man in this incident apparently understands that and I hope this incident results in disciplinary action against the officers involved.

[knews_hound]

I was going to post this to myself but when I saw you I figured why not dump on Knotts?

LOL

I have been driving high performance cars for over 3o years.  As a result, I have become well acquainted with the "random stop", "emissions equipment inspection", "safety inspection", "excessive noise stop" and every other manner of complete BS "Traffic Stops" that have only one real intention which is; find something, anything, that can be used to produce a traffic ticket.

As a result, after 30 years of this, two things have happened.

1. My cars are the epitome of craftsmanship, attention to detail and legality.
2. My respect for the Police is very very low.

Were it not for a few of the good guys out there, I would have written off the entire profession.

It always makes me laugh now, when they pull over the lowered 5.0 Mustang with the burbling exhaust, rubber band tires and thumpin stereo only to see my gray hair, bifocals and AARP sticker.



Keep em guessing I say.

Cheers,

knewshound

Latest Article; Allahboard US Airways.

[Drango]

To hell with the 4th amendment.

[William Terrell]

Driving around late at night alone talking to your video camera indicates that this kid is not all there.

Sounds like a bright kid. Probably setup the video on purpose to record the reaction to him refusing to answer a patrolman's questions.

I hope he sues those cops until they're pale yellow.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... To hell with the 4th amendment."

You said it. That old relic in the so-called 'Bill of Rights' (I like to think of it as the 'Bill that Whiny Activists Hide Behind') along with the 3rd Amendment were only intended to prevent British Redcoats from foraging pigs and chickens from Colonial farmers.

I don't see any Redcoats, do you? Who owns a pig or chicken anymore? Let's just remove those embarassing amendments and finally move into the 21st Century.

[microgood]

(Officer #2 then unlocks my car and looks around inside of it. You can see his flash light moving around in the car.)
Officer #2: Hey uh, I can't drive a stick. (laughs about it) I can't drive a stick.
(Officer #3 enters my car and attempts to move it. He stalls it once. He then lets it roll back down the hill before giving it a lot of gas and ridding the clutch while trying to move it forward. He then exits the car 62 seconds after entering.)

I cannot believe this guy trashes this guys car because he would not answer a very personal question. Even funnier is his claim he could not drive a stick. That ought to be worth some bucks.

[Charlespg]

But then, this is FR, where "pig haters" outnumber "cop worshippers" by quite a bit from what I've seen. It constantly amazes me.

What amazes me is how many people here on free republic think every one who criticizes the cops are " pig haters"
I don't hate cops but when they do things conduct illegal searches and shoot somebody's family pet(mentioned on a earlier thread on FR)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1757101/posts
Then they need be held accountable
And I don't care if the kid was 17 or 90,unless there is a full blown emegency. the cops have no right to ask a citizen about his travel plans. From some of the comments on this thread you would think that some folks have no concept of the bill of rights

[AFreeBird]

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.

Umm, so the officer couldn't engage him in conversation by asking about the weather, the local sports teams or whatever innocuous questions come to mind.

No, he asked where are you going!

He asked a personal question, one which anyone living in a FREE country shouldn't have to feel compelled to answer.

Even if he was going to a friends house to engage in sex, drugs and rock and roll, he does have the 5th amendment right not to incriminate himself, even in a court of law, before a judge, jury and under oath. Why should a roadside stop be any different?

Or are you suggesting that we do away with the Bill of Rights? Or maybe only as they pertain to teenage drivers on the road.

What if scenario:

Officer: Mr. Ben, where are you going?
Ben: Home to my wife.
Officer: And what are you going to do when you get there; engage in carnal relations?
Ben: None of your business
Officer: Step out of the car; you're going downtown.

By your reasoning, you should be thrown in jail.

[sam_paine]

...the old mission statement of restoring the Constitutional republic...

Double WOW!

Man, you are old school!

I've heard a couple of things outside of FR that's given me pause in general.

One was a "conservative" on a "conservative" talk show reminding the host that the primary function of the Federal Govt was for protection of the homeland....which he added..."to protect me from smokers."

The other was a speech Justice Breyer gave on a radio debate with Scalia, where Breyer essentially said it was important for him to cite froeign law because it helped give a political boost to fledgling courts in developing nations. WTF?

[shaking head]

My own parents think Social Security is a scam, perpetrated on the young ones (incl. their grandkids....) and yet, they figure they should get all they can back out since everyone else is bilking the system.

I see people mad that their FEMA trailer particle board bed couldn't support their fat ass and broke, and want to know when the FedGov (me) is going to pay for their back surgery because of that.

I haven't been on FR for ten years....but in my (humble) opinion, FR is just a reflection of what the rest of the society is doing, and the slide you see here is indicative of the greater sinkhole.

See you in Galt's Gulch, my friend!

[ConservaTexan]

What is scary about that? That is what 'having your day in court' is all about. My point is that if you are looking to be offended, or harassed or disrespected you will probably find it very easily. This probably would not have happened if the kid had answered the question "Where you headed tonight?" Is it too much to ask that someone answer that???? Conversation is a tool that officers use to identify people driving under the influence at legal DWI checkpoints (which I do think are a violation of Amendment IV). By not speaking with the officer, young Brett was baiting the officer and inviting this to happen.

Consider this scenario:
After refusing to answer the question "Where you headed tonight?", Brett drives to his ex girlfriends' house and hacks her, her parents and 7 year old twin brother and sister to death with a machete. What would the people here piling on the police officers have to say? I doubt it would be 'At least they didn't violate any of his constitutional rights'

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Sad story but nothing to do with harassing a sober young man who now has a distrust of police officers.

[glasseye]

Too many here have become 'Republicans' as opposed to conservatives.

I remember a time when we longed for a republican administration so we could hold our own party's 'feet to the fire'.

Now we seem to only want to win elections instead of advancing real, honest conservative princapals.

It is not conservative to think it okay for police to trample our rights, for whatever reason.

[Finny]

Dude, you could have avoided all that shiite if you had just been a tiny bit more civil to the first officers question. True it is your "right" to give dick answers, it's also their "right" to give you dick police treatment. Play friendly, and you will be surprised how easy life can be!

This kid wasn't giving a "dick" answer. The question was a "dick" question. And life isn't "easy" when police officers can treat regular people like this.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

That's convincing.

[dpa5923]

You did not answer the question. You claimed "Evading conversation is interfering with the officers duty". You were asked how you do square this with an indivduals right to remain silent and against self incrimidation.

Of course, the officer would have to use other methods to determined your ability to operate a motor vehicle or whether you are under the influence, but the question remains: If, as you (wrongly) claim "Evading conversation is interfering with the officers duty" how do you square this a right to remain silent or not incrimidate yourself?

I'll answer for you. You can't. You are wrong and so were the cops in this one.

[Finny]

I appreciate and cherish cops because they put their lives on the line for us daily. I say a prayer under my breath everytime I see one that God keep him safe and grant him good timing. But you are SO OFF THE MARK.

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

Then the officer should change the subject and try to engage the person in a decent, polite chit-chat. "How about them Dodgers?" or "Cool car -- what year is it?"

The brat should have been arrested.

The "brat" should have been treated with the same degree of courtesy as he would have been accorded had he been the police chief's son or the officer's nephew. Officers who behave this way at DUI checkpoints are acting badly and they need to change. This kid has the guts to point it out. He has my gratitude.

[Finny]

Something tells me that kid will have a lot of problems growing up.

Something tells me that kids like this are what will save America.

[Don Joe]

Officer #1: How are you tonight sir?
Brett: Hi.

Whoa!

Hooked on phonics, anyone?

I find the whole "checkpoint" thing to be about as "American" as Checkpoint Charlie (the "other side" of it), and I find "fishing trips" to be repugnant to the Constitution. But that said, to answer "High" to "How are you tonight sir?" is to BEG for "special attention"!

Remember, what the cop heard was "HIGH" as the answer to his question of how the kid was. He (the cop) wasn't reading the kid's answer off a typed transcript, he was HEARING it. Why am I thinking that if the kid said "I'm doing fine", or even "OK", it would have been the end of it?

If you think about it, "High" -- or even "Hi" -- is NOT a rational reply to "How are you tonight sir?" It's bait, pure and simple!