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.

[highball]

"What kind of country have we got when little smartasses think they have some right not to answer a policeman's questions?"

I'll take a shot at this: A free one?

You beat me to it, antiRepublicrat.

A free country.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

the simple and easy way for cops to do a quick evaluation for drunkenness is to engage them in conversation.....this punk went out there to set them up, and it shows.....a jury will see it for what it is......

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

This is profiling. 19 year old kid, cop thinks drugs or alcohol. Funny how this kind of profiling is no problem, but other kinds are totally non-PC.

[stevio]

Welcome to the conditioning of the police state. Good for the kid, I hope he gets $1,000,000. These sobriety check points are total BS!

[RayStacy]

There is a reason for that. Why would I, a firebreathing conservative with a love of guns and freedom, who served 4 yrs in the Marine Corps infantry and who hates criminals and who despises drug users and dregs (even if they may have the right to use drugs), why would I detest the pigs with all my soul? Why would there be so many of us?

[The KG9 Kid]

"... The brat should have been arrested."

On what charges, exactly?




... REFUZING TO ANZWER ZE QVESTION?!

[darkangel82]

The brat should have been arrested.

Arrested for what? He wasn't committing a crime, idiot.

[TalonDJ]

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.

Nonsense. The cop could have talked about anything else. The kid just did not want to discuss his personally life. The cop could have continued the conversation on any other topic.

[rogue yam]

... it's also their "right" to give you dick police treatment.

Uh, no it's not. Anyone who thinks the police have the right, or "right", to give anyone dick treatment is a dick.

[sport]

Actually it was none of the officer's business.

Other than give them your name and show identification upon demand, you are under no obligation to answer any questions.

I would have probably told him that it was none of his business myself.

He had a valid driver's license, insurance, and a legal tag. He could drive up and down the street or road as long as he pleased.

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.

[pelicandriver]

Hmmm, I often drive around at night with a camcorder on. Especially as I approach a DUI checkpoint (which have to be announced). Could we have a little setup here?

OTOH, the "I can't drive stick." part is pretty funny.

[KC Burke]

If the supervisor had been comfortable with the conduct of his team, the "interview" wouldn't have ended. It is obvious that this was a stop that left the laid out parameters and the officers had to be bailed out by their supervisor.

I agree that police need a lot of lattitude, but this was about like the DWB stops of the nineties.

[relictele]

, "If you don't stop running your mouth, we're going to find a reason to lock you up tonight."

To protect and to serve....or something.

[rit]

Interesting story. The right of free speach includes the right not to speak, which has been upheld in courts before.

[4yearlurker]

The right to remain silent. Get used to it. We are citizens of a free country.

[Dead Corpse]

Bravo Sierra. That might wash in England, but this is the United States. We used to have something called "freedom" here. Don't be in such a hurry to chuck it out the window because you wanna play tough guy LEO.

If the kid was being mouthy and didn't want to answer questions, pop him with a breathalyzer and tell him to go away. You do NOT threaten him with arrest just because he thinks your BS checkpoint is draconian BS.

[L98Fiero]

"The kid's personal life is none of the cop's business. If the kid doesn't wish to discuss, that should be the end of it. "I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you officer" is a respectful enough way to tell the officer exactly that."

I'm usually one of the guys on cop threads defending the cops. Not this time. Your post explains why. Where that kid was headed was none of that cop's business.

[dirtboy]

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

Hey, why stop with conversation? Let's just pull everyone out of their cars and make them do a sobriety test without any kind of probable cause. It's for the children. /sarcasm

I'm sorry, but if a cop were ever to ask if he could search my car, I would refuse unless he could demonstrate probable cause or that they were engaged in a time-critical search such as an Amber alert. I don't have anything more on my record than a few traffic tickets, and if I'm gonna drink beer, I do it at home.

And then, if they insisted on searching anyway, after the bogus search, I would sue the crap out of their jurisdiction for allowing officers to trample on the 4th amendment. I'm glad some people are standing up to over-zealous enforcement actions.

[sport]

I owe you an apology. I read your post # 2 and responded without reading further.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

There's an authoritarian streak in a lot of cops. Its why they become cops.