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.

[Ignatz]

On the flip side, I find nothing "right-trampling" about revealing my destination to a police officer.

Let's change the situation a bit: It's election day and the police stop the young man. They ask him where he is going, he replies that he is on his way to the polls to vote. They then ask him for whom he is going to vote. See any "rights-trampling" yet? Perhaps you feel we have a right to be silent about our voting preferences but not about our driving destinations?

[DCPatriot]

I totally agree with you.

What happened here, IMO, is that the carefully planned setup and that exact sentence "I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you officer did exactly what was hoped for and expected.

In this case they were hoping for LEOs with a big ego.

[supercat]

Let's change the situation a bit: It's election day and the police stop the young man. They ask him where he is going...

...and he's going to the campaign headquarters of the party that opposes the local political machine. What should he answer?

[DCPatriot]

And America was NOT founded by people whom had such optimistic views of government.

Absolutely right.

[Ignatz]

"Most people sheeple would instantly tell the officer where they were headed..."

There. Fixed it fer ya.

[DCPatriot]

This kind of citizen harassment will become less prevalent when it starts getting dangerous to the revenuers.

I sincerely hope you mean LEOs being injured by automobiles that don't see them.

For if you mean Joe Citizen going postal...all they'll do is write another law with a scarey mandatory sentence.

[DCPatriot]

I was recently pulled for having a sticker on my car that was expired by one day. The revenuer asked me where I was going, and I replied by saying it wasn't his business to know. He didn't probe further.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, you'd have walked to where you were going, because they would have impounded your car.

[Ignatz]

This little punk thinks he is real funny. Do you suppose he'll be the first whining when the cops can't come quick enough to bail him out of jam?

By the looks of things, I think he'll be quite capable fof getting himself out of a "jam". Provided the police don't interfere, that is.

[DCPatriot]

We have a stock answer to the "Where are you headed?" question.
WAFFLE HOUSE
It subliminally states: I really don't care about my life or yours, so, if you want to keep your family and friends safe, you'll stop asking stupid questions. I know where you live.

LOL! It subliminally tells the LEO that you might have some pot in the vehicle.

[Lower55]

"LOL! It subliminally tells the LEO that you might have some pot in the vehicle."


YIKES! Never thought of that! Need to come up with another smart answer!

[Lower55]

One day???

[Ignatz]

"Not a bit. He was cordially defiant in his resistance to a lawful action of the police."

Allow me: "Not a bit. He was cordially lawfully defiant in his Constitutionally protected resistance to a lawful action of an optionally answerable question asked by the police."

[DCPatriot]

A better response would be, "I'M GOING TO DISNEYLAND!"

[MarkL]

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

Well, this 45 year old "little smartass" would not be answering questions like that if stopped at a DWI checkpoint either.

Mark

[DCPatriot]

One day...yes.

Especially if compounded by your response to his question.

And they'd make you squat on the curb in handcuffs so all the other drivers can see you being humiliated.

[Lower55]

A better response would be, "I'M GOING TO DISNEYLAND!"

OR,

Just ahead, to the next corner, then I have a big decision to make.

[Lower55]

"One day...yes."

No, I was talking about our sign-up date...lol

[DCPatriot]

Wow! LOL~I'm the newbie!

[Ignatz]

type about the friggen constitution. . .its quite another to put on a badge in today's world and pray that some 19 year old punk who thinks he's god doesn't end your life.

Ok, now I'm certain you got lost on your way to DU.
Exactly what parts of our "friggen constitution" do you think we should do away with to protect gun-toting agents of the Government? Perhaps the entire Bill of Rights?

[Torie]

The issue I think is did the police follow procedure? If they did the procedure should be changed, because it is unlawful under our Constitution, as interpreted. If not, they should be punished. I think the tendency to give slack to those with the power of the gun is somewhat over indulged. Police are to perform a public service, not to act out their fantasies as unleashed macho bullies. JMO.

In my zip code, the police are incredibly polite, at least to this aging Anglo. But then the zip code is upper middle class Anglo, with a very low crime rate. Driving while black is not a "crime," because blacks are very thin on the ground.