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.

[art_rocks]

So if I engage in the conversation, I could incriminate myself. I thought our the 5th amendment protected us from self incrimination.

The question is which is more important, the officer doing his duty or a person's rights. In this scenario, is the kid evading conversation or protecting his rights.

I would have to see the video to determine if he was being disrespectful. Because he didn't want to cooperate with the police doesn't mean he was disrespectful.

[The Antiyuppie]

"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."

No, it's not.

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

I think it will be even easier for him with the substantial financial settlement he will receive. This is what lawyers are for. Fines and judgments will influence behavior, particularly when a small town gets a 500% jump in their liability premium (if they can get liability insurance at all).

[jerry639]

Jury will pat this ACLU patsy on the buns and say get on outta here.

Not if I was on the jury. As I stated previously, I respect police officers. Never do I refer to them as "cops" or "pigs". Just officers. However, were I to sit on the jury in a suit against that officer and the tape showed what the transcript stated, I would do everything possible to convince the other jurors to find in favor of this kid.

[dennisw]

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.

You get it!! The policeman only needs to hear a few words from his (or anyone's) mouth to tell whether he should be given a few drunk driving tests. Plus this 19 year old might be going to buy some drugs and a few questions will shake him up

The brat should have been arrested.

I would have ripped the tape out of the little brat's video camera

[The Antiyuppie]

"Police officers acting in their official role do not have rights; they have enumerated powers. Authority to compel you to tell them the nature of your business is not one of those enumerated powers. The authority to threaten a citizen with jail time for being insufficiently servile is not one of those enumerated powers."

Succinct and sparklingly clear. Any argument opposed to the young man's actions needs to speak to the above. Note: Why is this person (still marginally of an age that is between 13-19) dismissed as a "teenager"? This is a YOUNG MAN who probably works to have a car, pays taxes, can sign contracts, vote, and so on. His "rights" are only very, very slightly different than most of the readers here.

[Torie]

What are the guy's damages exactly? It was obviously a set up, for which I salute the guy, but still, what are the damages? Ya I know, the "damage" to his clutch. :)

[Torie]

Is there any merit in police following procedure? I didn't notice that he was given any breath test for alcohol. He was been harrassed for being "mouthy" when the police failed I suspect to follow procedure. As I said, if they did follow procedure, harrass the mouthy male young ones, particularly of color, then the procedure is flawed. It is unlawful. Is there any merit in the police hewing to the law?

[Exton1]

The Constitution gives us the right to unencumbered travel, and unlawful search and seizures. Although the officer was just making small talk, the young man was not out of line in declining to tell him where he was going. It appears that the police violated several of the man’s constitutional rights.

[Wormwood]

I would have ripped the tape out of the little brat's video camera

"Third floor, jackboots and truncheons..."

[dennisw]

godless troll begone!

[dennisw]

Is there any merit in police following procedure? I didn't notice that he was given any breath test for alcohol.

Because he wasn't drinking. The police found this out very quickly by interacting with him
HERE'S THE GOOD PART MR LAWYER --->> The police usually figure this out by shining their flashlight at you and a verbal exchange which is what this little punk was refusing to engage in

He was been harassed for being "mouthy" when the police failed I suspect to follow procedure. As I said, if they did follow procedure, harass the mouthy male young ones, particularly of color, then the procedure is flawed. It is unlawful. Is there any merit in the police hewing to the law?

The mouthy ones need to be smacked around a bit. Just call it furthering their education

[Torie]

They knew he wasn't drinking when he said he did not desire to discuss his personal business with them. They knew at that point, that the guy was a middle class lawyer mind set type. What they didn't know, is that the whole thing was on film. The cops should be disciplined. I hope they are, and I hope procedures are tightened. Being a cop should not be a testosteroned unleashed zone. Leave that to the bedroom.

[dennisw]

You need to be disciplined. I have more regard for the police than lawyers. You wear a suit and go to court and this makes you think you know it all when actually you know less than me about such situations as on this thread

[Torie]

I have more regard for the police than lawyers.

I'm shocked, that you have that opinion! Who knew? :)

[dennisw]

How predictable. You are a cheerleader for this little punk. Lawyers are all about "rights" and nothing about responsibility. You obviously want to see mouthy little maggots with video cameras have expanded rights to jerk the police around. Who were merely trying to weed out drunk drivers.

[Wormwood]

You obviously want to see mouthy little maggots with video cameras have expanded rights to jerk the police around.

Don't blame him, blame James Madison.

[Torie]

You wish he were just a little punk. He is probably a ACLU operative. Hate it!

[dennisw]

you wouldn't know the Constitution if it jumped up and bit you in your godless troll butt

[The KG9 Kid]

"... The mouthy ones need to be smacked around a bit. Just call it furthering their education."

You're really learning a lot in that religion of yours.

[Wormwood]

you wouldn't know the Constitution if it jumped up and bit you in your godless troll butt

Self parody is the best revenge. I salute you sir.