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.

[Tribune7]

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

I call it the United States and the little smartass is right concerning a DUI checkpoint.

[zook]

That boy's parents ought to be very proud of him. He was polite, but right on target with his remarks and questions. I especially liked his comments about the cops "finding a reason" to lock him up.

This is what I call a healthy disrespect for authority.

[marshmallow]

In my opinion, the cop's original question about where the kid was heading, was just a throwaway question. An attempt to make conversation. If this had happened to me, I'd have given him a throwaway answer and there are a thousand and one such answers one can give. They don't even have to be truthful. "To the store to get some milk", "to a buddy's place", "home", "to a movie", etc etc. No big deal.

Now if the cop persists with his line of questioning, and asks you where you live, how long you've lived there, what you do for a living, how often you drive at that hour, etc, etc, then one would perhaps be justified in politely inquiring the reason for the questioning and if necessary, declining to answer.

But to hit the nuke button, straight off the bat like the kid did and to tell the cop you don't wish to talk to him, is what I'd call unreasonable, as I said in my first post.

This wasn't a power grab by the cop. It was just a simple remark. What did it cost for the kid to offer a perfunctory reply in the first instance before discerning whether the cop really was pushing the envelope?

Are we all now operating on hair triggers, with enormous chips on our shoulders?

[highball]

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

Ooh ooh! I said that once on FR and you should have seen the cop-lovers go into a tizzy.

... Never mind that I have acquaintances who are cops that certainly have 'short man' syndrome.

Too true.

I respect police officers in general (I wouldn't want to do the job, and am glad somebody's willing to do it), but the three people I know who have become cops are the three I'd trust least with any authority.

[TalonDJ]

It is called policing the police and every citizen has the right to do it numbnuts.

Um, yeah, that is exactly what I was saying (except that numb part). Did you read what I wrote?

[CSM]

Thanks for the new Tag line!

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

Doofus! My best friend is an sheriff.

[ContemptofCourt]

A law-abiding citizen would have no problem with the cop's question, especially in the light of 9/11 and Islamic terrorists.

I read the Constitution quite often...I still have not found the passage that says "If you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind a little government intrusion which violates the Constitution." Indeed, the rights set forth in the Constitution are there for the very reason that this thread exists: so that US citizens are not subjected to this BS.

[cicero's_son]

A free country.

This kid is a hero.

[cicero's_son]

You my friend are the "a$$hole" with a comment like that. You must be anti-cop for a reason. A law-abiding citizen would have no problem with the cop's question, especially in the light of 9/11 and Islamic terrorists.

Oh, shut up.

Invoking 9/11 and "Islamic terrorists" to justify bullying a 19 year old kid is just pathetic.

[highball]

Invoking 9/11 and "Islamic terrorists" to justify bullying a 19 year old kid is just pathetic.

Amen.

"Islamic Terrorists" is the "for the children" of the 21st Century - a silly buzzword designed to justify whatever nonsense those in authority want to foist upon us.

This had nothing to do with national security, and to even make the suggestion undermines legitimate national security work.

[RobRoy]

>>What I'm concerned about is the flip side. The same cop that "senses" that you are an equal, can 'sense' when they are intimidating a 'non-cop' and will take advantage of the weaker citizens.<<

As you said, we are in violent agreement. And that is why I support what this kid did 100%! It took courage. You can tell by the way he refused to answer the first question that he was nervous. And I believe he was doing his own sting and they went for it. I hope more cops see this video.

[Paradox]

Ok, I'll grant that the kid is probably smarmy, ACLU bait, but you know what, I think he's right in this case. If there was some kind of probably cause, then I can understand the police action, otherwise, I think they were out of bounds. And I AM a cop lover.

[tiki]

I was on a Federal Grand Jury once, they ask stupid questions and try to find probable cause. Probable cause can be as simple as accidently hitting the door lock button instead of the window control or the fact that you aren't looking them in the eye.

I don't have a problem with police but I do have a problem with bullies. The last time I got stopped, there was no probable cause and I was pretty miffed. I asked why he stopped me and he said suspiciaon of drunk driving and when I asked why he said I was driving too carefully!!!!!!!

[goldstategop]

If the police officer is asking what my lawful business is, I tell him its none of his business where I am going or what my plans are. Last I heard, its still a free country and I do not need official permission to be on and about in public.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[takenoprisoner]

'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......"

Checkpoints are nothing more than fishing expeditions for all the little fishes swimming up the stream. In this case, the cops caught a smart little fish who was remarkably articulated. He was totally courteous and respectful while expressing his indignations.

More of us should have the courage to stand up for our rights like this teenager. Surely, one day he will make a fine representative for the people of Missouri.

Kudos for this kid.

BTW, what jury?

[gogeo]

Nope...each of those situations specify, "Reasonable grounds."

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

I'll make it very simple for you.......

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:

(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

There.....get it now? The ACLU punk rolled his window down just a crack......very reasonable for the cop to suspect he didn't want the cop to get a whiff of his breath. Then the matter of his avoiding conversing with the cop.

the jury (or judge) in any civil action will show this twit the door.....that is if any civil suit survives the motion to dismiss based on the 2 statute section/paragraphs posted above.

[justshutupandtakeit]

So they say but it is impossible to prove you are lying about an intention.

[gogeo]

has reasonable grounds to believe that such person has a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or greater; snipped

...looks simple to me...since when is rolling down a window part way reasonable grounds?

I have a problem with DUI checkpoints, but I figure they are the price to pay for driving. My problems are:

---if you don't shut up we'll find something to write you up for.

---they told him to get out of the car, then got into the car to move it, despite his offer to do so.

Both violate constitutional protections; the first is incredibly rude. I support any LEO who does his job and stays on the right side of the law; if he doesn't, then he's no better than any other criminal, is he?