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.

[Diplomat]

The kid should be arrested on what charge?

It amazes me the complete lack of understanding between those who have cops in their family and those who do not, in how they view the police.

There is a darn good reason very few of us trust the police and this is it.

WHAT GIVES THIS COP THE RIGHT TO THREATEN THIS KID WITH ARREST AND FOR THAT MATTER DETAIN HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE?

[jjm2111]

A very good friend of mine was jumped by two guys and my fried put both in the hospital. He managed to get a hold of the perp's tire iron and ended up hitting one of them in the head and putting him in a coma. The prosecutor told my freind that if the perp didn't wake up he (my frined) would be charged with man 2.

[MortMan]

What is confrontational is obvious. I haven't spoken to whether or not it's within the kid's rights to refuse to say where he's going. It certainly is. On the flip side, I find nothing "right-trampling" about revealing my destination to a police officer. I realize they have a job to do, and I'll give them some latitude. Until they take an attitude or action against me that crosses the line, I'll give them that.

Actually, the kid DID answer the police officer's question, thereby engaging him in conversation. Saying "I don't want to talk to you" is enough conversation for the officer to determine if the kid was slurring his words, or if he smelled of alcohol.

The "right trampling" part of all this is that the kid was punished (yes, that's the right word) for giving the officer an answer he didn't like. Detaining the kid in this situation is a definite abuse of power, especially given that the kid followed all instructions given by the officer. The illegal entry into and search of the kid's car is unconstitutional (he was not ASKED for his keys - he was ordered to give them over, and he was denied the right to move his car himself).

Police officers have a job to do, but evading their constitutional limits isn't in that description, FRiend.

[Oberon]

Dude, you could have avoided all that shiite if you had just been a tiny bit more civil to the first officers question.

His answer was perfectly civil; it just wasn't compliant. That's okay; the officer wasn't legally entitled to the information he asked for.

True it is your "right" to give dick answers...

Yes, though that's not what happened here.

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

No, it's not. Not at all. Not in the least.

Police behavior should be professional at all times.

[Oberon]

Sorry, but the kid began the exchange confrontationally for no reason whatsoever. You don't have to be a "cop worshipper" to see that.

The kid politely refused to answer the officer's out-of-bounds question. Nothing confrontational about that...though you have to not be a cop-worshiper to see it.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... this is actually just a dishonest attempt to pawn off editorialized activist tripe as coming from an independent media source. I guess they are afraid that fewer people would take them seriously if their spammed articles were from a more accurately labeled source, such as www.antitrafficenforcement.com"

Dishonest source simply because of the website name, eh? Oh, right.

And I wonder every day how authoritarians who think the police should be able to throw up roadblocks managed to settle on 'Free Republic' as their little home on the web.

[Don Joe]

You missed my point.

The cop asked him "How are you tonight", and his one-word answer -- his spoken answer -- at an "intoxication checkpoint" -- was "High."

He told the cop he was high!

(Oh, sure, in his transcript, he typed the word "Hi." Very coy. SO coy that not even anyone HERE caught it, until hundreds of posts into the thread!)

Now, if YOU are a cop, checking for intoxicated drivers -- knowing that "vinas veritas" -- and you ask a driver "how are you", and he replies that he's HIGH, well, what are YOU going to do? Smile and wave him on, saying "Drive safely and have a great evening"?

Nope. You're going to say, OK, this guy is so looped that he blurted out that he's high -- to a cop! I gotta get this joker off the road. But first, let's see if I an get a handle on HOW high he is. "So, whatcha up to tonight? Where ya headed?" -- casual stuff, something to get the guy chatting, so you can find out HOW high he is.

This seems like a pretty straightforward "reverse-sting".

[semaj]

<>P>The noive of that little rat bastard second-guessing our illustrious LEO's! How dare he!</P>

[freeplancer]

OK, I am the numbnuts.

[semaj]

Yeah that's right. Better be nice to the gestapo or else they will make your life miserable.. F them and F anyone who would suggest any such thing. The government and its' enforcers don't automatically deserve our respect, they need to earn it first and foremost.

[Groganeer]

"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?"

No, he's worse. His behavior must be beyond reproach because if it isn't it only leaves those of us on the other side of the thin blue line less trusting of everyone with a badge. That makes every LEO's job more difficult and potentially more dangerous. Respect is not owed, it is earned.

[jjm2111]

I haven't listened to the audio, just read the transcript. The kid was being an ass, but it's the trooper's job not to lose his cool.

[dennisw]

The "right trampling" part of all this is that the kid was punished (yes, that's the right word) for giving the officer an answer he didn't like. Detaining the kid in this situation is a definite abuse of power, especially given that the kid followed all instructions given by the officer.

He did not follow instructions because he refused to engage in conversation with the officer. This took place at a drunk driver roadblock. The police want to talk to you because that's how they can tell if you need further attention (a roadside sobriety test) or tell you to be on your way.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Bump for this ballsy kid!

[dennisw]

Nope. You're going to say, OK, this guy is so looped that he blurted out that he's high -- to a cop! I gotta get this joker off the road. But first, let's see if I an get a handle on HOW high he is. "So, whatcha up to tonight? Where ya headed?" -- casual stuff, something to get the guy chatting, so you can find out HOW high he is.

At a drunk roadblock the police are very busy trying to get the non-impaired drivers moving on. By chatting up drivers the police can get a quick handle on whether the driver might be drunk or high. If he looks tipsy or high then the next stage is roadside sobriety test and/or blowing into the alcohol meter. This snotty punk was interfering with this procedure by refusing to talk with the cop

[ellery]

Agreed. Government's "protection" of our rights atrophy if we don't exercise said rights. There are many places you can get arrested for legally and openly carrying a firearm, just because the cops aren't used to seeing citizens exercise their second amendment right.

The fourth and fifth amendments work the same way. This kid exercised his rights, even though it would have been easier to just go along/get along. Good for him.

[Diplomat]

The kid was technically within his rights, but he expressed them in such a rude, confrontational way, that the officer then reciprocated and felt the need to play the authority card.

You obviously didn't read the transcipt. How about pointing out to the rest of us exactly where this kid got rude with the cop?

[Oberon]

This snotty punk was interfering with this procedure by refusing to talk with the cop.

The transcript records a great deal of conversation going on for someone who was "...refusing to talk with a cop."

The kid was just giving the cop answers the cop didn't like. No law against that.

[rbmillerjr]

This is no bid deal. Routine stops save lives. The police didn't do anything unconsitutional here. The kid has the right not to tell the officer his destination. The officer has the right to request him to get out of the car while he runs his info.

Btw, the clutch was not abused. The kid is looking for trouble with that whole crapola, but I have no problem with the camera. The cop was politie and courteous whene requsting info.

[Groganeer]

"This snotty punk was interfering with this procedure by refusing to talk with the cop"

See I think you are wrong there, he WAS talking to the cop:

Brett: I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you officer.

Looks like a conversation to me. If he just sat there, kept his mouth shut and stared straight ahead I'd agree. But that isn't what he did. There was more than enough back and forth conversation to determine his sobriety. He was lucid and obviously not slurring his speech or they'd have gone to the DWI shuffle right there.