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.

[MortMan]

BS. The police want to hear you say more than just that. In o[r]der to get an idea if you are high in some way

The young man said plenty more than refusing to discuss his private life. But he was ordered out of his car because he said he didn't wish to discuss it.

One does not need to give the answers that the police wish to hear, even in this situation. "None of your business" is a legal response to a question about one's destination. As long as a complete answer to the question is given (in a non-belligerent tone), then the police officer's question has been responded to.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The contention above is that he was threatened. He was not threatened. Getting detained is not a threat, but a sanction imposed by law officers.

You've got to be kidding me---this is some of the more tortured parsing I've ever seen on FR. The motivation behind the cop's statement was clearly to compel the kid to do something the kid was otherwise not inclined to do of his own volition, otherwise the statement would have never come out of the cop's mouth. To suggest that something bad might happen to you if you do not do something is the very essence of a threat.

[Diplomat]

The cops were pretty clearly in the wrong, especially when they started threatening the man with jail time.

This behavior, which I have encountered from LEOs (along with being lied to my face) on more than one occassion is the reason why the vast majority of other-wise staunch conservatives cannot trust the police, any police in this nation. It's an absurd state of affairs, highlighted by the inability of a number of posters to believe that their cop family member can ever be guilty of anything like this.

I'll wager that nearly EVERY poster here that does not have a cop for a family member knows that "you must walk on eggshells around L.E. for fear that they may arrest/threaten or hassle you for nothing more than a polite remark that that the cop doesn't undersand. And heaven forbid you attempt to make a sarcastic remark to an officer."

Now I ask the other who have defended these police officers in their entirety, do you teach your children this? Do you know this to be how us serfs know we have to behave or else? I'm willing to wager your extra protection of being on the inside makes you mostly immune to this treatment. Nor will you accept my argument for why there is such a huge level of mistrust of L.E.

Not saying you will sir.

[no dems]

Does Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly have a copy of the video and transcript yet?

[no dems]

If you wouldn't post comments like these, people wouldn't know just how ignorant you really are McBuff.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

"Wow!! That must make you an expert on Law enforcement,"
You're sure comin' across as a dumb a$$!
My point was that I'm definitely not anti cop/law enforcement. And also that the cop in this case was way out of line.

[rednesss]

"speaking of "news", have a look at the "publication" that is the only one that carried this story, LOL.


theNewspaper.com: A Journal of the Politics of Driving"


Actually according to the cut and paste below by the kid on a different web site this story is gaining traction with the MSM. Maybe if Katie Couric does a story about it it will make you feel better.

I for one welcome our new jack booted thug, blue uniformed overlords.





"Thanks Frankie. A reporter from the local CBS news station in St. Louis got back to me. Thet are going to do a story on this. I'm going to meet with them in the morning. I haven't heard of any roadblocks around the area lately. What a surprise.

This will probably mean I'll have a police car outside my house ever time I leave, but it's worth it. If anything makes me feel a little more at ease, it's that I'll be known to have a camera, so that might make the cops think twice about giving me trouble for ratting on them.

I'd like to see what MADD would say about my stop. I'm thinking about sending them an email..."

[dave k]

I'm amazed at how the tone of civility has completely disintegrated on this topic. Police officers uphold an oath to SERVE AND PROTECT their communities. While some may do this more zealously than others, officers deserve civility and respect from those they serve.

Can someone please tell me what was so unconstitutionally offensive about the officer's initial question? What the hell is wrong with answering the police officer in a civil, cooperative and honest manner? Especially of you have nothing to worry about and have done nothing wrong?

This kid made an issue out of a non-issue - the officer asked where he was going, but the kid got self righteous and defensive. IMO, the officer was justified by asking "Where are you headed tonight?" if, after looking at the kid's license info, it was determined that the kid was heading the opposite direction of where he actually lived. And especially so if it was late at night (prime time drinking hours). The officer(s) were very civil in this situation in light of the arrogance of this twerp.

"I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you officer..."?????

This statment reeks of "I'm above the law, you lowly law enforcement officer...how dare you set up this roadblock and infringe upon my right to give you as much sh*t as I think you deserve because I have an axe to grind against you and your Gestapo like tactics!!!"

This kid came to a POLICE ROADBLOCK - did he expect a once over glance from the officer and an ass kiss apology for the "inconvenience" of being stopped??? Nope...this kid had an agenda. As stated many times previously, who comes to a police roadbolck with a video camera rolling unless they are out to create a situation? Those who go looking for trouble are pretty successful in finding it (or creating it themselves).

Yeah, this kid is a real *patriot* for being nothing more than a wise-ass and wasting more of the officers time than they could already spare. Say what you will about the legitimacy of these roadblocks, but the cops were just doing what they were assigned to do. I'm sure they were thrilled to death to have this piece of work stop and create more havoc and headache for them.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Can someone please tell me what was so unconstitutionally offensive about the officer's initial question?

1. It's none of the officer's business.

2. It's not in the enumerated powers of the government (or, by extension, its agents) to gather information on the comings and goings of its citizenry under threat of arrest for a non-answer.

3. The government does not have rights. It has enumerated powers. Government (or agents thereof) may not act beyond the limits of those enumerated powers. This officer attempted to do so.

What the hell is wrong with answering the police officer in a civil, cooperative and honest manner?

Please explain where the enumerated powers of government allow law enforcement officers to compel answers to their nosy questions.

IMO, the officer was justified by asking "Where are you headed tonight?" if, after looking at the kid's license info, it was determined that the kid was heading the opposite direction of where he actually lived.

He is an adult, not a minor child. The comings and goings of adult citizens are not the business of law enforcement in the absence of probable cause to believe that the citizen in question has committed a crime. Not being willing to answer nosy questions does not rise to the level of giving the officer probable cause.

[rbmillerjr]

"And also that the cop in this case was way out of line."

Yeah, he really trampled the kid's rights, didn't he ?

"Where ya headin tongight?"
"I don't want to tell you"
"Ok, pullover and get out of the car."

That cop is a real jackbooted thug lol. Sometimes people on this board are every bit as absurd as liberals. Come back to me when somebody's rights are truely violated. The punk was asking for trouble and he had to 1)be incovenienced while he got out of his car 2)a minor delay while they checked his information...Now is Stalin's Soviet he get gets either shot or imprisoned...In Hitler's German he get's sent to a work camp, or beat up...but hear in Jackbooted America he really gets worked over with having to step out of his car while the officer runs his info.

Get a life people.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

That cop is a real jackbooted thug lol.

Please show me where it is in the enumerated powers of the government of the state of Missouri to compel citizens to disclose their comings and goings, and reasons for comings and goings, absent probable cause that the citizen in question has committed a criminal act.

[trisham]

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!)

*************

Yikes. I didn't catch it.

[rbmillerjr]

"Please show me where it is in the enumerated powers of the government..."

LMAO. Enumerated. (rolls eyes at the line of argumentation)

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

LMAO. Enumerated. (rolls eyes at the line of argumentation)

In other words, you agree that no such power exists, and the officer was acting utterly outside of his legitimate authority.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

Where are you from? North Korea? The old Soviet Union? In this country we may come and go as we please, and it requires no one's permission. The cop should have known to ask a different question. And to have overreacted the way he did? Stupid!

[rbmillerjr]

In otherwords behold a blackhelo loaded with jack booted thugs who dare ask a driver for their driver information. I'm shocked.

[rbmillerjr]

"Where are you from? North Korea? The old Soviet Union?
In this country we may come and go as we please, and it requires no one's permission"

Reread the article. He went to his destination and the officer didn't even have to gratnt permission or nazi "papers"...and what planet are you from?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

In otherwords behold a blackhelo loaded with jack booted thugs who dare ask a driver for their driver information. I'm shocked.

The man gave them his driver's license and registration, as required by law.

He was not required to give an accounting of his business to the police officer. The subsequent actions of the police in response to a citizen serf asserting his rights under the Constitution getting uppity with his betters were outside the scope of their authority, but were conducted under color of authority.

[rbmillerjr]

"He was not required to give an accounting of his business to the police officer"

That is correct. He did not give an accounting...and he was on his way.

[rednesss]

He's got a hard job, that entitles him to ignore the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Sheesh, when are you going to learn. Says the bureaucrat Floyd Ferris: "You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later . . . [and break one of our regulations] . . . this is just what we wanted." Rearden: "You seem to be pleased about it." Bureaucrat Ferris: "Don't I have good reason to be?" Rearden: "But, after all, I did break one of your laws." Bureaucrat Ferris: "Well, what do you think they're there for?" Continues bureaucrat Ferris: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted [Frederick Mann: Obfuscation of meaning is a key element of the con games bureaucrats and politicians play.] - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."