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.

[dirtboy]

However, it seems to me that this type of defensive answer is something that cops look for when stopping motorists at DWI checkpoints. It's called 'profiling'.

Since when is sticking up for your basic Constitutional rights an indicator of illegal behavior? Does refusing to allow a search when no probable cause is present an indicator of criminal activity? If so, why bother with the pretense of probable cause? Just search everyone.

[justshutupandtakeit]

LoL

[dave k]

Where did I say it was unconsitutional for this kid to act the way he did?

I would think that cops have years worth of statistics that indicate drunk drivers are more likely to be defensive when asked simple questions (especially repeat offenders). Again, this is profiling - it's what these cops were doing at this DWI roadblock.

We can endlessly debate the consitutionality of the questions and actions of all parties here - it still doesn't eradicate the fact that this kid had an agenda against either the police or DWI roadblocks and was intent on causing some sort of trouble. Many here call him a patriot, I still consider him a pain in the ass for wasting valuable police time. Again, if he has issues with the legality of DWI roadblocks, don't take it up with the officer asking for the license and registration; their job is to uphold the law of their jurisdiction. If the law mandates that a DWI checkpoint be setup on this kid's route to trouble, then he needs to address his concerns with his elected officials.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

There is such an outcry among FReepers to do profiling on airlines against Muslims; why the double standard when it comes to profiling for drunk drivers?

Here's a thought: If a cop has to conduct an interview with a driver in order to find out if the driver is drunk, what, then, was the purpose of the stop in the first place? After all, if the cop needs an interview to determine if the driver is driving drunk, that means the driver was not driving dangerously, erratically, or hazardously, otherwise that right there would have given the cop all the reasonable suspicion in the world to suspect the driver was driving drunk.

I understand that this particular incident came about because of a roadblock, but still, if an interview is necessary to determine drunkeness, exactly how dangerous are the drivers being stopped?

[dave k]

I understand that people want to be left alone by the police. No argument here at all. If everyone minds their business and are not endangering the lives of others, fine.

Despite what many on this thread are implying, the police did not come hunting for this guy like a bunch of SS stormtroopers. They did not single out this kid while on patrol one night. They did not pull him over on the freeway for driving erratically; this was a DWI roadblock, where the police may not have the ability to see if someone is weaving at 65 miles an hour. They asked him a routine question (just as I'm sure they asked the 100 motorists before him), and that's when the trouble started.

The problem did not start with the cop asking "Where are you headed tonight", because this is not an unconstitutional question. The problem started because this kid gave an uncooperative, smark aleck (and yes, consitutional!) answer. The officer, using his subjective authority, decided that this answer warranted further action - whether we agree or not with whether it was neccessary is a matter of opinion. IMO, the kid got what was coming to him for being jerk.

[rednesss]

"not the unfortunate officer who is only doing their job."

This argument did not gain any traction at Nuremberg. Just following orders sir. The poor guy, I bet he needs a weekend at the spa. Do your job, uphold the constitution, or go sell used cars for a living. No one his holding a gun to HIS head to continue in his employment. My Mom always said, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I understand that people want to be left alone by the police. No argument here at all. If everyone minds their business and are not endangering the lives of others, fine.

Well, therein, of course, lies the problem. The Kid (as he has become on this thread) was doing exactly just that: minding his own business and not endangering the lives of others. Nonetheless, he was (1) stopped by the police and then (2) detained by them and (3) threatened with arrest by them---for doing what? For minding his own business and not endangering the lives of others. He was put in this position because in his state, it is somehow legal for the police to put up roadblocks and stop every driver on a stretch of road in order to prevent drunken driving.

Remember, you're the one who wrote: "I understand that people want to be left alone by the police. No argument here at all. If everyone minds their business and are not endangering the lives of others, fine." Well, that's exactly what The Kid was doing. Now ask yourself: when the cops detained The Kid after he did not respond to their question in the manner they expected him to, do you suppose they did it in furtherance of the roadblock's mission (i.e., to prevent drunken driving), or to dick with him because they thought he was a smart-ass?

You honestly believe he should be threatened with jail time for something so subjective as "being [a] jerk?"

[NittanyLion]

The officer, using his subjective authority, decided that this answer warranted further action - whether we agree or not with whether it was neccessary is a matter of opinion.

And whether or not this is an appropriate use of force is not a matter of opinion. Clearly it is not. You might argue that this kid "had it coming", but in doing so you are also implicitly arguing for the use of force above and beyond what is granted law enforcement.

[MEGoody]

Is the kid required to answer such a question at a roadblock?

By law? No. But it's a simple question, no threat to him to answer. His belligerent attitude would make the antenna of any law enforcement person go up. He should have just answered the question. But no, instead, he was looking for a reason to play the victim. He's a moron.

Were the cops acting in a proper manner for threatening to find something to arrest the kid for?

He got belligerent with them, so they did so in return. This child should just stop having his little temper tantrum and grow up.

[dave k]

Here we go again - I am getting a chuckle out of the attempted parallels with U.S. police officers to the Gestapo. You have the right to be critical of the officer for how the situation was handled; I will continue to put this squarely on the shoulders of the kid who initiated the trouble to begin with.

If people are so oppressed by our current "police state", then they should move to where they feel the laws are more lenient.

Good luck in finding your Utopia anywhere else in this world.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

If people are so oppressed by our current "police state", then they should move to where they feel the laws are more lenient.

No, you've got it wrong.

If you think that it's acceptable for the police to threaten to find a way to arrest you if they deem you to be insufficiently servile to them, please move to a country where that is the norm (there are, after all, many to choose from), and kindly allow the rest of us to live in a free republic.

You may deem your rights to be without value. That is your business. But that does not give you the authority or power to surrender everyone else's rights.

[takenoprisoner]

" I still consider him a pain in the ass for wasting valuable police time."

IOWs, the police's time is more valuable than our (citizen- civilian) time? I disagree that their time is more valuable than ours. And I disagree that he was wasting their time. They were wasting his.

[dave k]

What use of force are you referring to? Asking the kid to step out of the car? Asking him to sit in the squad car while another officer moved his vehicle out of the roadway? I do not see anything that would describe a 'use of force' here; there was no forcible action on the part of the officers, just uneccessary resistance by the kid.

[demsux]

I will continue to put this squarely on the shoulders of the kid who initiated the trouble to begin with.

The Kid didn't start anything...he was just driving.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

IOWs, the police's time is more valuable than our (citizen- civilian) time?

Only if one believes that the civilian is intended to be the servant of the police.

[NittanyLion]

What use of force are you referring to? Asking the kid to step out of the car? Asking him to sit in the squad car while another officer moved his vehicle out of the roadway? I do not see anything that would describe a 'use of force' here; there was no forcible action on the part of the officers, just uneccessary resistance by the kid.

Did you miss the parts where they detained him without an arrest, and searched his car without probable cause?

Let's be clear on this. If you are of the opinion that this kid deserved to be hassled due to his actions, then you are also of the opinion that it is acceptable for law enforcement to exceed the powers granted them in order to "teach people a lesson".

Is that your argument?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

there was no forcible action on the part of the officers

Whenever one is ordered to do something by the police, that is force, whether or not one cares to admit it.

[P-Marlowe]

There is a reason the officer needs (not wants) to engage the driver in conversation.

He did engage the kid in conversation and it was clear that he was not intoxicated by his answer. The officer could have continued the conversation in a civil manner, but the cop chose to be confrontational. The kid's answer was polite but firm. It was also articulate. The cop should have just looked at his license, registration and proof of insurance and his eyes and let him go. IMO the cop's ego got in the way of his professionalism. In the interim, while they were wasting their time with this obviously sober gentleman, I suspect two or three actual drunks may have escaped the scrutiny of the police.

I normally support cops, even when they beat a suspect to a pulp. There really was no excuse for this detention. They had no right to take his keys, or drive his car or detain him longer than it would take to determine whether or not he was intoxicated.

[rawcatslyentist]

How intelligent would it be to spit at someone (not government/police/authority.. just plain anyone) that is armed?

This is a simple question. How intelligent would it be to spit at someone that is armed?

I am NOT for a fascist state. I never stated I was. I was merely calling for a bit of respect, civility, and common sense.

Kindly note the name of this site FREE REPUBLIC. Freedom is NOT free, we all must follow rules/laws.

This is not ANARCHY REPUBLIC. Kindly renounce your citizenship to this site as you are not a member of a polite armed society.

[rednesss]

Ding Ding Ding, just minding his business and driving down the road FTW