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.

[rednesss]

Exactly.

From my home state of Oregon in an appellate decision:

This court and the Supreme Court have held repeatedly that, when a police officer holds a person's driver's license while checking for outstanding warrants or for some other investigatory purpose, the person is seized under Article I, section 9, because in that situation the person reasonably believes that his or her freedom of movement has been intentionally and significantly impaired.

........Furthermore, it was an unlawful stop because the deputy did not have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring or about to occur. ORS 131.615(1) ("stop" is lawful if officer "reasonably suspects that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime"). The deputy stopped defendant because defendant "just kind of looked out of place." That is not reasonable suspicion, and the state does not argue that it is; reasonable suspicion arises when an officer "is able to point to specific and articulable facts which give rise to the inference that criminal activity is afoot." State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621, 629, 561 P2d 1006 (1977).


Giving a police officer a polite, maybe arguably non-conforming answer to his inquiry is not reasonable suspicion to prolong the seizure.

[sitetest]

Dear flada,

"She seriously wondered why I would need to own a flashlight."

LOL!

That reminds me of something that happened to me about 20 years ago.

I was driving home from the dentist, and stopped at a 7-11 to get a soda. When I got back to my car, and got comfortably seated, out jumped about half a dozen plainclothes police officers, guns drawn.

During their search of my car, they discovered my toolkit (I've worked with microcomputers for over 20 years), and asked what it was. I said, "It's a toolkit."

"Why do you have tools?"

"Well, as I explained, I work for a computer network company, and I often take computers apart and put them back together."

"What's this?" the officer asked, pointing out one of the little gadgets in my kit.

"A chip puller," I answered.

"What does it do?" he insisted.

"It pulls chips."

Considering that I was spread-eagled at the time, and they hadn't yet stopped pointing their weapons at me, it was likely a bit more flippant of an answer than was prudent. LOL!


sitetest

[Leatherneck_MT]

"This kid needs to learn to pick his battles more wisely. If he (and others defending him) have a problem with DWI roadblocks, then take it up with the local jurisdiction/city council/state senate, not the unfortunate officer who is only doing their job."


Regardless of whether or not the officers were just doing their job, it's NONE of their business where the kid was going and he was WELL within his rights to tell them so.

You have a right NOT to talk to the police, or anyone else for that matter.

If you and others have a problem with Freedom and the Constitution, I'm sure there are a few totalitarian governments scattered throughout the world that you'd be far more comfortable in.

Say China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia.. just to name a few.

[dave k]

I've already answered your carefully pontificated question.

The main point, my misguided FReeper, is that cops don't normally step over any bounds without some sort of provocation - this kid made a smart ass remark (again, at a DWI checkpoint), which prompted further action by the police.

Did you ever consider that there may have been body language that the video footage or the one sided transcript will not identify? Something extra that the cop may have interpreted to be dangerous? The point is you don't know - you have a worthless piece of 20 minute footage and a transcript provided by the 'victim' himself. No amount of your fact twisting and trying to pin me as some desecrator of the Constitution will prove otherwise.

The cops here did not "exceed their Constitutional authority"; if you have proof to the contrary, please enlighten me.

[rednesss]

Hey legal eagle, you my friend are ill-informed.

reasonable suspicion arises when an officer "is able to point to specific and articulable facts which give rise to the inference that criminal activity is afoot." State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621, 629, 561 P2d 1006 (1977).

Granted this is from Oregon, but I suspect it is universally accepted.

[rednesss]

Maybe he had "shifty" eyes. Yeah that rises to the level of reasonable suspicion.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

is that cops don't normally step over any bounds without some sort of provocation -

The cops who detained The Kid, then, are the thinnest-skinned cops in the history of American law enforcement.

[elkfersupper]

The cops here did not "exceed their Constitutional authority"

The cops here exceeded their Constitutional authority by setting up the checkpoint in the first place.

The other crap they handed out just compounded that problem.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

The main point, my misguided FReeper, is that cops don't normally step over any bounds without some sort of provocation

Cops are not supposed to exceed their authority, period. If they cannot conduct themselves professionally at all times while wearing the badge, they need to find other employment.

The cops here did not "exceed their Constitutional authority"; if you have proof to the contrary, please enlighten me.

OK, I will explain it to you:

1. Police, in order to detain you, require probable cause, which amounts to specific evidence of criminal behavior.

2. Not being willing to discuss one's business with a police officer is not probable cause.

3. Police are not allowed to threaten arrest as some form of punishment for refusing to go along with the cop's overstepping of his authority. Punishment is reserved for the courts, and only upon conviction of a crime.

[dave k]

Everone is bitching about the cop's question "Where are you headed tonight?", yet no one has proven that this was unconstituional for the cop to ask. It may have been none of the cop's business, but not against the law for them to ask. So why is everyone so abhorred that when this kid lipped off, the situation escalated?

To me this seems like the kid was obstructing an officer of the law.

Are you from Montana, Leatherneck??? You may find this interesting:

45-7-302. Obstructing peace officer or other public servant. (1) A person commits the offense of obstructing a peace officer or public servant if the person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the criminal law, the preservation of the peace, or the performance of a governmental function, including service of process. (2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, provided that the peace officer was acting under the peace officer's official authority.

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/BILLS/mca/45/7/45-7-302.htm

Again, if this kid has a beef with DWI checkpoints, he can either:

a) take it up with his jurisdiction

b) move to one of the totalitarian governments you pointed out

c) or he can become a vigalante and pick a fight with every police officer he has the opportunity to meet.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Everone is bitching about the cop's question "Where are you headed tonight?", yet no one has proven that this was unconstituional for the cop to ask.

The cop is free to ask the question.

However, he must accept any answer given at face value. He cannot compel a response to the question. That is what the officer attempted to do.

So why is everyone so abhorred that when this kid lipped off, the situation escalated?

1. This "kid" is a man. He is an adult citizen, beholden to no one.

2. He answered the question firmly, but respectfully.

3, The officer had no authority to escalate the situation, yet did so anyway.

To me this seems like the kid was obstructing an officer of the law.

No, he wasn't, because the officer of the law was well beyond his legitimate scope of authority.

[rednesss]

Wow asserting your constitutional rights now amounts to obstructing a peace officer. Staggering. So the only logical conclusion is that we shouldn't change the nature of the peace officers duties, but to throw out the constitution. Brilliant.

Moron.

[zeugma]

Everone is bitching about the cop's question "Where are you headed tonight?", yet no one has proven that this was unconstituional for the cop to ask. It may have been none of the cop's business, but not against the law for them to ask. So why is everyone so abhorred that when this kid lipped off, the situation escalated?

You are absolutely right that the cop was acting within his authority to ask the driver anything. Where he exceeded his authority is in his detention of the citizen for failing to answer the question he was not required to answer. The cop can ask, and the citizen can voluntarily answer if he so desires, but beyond name and address, the cops have no authority to compel answers absent extraordinary circumstances. The driver simply did not volunteer more than what is legally required, and for that, he was detained, and his vehicle searched. This detention and search were beyond the authority of the police at the stop absent probable cause. Further compounding their error by threatening to "find a reason" to arrest shows that the cop was way out of line.

Your attempt to justify this harassment fails based on thoroughly adjudicated precident.

[Natural Law]

No citizen has any obligation to answer anything that could remotely be self incriminating or anything without benefit of counsel. The kid should have asked for the police to either call his lawyer or provide one for him.

[Just another Joe]

It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, provided that the peace officer was acting under the peace officer's official authority.

Police Officer, "Bend over and grab your ankles, sonny, I'm gonna make ya squeal like a pig by giving you a cavity search".
And the subject just has to take it?

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

You're certainly a lousy judge of character! I'm not anti-cop, or anti-law.
I have several LEOs as friends, and, in my position as the operator of a public utility, I count on them for their help in many varied situations. I do think that stationing a police car near the local bars would probably be more productive as far as arrest and deterrence (more drunks would probably call friends or cabs to get home), and be less a pita for the rest of us. But, all that said, you're still a jerk!

[Brett Darrow]

"The cops didn't hassle him because he wouldn't tell them where he was headed- more likely they hassled him because it was obvious he was looking for trouble. I was playing along on junior's side - he's got a right to be rude- though when he misinterpreted the question "Where are you headed" as meaning "Tell me about your personal life""

Where I'm headed is my personal business and therefore my personal life. He fired the question at me and I came back with the most non-threatening, while trying to appear sober answer I could come up with.


"Then junior finally got around to what his real problem is and pretty much shot any chance of getting any sympathy:

"That just happens to be at a checkpoint. I know, I know you get a lot of drug busts off DWI checkpoints.""

I don't do drugs and never plan too. I was upset at that point (if you couldn't tell) about the whole situation including the officers driving cars. I don't like drunk drivers and it is a situation that is over exaggerated by MADD and others. Most roadblocks get 1 DWI arrest, over 10 for drugs, and normally stop around 600 cars. What I hate even more then DWI checkpoints are checkpoints looking for drugs. A concern that has no direct public safety issue. I was bringing it to the supervisor attention that it's what it appeared to be (K9s and getting in cars without suspicion). I also let him know that although he might get away with a DWI checkpoint, drug checkpoints were illegal. I'll admit I might have gone a little off topic with that one, but the more I sat there and saw how things were being done, it looked like drugs and money were there main concern.

[Brett Darrow]

"This kid needs to learn to pick his battles more wisely. If he (and others defending him) have a problem with DWI roadblocks, then take it up with the local jurisdiction/city council/state senate, not the unfortunate officer who is only doing their job."

The "unfortunate officer" made his own decision based not on the law, but his personal thoughts about me.

What better way to show these checkpoints should be unconstitutional as they clearly step over what is aloud by law, then to have proof.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Most roadblocks get 1 DWI arrest, over 10 for drugs, and normally stop around 600 cars.

Brett, if this is true, it seems terribly un-cost-effective to conduct roadblocks . . . if those roadblocks are in place only to catch drunk drivers. Where did you get these stats?

[zeugma]

No citizen has any obligation to answer anything that could remotely be self incriminating or anything without benefit of counsel. The kid should have asked for the police to either call his lawyer or provide one for him.

I think that is a fundamental difference with the way these statists are looking at this. They believe the fellow involved had some kind of obligation to answer whatever questions  the police ask. The fact is, and this has been quite well adjudicated at this point, that beyond name and address, a citizen is under no compulsion to talk to police officers. We gerally do, because most people are intimidated by police. This person wasn't, and the cops on the scene over-reacted to the presense of a citizen who actually is aware of the constraints the constitution has placed on them.