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.

[Natural Law]

While most law enforcement personnel are decent, concerned, and professional the unfortunate truth is that there are quite a few who are or become school yard bullies under cover of authority. Everyone either has first had or knows someone who has had bad experiences with what is referred to as "big gun, little d*ck" cops. Rather than harbor anger at the general population for their response to these guys law enforcement needs to (pardon the expression) police itself.

[takenoprisoner]

This was a routine checkpoint stop that coule have been over in a matter of 30 seconds, but because this kid had something to prove, it turned into a 20 minute hassle.

It is apparent to me that it was the check point cop who had something to prove to the young man. ie "I'll show YOU who is in charge here...now step out of the car!"

The slippery slope toward a police state

[zeugma]

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?

That's pretty accurate for what I've seen. The vast majority of profit from these stops are the tickets for improper/lack of registration, inspection stickers, expired drivers licences, seat belts, and other similar stuff. These things are huge money-makers for the cities where they happen. They bring out the drug dogs because then they get the additional windfall of asset forfieture.

It's all about da money. It always is.

[zeugma]

Rather than harbor anger at the general population for their response to these guys law enforcement needs to (pardon the expression) police itself.

Exactly. Problem is, as we've seen in the past, too many will protect each other for anything up to and including murder. Getting them to police themselves for the kind of violations exposed here just isn't goint to happen.  The world the police inhabit is almost entirely one of  an "us against them" mentality. It's the police vs. "civilians", with a civilian being defined as anyone they haven't found a reason to bust yet.

It's a sad state of affairs, and the increasing militarization of police departments across the country have only excerbated the problem. Add on the corruption that goes hand in hand with the "war on drugs", and it puts those of us who just want to live our lives in peace and be left alone in a bad place.

[dave k]

Your flippant name calling completely dismisses any credibility you have been trying to bring to this discussion.

Buh-Bye, now!

[NittanyLion]

I've already answered your carefully pontificated question.

No, you havent. I checked. Lots of attempts to skirt the question, but no serious attempts to answer it.

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.

So you're asserting the unsupported premise that cops "don't normally" step over any bounds in order to claim that they acted properly in this case? You're not a logician, are you?

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.

Honestly, a video is as damning a piece of evidence as you're going to get. If you're not willing to watch it in an unbiased manner, I can't help you there.

No amount of your fact twisting and trying to pin me as some desecrator of the Constitution will prove otherwise.

Your own comments are doing a good job of proving that - no need for me to twist anything.

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

My, but you're a dumb one! The proof you seek is all over this thread. Did you bother to read it?

[Sir Gawain]

Argue with the video evidence.

[Thumper1960]

It is little wonder that many people do not respect law enforcement officers. Respect is earned, not bestowed.

[Sir Gawain]

When they ask me where I'm heading, I always say "Just down the road" and point straight ahead.

[takenoprisoner]

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

That has a familiar sound to it. I wonder why? That same excuse was offered by you know who.

Did you know that most LEOs pledge an oath to uphold the Constitution of these United States? Sure, the USSC has violated the Constitution by wrongfully upholding these check points for dwis. Rehnquist stated so himself.

The USSC also upholds abortion, and imminent domain for big time developers. But that doesn't make them right.

[zeugma]

When they ask me where I'm heading, I always say "Just down the road" and point straight ahead.

I figure "yonder" would work as well. 

[Hemingway's Ghost]

That's pretty accurate for what I've seen. The vast majority of profit from these stops are the tickets for improper/lack of registration, inspection stickers, expired drivers licences, seat belts, and other similar stuff. These things are huge money-makers for the cities where they happen. They bring out the drug dogs because then they get the additional windfall of asset forfieture.

I suspected as much, of course. The analogy here is that the roadblock is a big revenue fishing net . . . under the guise of doing something about a problem---drunken driving.

[LowOiL]

I will never kiss a$$ or act like the cops are God (and I shouldn't have to) at a unconstitutional (unfortunately legal) checkpoint which I'm stopped while not doing one thing wrong. I'm not a criminal and I don't expect to be treated like one while doing my normal legal activities out in public. With the hundred of driving laws, if they can't find one I've violated, leave me the Fcuk alone!

Welcome to FR Brett... first off... just a pointer... FR does not condone cursing or misspellings of curse words (you can do that at some liberal sites, but unfortunately, that is often all you get at those sites)....

Do not curse... link provided here

Here is the more recent thread on the same subject

Not trying to be a nanny... just hoping your stay is a pleasant one (for all of us).

On the subject at hand... I disagree that the road blocks are unconstitutional, but do agree that the officers conduct at this stop went over the line. You answered his private question firmly and politely as could be expected with a "None of your business" reply. It was basically none of his business and you had every right to refuse to answer it IMHO...

The search was also unwarrented as was the detainment. The threat to jail detention(s) towards you was highly offensive and down right scarry from my point of view. You stood your ground admirable, and I am NOT a fan usually of the treatment of police officers by most people in simular circimstances because police do a job that often is not supported strongly enough (especially here on FR by the pro-drug/anarchy/libertarian crowd)...

Because you did behave in a reasonable manner, you have won my support in this individual case... you had your rights trampled upon...

[rednesss]

Oh OK, I guess I'll scurry away now with my tail tucked between my legs now that you've dismissed me. Oh wait, screw that. I'm sorry you take offense, just calling a spade a spade.

[Thumper1960]

True Conservatives should be outraged at the tactics used by these particular police officers.

We, as Conservatives, demand that government stay out of our lives and not interfere unduly in our daily activities. Besides the odorous checkpoint schemes run by law enforcement, impertinent inquiries as to what a citizen is doing and where they may be going to or coming from are invasive and insulting. Having nothing to hide is irrelevant. There is no compelling reason to interrogate a motorist who is simply driving the public roads and is not visibly impaired. Fishing expeditions are best reserved for boats and ships.

[Brett Darrow]

"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?"

Here are some of the first links that come up when searching for the results. You'd think for something so great as a checkpoint (as we're told), they'd make it easier to find the results of them. The reason that departments do them, is most of the time, the state covers the costs to pay the officers' OT. Anything they get (tows, tickets, drugs, money) is profit for them. They also get the "we get tuff on drunk drivers" label that they want the community to see. It's just a lazy, but profitable, way to do law enforcement.

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/reports/reports2007/010206mcleancheckpointcopy.htm


http://www.joplin.com/news/36566/

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/reports/Reports2006/111306DWIcheckpointReston.htm

http://www.lsp.org/lspnewsr.nsf/db14d4e0632f509686256c76005182da/c9cb04b17ce1827886257238007953b4?OpenDocument

http://www.learfield.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=1EDFD19F-FEEF-F254-FA6B8EE54368A431

It has been proven that the officers used at a checkpoint (normally around 12) could yield higher numbers of drunk drivers using saturated patrols (stopping people actually committing violations related to drunk driving), then sitting at a checkpoint.

[Brett Darrow]

"When they ask me where I'm heading, I always say "Just down the road" and point straight ahead."

I guess I could have said that, but I'm sure I would have gotten more questions. As another poster stated, your willingness to answer some questions, but not all is suspicious. Saying "NO" from the start is not.

[Brett Darrow]

"Welcome to FR Brett... first off... just a pointer... FR does not condone cursing or misspellings of curse words (you can do that at some liberal sites, but unfortunately, that is often all you get at those sites)...."

I understand and respect the decision of those that run this site. I'm not even normally like that. As you tell from the video, I can normally keep my cool without using offensive language. I think I got caught up in reading the posts here.

[Stone Mountain]

Dude, you could have avoided all that shiite if you had just been a tiny bit more civil to the first officers question. True it is your "right" to give dick answers, it's also their "right" to give you dick police treatment.

No it isn't. They have taken an oath to serve and protect. Not to be a dick to anyone they happen to feel like harassing.

[Stone Mountain]

Evading conversation is interfering with the officers duty. The brat should have been arrested.

Puh-lease. If the officer can't tell that someone is drunk by his actions, there is no probable cause. Not wanting to talk to a cop about one's personal life isn't illegal. Yet. What charges do you think this "brat" should have been brought up on?