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.

[Stone Mountain]

Sorry, but the kid began the exchange confrontationally for no reason whatsoever

The kid was polite and said he didn't want to discuss his personal life. That's not confrontational. Unless you view any response other than a complete accounting of his night's events to the cop confrontational. And that's not the way it happens to work in this country. It's amazing to me that there are people here who would defend the cops' actions here. But it shouldn't be, I guess...

[Stone Mountain]

Intefering with a police officer in the conduct of his duties.

By refusing to give personal information about himself? Ridiculous - the kid did nothing to interfere with the officer. What kind of police state are you advocating here by insisting that a citizen share his private life with a cop with no probable cause? So much for a FREE republic...

[rbmillerjr]

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

Umm No they didn't.

If Dwi or Dui checkpoints were Constitutionally unsound they would be defeated in court.

[Stone Mountain]

And then he can call himself Ben Harrassed-by-the-Police...

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

If Dwi or Dui checkpoints were Constitutionally unsound they would be defeated in court.

So McCain-Feingold and eminent domain for private gain are perfectly OK with you?

[rednesss]

Illegality and constitutionality are not one and the same. It used to be legal to own slaves, that has later been shown to be unconstitutional. Interpretation of the constitution is an ever changing mistress. Was owning slaves sound then at the time because it was found to be constitutionally sound??? I don't think you'd win that argument.

[rbmillerjr]

"I've studied more and more the constutition, case law, and state and local law."

Better study harder kid because the cops did nothing wrong here. If you think they did, take it to court. That will be a good education for you.

"It's become a hobby and possibly a career path. I've never been a big fan of lawyers, but have recently considered doing just that to fight for citiens rights."

Get an education and get a job, you'll shoot your eyes out kid.

"why this video looks like a set-up."

Umm, because it is lol.

"I gurantee I was the only one that night to refuse anwsering the officer personal question."

Many people know they don't have to answer questions in this particular situation. But the reasonable person does answer because the police are simply attempting to see if a person is innebriated. You chose to be an idiot, yes within your rights, but nonetheless an idiot.

There is real police abuse out there people. This is not it. The proof is in the pudding, take this lame crap to court kid.

[supercat]

Was owning slaves sound then at the time because it was found to be constitutionally sound?

It was sound because, until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, the Constitution did not forbit it.

It is certainly true that men with guns will harass citizens at checkpoints if some men in robes say they can, and it's very unlikely any other men with guns will stop them, but nothing in the Constitution gives the men in robes any authority to ignore its plain language. The men with guns may allow the men in robes to do so, but that doesn't make the actions constitutional.

Indeed, I find it hard to imagine that someone whose brain is unaffected by liberal disease can believe that random checkpoints constitute probable cause. It truly boggles the mind.

[rednesss]

By "sound" I inferred "right". And by "right" I related "moral". Even though slavery was legal, I think quite a few people found it repugnant.

[rednesss]

I also find random checkpoints to be repugnant in a free country. I have a Pavlovian response to them, I instantly see a mental picture of "checkpoint charlie" in Berlin. Free thinking people should not even be having this debate.

[supercat]

By "sound" I inferred "right". And by "right" I related "moral". Even though slavery was legal, I think quite a few people found it repugnant.

Sure they did. I'm a little confused by your argument, though, since you started out: "It used to be legal to own slaves, that has later been shown to be unconstitutional." Slave ownership wasn't unconstitutional until after the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment which explicitly made it unconstitutional.

[Brett Darrow]

"Better study harder kid because the cops did nothing wrong here. If you think they did, take it to court. That will be a good education for you"

Tell me how they didn't. To detain someone they need reasonable suspicion. This has to be more then an officer's hunch. Courts have ruled that this is especially true at a DWI checkpoint. There better be something real obvious (like drugs on the seat) to suspect of any other criminal wrong doing. If the person isn't intoxicated, they are to be on there way immediately. The officer didn't think I was drunk because he never said it nor gave me a field sobriety test.


"Many people know they don't have to answer questions in this particular situation. But the reasonable person does answer because the police are simply attempting to see if a person is innebriated. You chose to be an idiot, yes within your rights, but nonetheless an idiot. "

Actually I bet most people don't know. The ones that do, are afraid not to because they know they will be harassed and possibly arrested.

I'm glad you can see I was within my rights. So I've done nothing illegal and am well within my rights? Then why do they cops have to go beyond what there police powers allow them too? Is it to show me who's boss? Because that is not acceptable.

[wideminded]

I've wondered why that is any of the officer's business. They seem to ask that often. Kudos to the kid for doing something many don't have the stones to do.

Agreed. Answering that question should be entirely voluntary. Maybe there is a slightly more diplomatic way to refuse although the 19 year old was not really impolite.

A police officer once told me that one reason people are stopped for seemingly inconsequential violations is that many people with warrants are caught that way. Perhaps asking people about their destination is also part of some sort of purposeful technique.

[rednesss]

True, though some of our other founding documents espoused a belief that all men were created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights, etc.... I guess my point was that a law or its more sinister cousin a regulation can be found to be constitutional today, and be found unconstitutional 25 years from now. It just depends on whose butt is in the seat at SCOTUS. While the DWI checkpoints have been upheld thus far, does not make them something that people should be in love with. I think they are a blight on society.

I might have said it better by saying "even though slavery was legal and constitutional, I think quite a few people found it repugnant and immoral." And ultimately unnecessary.

[microgood]

It is certainly true that men with guns will harass citizens at checkpoints if some men in robes say they can, and it's very unlikely any other men with guns will stop them, but nothing in the Constitution gives the men in robes any authority to ignore its plain language. The men with guns may allow the men in robes to do so, but that doesn't make the actions constitutional.

Well said. In the case of sobriety checkpoints the Supreme Court even acknowledged that they were a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, but Rhenquist and others(6-3) said they were OK because they caught drunk drivers.

What incredible arrogance to think they have the right to allow a violation of the 4th Amendment. As far as I know there is nowhere in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court can invalidate or grant exceptions to the Constitution. The only legal way to change it is to use the amendment process.

If Congress were doing their duty they should have immediately impeached the 6 justices for violating their oath of office.

[tpaine]

DWI/DUI Sobriety Road Blocks or Checkpoints Unconstitutional

Address:http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1103163004.html

The Bill of Rights refers to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, the fourth of which states that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Thus the Constitution protects people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least "probable cause" that they have committed a crime.

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as "the DUI exception to the Constitution." 1

Dissenting justices emphasized that the Constitution doesn't provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," dissenting Justice Brennan insisted. 2

Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." 3
And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn't justify violating individuals constitutional rights, justices argued.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has made the DUI exemption to the Constitution, eleven states have found that sobriety checkpoints violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. In these states, individuals have more protections against unreasonable search and police sobriety roadblocks are prohibited.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which strongly promotes them, implies that sobriety roadblocks are legal throughout the entire United States without exception. It says that "the U.S. Supreme Court on June 14, 1990 upheld the use of sobriety checkpoints to detect and deter impaired drivers. Previous appeals to the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of such checkpoints had been declined, which allowed high state court rulings to stand. The June 14, 1990 ruling clearly upheld the constitutionality of such enforcement measures." 4

MADD also dismisses those who question the use of sobriety checkpoints by asserting that "opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught." 5
MADD provides no evidence of this assertion and none has been found in any published research study. There are, however, published reports that opposition is especially strong among civil libertarians, judges, law enforcement leaders and conservatives. 6


There are many arguments both for and against the use of roadblocks in our effort to reduce drunk driving. For example, many law enforcement officials and researchers believe that roving patrols are much more effective and are a better use of scarce resources. People of good will can and do disagree on such important matters.
Unfortunately, MADD's effort to discredit and marginalize those with whom it disagrees is unproductive and doesn't help us make the best decisions about how to reduce impaired and drunk driving, whether or not that involves police roadblocks.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In my opinion, anyone that has sworn to support & defend our Constitution is obligated to fight, - through civil disobedience and our political process, - all efforts to enable 'DUI' type roadblocks.

The young man here is to be commended.

[dennisw]

Then he should take it up with his elected officials who mandated the need for the DWI checkpoint.

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.

The kid is a drama queen who was cruising for some drama. Along with his video camera with the tape running. He should be thanking the cops for giving him the drama he was looking for

He posted here he's thinking of becoming a lawyer to defend people's rights, you can make of that what you will

[tpaine]

dave k:

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.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


dennis:
The kid is a drama queen --
He posted here he's thinking of becoming a lawyer to defend people's rights, you can make of that what you will ---


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


If every responsible citizen did what the kid did, and 'hassled' the cops, we wouldn't be subjected to these unconstitutional stops much longer.

[Timmy]

The cops were making small talk to assess the condition of the driver. It had nothing to do with "authority" to ask where he was going. If they had said, "How ya doin?" you could say the cops had no authority to ask him how he was doing. The driver was rude. I would hope you would not condone such behavior from your kids. It's simply not defendable, in my opinion.

[dennisw]

The cops were making small talk to assess the condition of the driver. It had nothing to do with "authority" to ask where he was going. If they had said, "How ya doin?" you could say the cops had no authority to ask him how he was doing. The driver was rude. I would hope you would not condone such behavior from your kids. It's simply not defendable, in my opinion.

EXACTLY! Especially the making small talk