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.

[Cogadh na Sith]

If they had said, "How ya doin?" you could say the cops had no authority to ask him how he was doing.

But he still doesn't have to answer them.... I wouldn't.

The driver was rude.

So arrest him?

I would hope you would not condone such behavior from your kids. It's simply not defendable, in my opinion.

Condone it? I teach it!:

"Kid, never ever talk to the cops without a lawyer. If they don't like your tone of voice, they will cook up a reason to arrest you. They aren't your friends anymore....

[Timmy]

Then you are part of the problem in this country.

[DocRock]

"just a pointer..."
[snip]

I'm sure you'll read further and find that this was pointed out to Brett in post 643 and he complied by Post 684.

[Cogadh na Sith]

Then you are part of the problem in this country.

And you are a frog in a slooooooooowly warming pot.

You will have an experience with the cops that will shake your ill-founded faith in them. I did....

[sport]

"...I am NOT for a fascist state....."

By the remarks you have been posting, one would not know that.

[sport]

Everything an Officer of the Law says to a subject when conducting a traffic stop, directing traffic, investigating an incident,running a dui checkpoint, or doing crowd is an order. Meaning, he can use the force of the State to insure compliance.

He/she may phrase it as a request but it is actually an order.

Be HoldAPaleHorse may be able to enlighten you more on that.

[elkfersupper]

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

Well, one would certainly hope so.

However, the revenue prospects tend to get in the way.

The only State I am aware of that prohibits them is Texas, simply because Texas couldn't care less about access to federal highway funds.

[rbmillerjr]

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

Then by all means, do so. However, the DUI checkpoints are not unconstitutional.

[Skywalk]

I'm "how are you?" resistor also. I will tell someone "OK" or "Meh" instead of giving some lame pat answer. If I win the lottery, just got laid or the Redskins win the Super Bowl, I'll tell them how great my day is. :)

[elkfersupper]

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

[supercat]

Then by all means, do so. However, the DUI checkpoints are not unconstitutional.

Drug checkpoints have been found to be, as are many other sorts. I wonder whether what challenges there have been regarding the fact that most so-called "DUI checkpoints" are in fact nothing of the sort?

It would seem to me that a cop at a DUI checkpoint who spent any significant amount of time doing anything other than checking the sobriety of the drivers going by would be undermining the checkpoint's supposed mission by diverting resources therefrom. While there would be times such diversion would be appropriate (e.g. if a cop sees a bullet-ridden body in the passenger's seat) I would argue that an officer who brings drug dogs to a so-called DUI checkpoint demonstrates thereby that it's really nothing of the sort.

The Supreme Court is very loath to contradict its earlier rulings, but it's not uncommon for it to significantly constrain them, sometimes to the point of insignificance. If the Court has five honest judges, and if the right case were to come before it, it could--without contradicting its earlier DUI-roadblock ruling--find that DUI roadblocks are only Constitutional when their focus is solely on DUI offenders. Cops would be forbidden from making any demands or "requests" of citizens other than those necessary for determining the sobriety of drivers except when there was prima facie evidence of criminal activity (far beyond 'probable cause for suspicion'); evidence gained as a result of illegal demands--including "papers please"(*)--would be inadmissible.

(*)How is looking at someone's driver's license going to indicate whether or not they're sober? Any time spent looking at people's licenses would be time that could be better spent in other ways if the real intention was to catch DUIs.

[_Jim]

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

Hmmm .... an arguably non-conforming answer to his inquiry ...

Alex, I'll take intoxicated and non-responsive for 200 please ...

[tpaine]

However, the DUI checkpoints are not unconstitutional.

Refute the reasoning in the article cited at #856. -- And the clear words of the 4th.

[_Jim]

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

Yeah, I would forget that stuff about 'No man is an Island' stuff too; fight the power, resist authority, even if the Gospel compels you to do otherwise ...

[rbmillerjr]

The courts have ruled that DWI roadblocks are constitutional. The court held that "de minimis" intrusion of random traffic stops is reasonable. They have also ruled that sole Drug roadblocks are unconstitutional due to a lack of public safety threat.

However, a case has not been brought where DUI was primary and drugs secondary, but Justices have made comments leading to indicate that these would be constitutional.

[_Jim]

Cops are not supposed to exceed their authority, period.

Hark!

Utopia beckons!

After first being greeted by death!

[elkfersupper]

Retroactively pinging you to the link I posted at #870.

Sorry about that.

[_Jim]

I also find random checkpoints to be repugnant in a free country.

AS IF you can't do anything about it.

I find that odd.

What, you don't understand?

Are you a convicted felon or one possessing an unsound mind?

Can you not, if the foregoing are not true RUN for city council or county commissioner where you live and enact your desire?

NAZI Pelosi is going to ....

[rbmillerjr]

"Refute the reasoning in the article cited at #856. -- And the clear words of the 4th"

That's easy because it is not my logic but the decision of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that minimal intrusion traffic stops based on random traffic stops are reasonable and constitutional.

Note: I checked your source and you added the unconstitutional part to your heading. It is not in your referenced article.

[elkfersupper]

The courts have ruled that DWI roadblocks are constitutional.

The courts are wrong on that.

The courts also ruled in favor of slavery and (although I don't have a dog in that fight), abortion.

People make mistakes. With the right guidance from right-thinking people, they can be rectified.