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.

[rbmillerjr]

"The courts are wrong on that."

Well, that's a beautiful argument...and it certainly makes it easy for you, me, and everybody else to all be right. However, it is a relativistic argument that doesn't hold water.

The Supreme Court has ruled and you are incorrect. DWI roadblocks are indeed constitutional.

[Drango]

The Supreme Court has ruled and you are incorrect. DWI roadblocks are indeed constitutional.

You are correct. BUT. Are you here to suggest that the supreme court, should this case ever reach it, would rule *this* case a legal search? If so, I beg to differ.

[Richard-SIA]

Did you read what you posted?
Did you think about it before putting it up?
Was there a missing SARC tag?

No other answer was nearly so appropriate, if you espouse delight and support for despotic actions you should expect to be viewed as a wanna-be despot!

[elkfersupper]

The Supreme Court has ruled and you are incorrect. DWI roadblocks are indeed constitutional.

Sadly, they are not, and it will take a long time to undo the damage done by that conclusion.

[rbmillerjr]

"You are correct. BUT. Are you here to suggest that the supreme court, should this case ever reach it, would rule *this* case a legal search? If so, I beg to differ."

This case aint goin anywhere but youtube lol. I wouldn't even attempt to dissect this case. We don't have the facts. We only have the written transcript of a kid who is having fun playing with cops. The film verifies the initial conversation only. This facts of this case would take into consideration the set up by the kid, the tone of the kid etc. I would never make it to the Supremes. And a jury could interpret the officer actions as reasonable based on suspicion. But that is speculation. Bottom line is this is no big deal to anybody of note and never will be.

[rbmillerjr]

I do see some possible unconsitutional aspects but I won't comment because the kid needs to do his own homework.

[supercat]

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.

(tpaine: I'd be interested in your take on this and 871)

What about where other factors are primary and DUI is only nominally a factor, if it's really considered at all?

Suppose carp became such a nuisance that the DNR of a state were to pass a rule that anyone could catch carp with no license required; to further encourage fishing for carp, they passed a rule that other fish caught while fishing for carp could be kept.

A game warden observed a boat go out with tackle that was really not suited for carp fishing. When it returned, the owner (who had no fishing license) had caught 100+ fish, including one carp. He claimed, of course, that he had been fishing for carp and just happened to catch the other fish as well.

Should the game warden let him go as an honest fisherman, or arrest him as a poacher?

[elkfersupper]

Follow-up link.

"The DUI Exception to the Constitution"

[supercat]

Sadly, they are not, and it will take a long time to undo the damage done by that conclusion.

IMHO, the best way to undo the damage would be to focus the conclusion very narrowly: traffic checkpoints that are truly focused only on DUI are constitutional, but checkpoints intended as pretexts for other purposes are not. While the line may at times seem fuzzy, I would argue that it's really pretty clear: if police divert their attention from DUI checks to focus on other things, absent clear prima facie evidence of a crime (as distinct from probable cause for suspicion), that would be a sign that they really weren't interested in catching DUIs and thus the checkpoint was illegal.

[rbmillerjr]

Supercat:

The SC has ruled that roadblocks or checkpoints were unconstitutional for general crime. The govt can't set up checkpoints for any and all things.

[elkfersupper]

I would agree with that.

Stop the fishing expeditions.

However, the larger problem is that we are now using cops to limit behavior some people find offensive, be it smoking, or contributing to our collective body fat by eating at McDonald's.

In the course of doing so, my grandson now has to sit in a restraining device in the back seat of a vehicle while his mother sits next to him and my son drives them all around like a glorified chaufeur.

Gradually, and incrementally, the nanny-statists are sucking all the joy out of life.

[KenmcG414]

"I have several LEOs as friends, and, in my position as the operator of a public utility"
You still know nothing about law enforcement. What do you do as operator of a public utility? Flush toilets! Obviously you have the "IQ" of a pea.

[rawcatslyentist]

> No other answer was nearly so appropriate, if you espouse delight and support for despotic actions you should expect to be viewed as a wanna-be despot!"

Rub a few of your remaining brain cells together.

How would you like it if I called you a Nazi or Commie? Huh???

You shure seem to freely name your fellow freepers as such.

You probably got jacked by a slime cop. They are not all that way. Not nearly even a slight majority. You got burned by a bad one. Personal perspective is not always reality or truth.

This kid was spoiling for an altercation with the LEOs. I am glad he didn't get hot lead for doing so. It happens! They are not robot popes infallable. They are fellow citizens of this Great Nation Under God.

A little civility goes a long way

A little civility goes a long way

A little civility goes a long way

A little civility goes a long way

[_Jim]

A little civility goes a long way

Yes ... it ... does.

But a certain 'purist' cardre won't here of it; I wonder how the same cadre of 'folks' feels about classical conscription (as in forced duty in the Armed Services).

It would seem that they have forced themselves into an untenable position where they must now also deny conscription by taking the strident position in this case as they have ...

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

You are such a twit! I've been havin' fun laughing at you. So have many others here. I'll take a chance here IQ-wise. Tested 158 to 164.

[tpaine]

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 Supreme Court has ruled and you are incorrect.

"Well, that's a beautiful [circular] argument." -- You aren't refuting it because :

The Court ruled that minimal intrusion traffic stops based on random traffic stops are reasonable and constitutional.

-- Despite the fact that the 4th ` clearly says "-- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, --- against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, --"

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

-- How can you 'square' the SCOTUS ruling with the clear words of the 4th Amendment? -- Do you really contend that Court 'rulings' are infallible?

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

IQ is somewhat overrated. I have known many people who didn't have a spectacular IQ who have been very successful in life through hard work and determination. And, I've known quite a few people with exceptional IQs who are complete idiots. I have no idea about your IQ, but you are an idiot! I feel silly having risen to your bait and posted my IQ. There'll be no more answers from me to you. Arguing with an idiot is a waste of time.I will continue to laugh though!

[_Jim]

I would NOT want to live in the America you propose because YOU are not REASONABLE.

It would be like walking on PINS and NEEDLES; nearly where we are now with 'PC' (politically correct) -ism.

"Don't tread on me!"

"I'm not treading on you."

"Well, what are you doing then?"

"I asked you a simple question."

"YOU don't have the right to do that!"

"Says who?"

"The RULE book, page 352, paragraph, six, second line."

"But that doesn't apply on Tuesdays, Thursdays, or Saturdays during and a month after Lent."

"Oh, right you are ... okay, on with the question again ..."

(bad Monty Python skit, I know ...)

[TexasTransplant]

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

You have not earned the moral authority to dismiss anything in this discussion, your credibility is suspect at any level of cordial yet normal inspection, it appears at face value from your posts that you have a motive other than truth. You are LE or have LE very close to you and have an agenda, please spare us the lies and blovations of a liar.

PS LE USED to be to "Protect and Serve" what a contrast that is with your posts...

TT

[Skywalk]

You're not getting it. Brett just said he didn't want to discuss that issue with the officer. He still gave him, by responding, a chance to assess intoxication (not that this is constitutional either.) And because the officers didn't get a sufficiently SERVILE response, he detained the kid and one of the cops threatened to FIND (invent, plant?) a reason to PUT HIM IN JAIL.

What part of this obvious abuse of power that was PREVENTED by a recording device do you NOT UNDERSTAND?