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.

[TexasTransplant]

>>>>"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"<<<<

Rock on, my new young FRiend

TT

[zeugma]

A lot of FReepers are police statists.

Yup. And a lot are nanny-staters as well.

=Sigh=

It's unfortunate, but we have the police-statists and nanny-statists coming at us from both "sides" (which have begun to look awfully similar) of the political spectrum these days. Some days it is discouraging, but other days, I'll see that those of us who cherish freedom will outnumbering the facists on threads such as this, and it gives at least some small reason to hope for the future.

[bondserv]

A person not honoring the authority we have agreed to give our police officers, will be treated with suspicion and based on experiences with punks over and over again, will be treated as hostile. An officer that gets sloppy with a person showing attitude will get injured frequently.

Your refusal to respond triggered this reflex in the individual. Go for a few ride along's in tough neighborhoods to get a different perspective. Seeing things from a cops perspective might help you. For the record, I am not a cop and am not related to any cops.

My younger brother was with some friends at a party that was getting to loud. One of his friends drove the group to the house that was hosting the party.

The cops came to break up the party because it was to noisy for the neighborhood and they got a call. When the police arrived people began leaving the house, including my brother. He passed by some police officers uneventfully and stood by his friends car up the street a little way from the house.

Officer #1 saw him standing by the car and asked him to move along. My brother told the officer #1 that he was waiting for his friend who drove him. Officer #1 said that he needed to leave immediately, and that he couldn't stay there. My brother told officer #1 that he didn't have to leave, and that he would leave when his friend arrived to drive him.

A K-9 officer #2 approached and asked officer #1 if there was a problem. Officer #1 said "this punk won't leave" (I think my brother was 21 or 22 at the time). So the K-9 officer #2 approached my brother with the dog on a leash. My brother said "you better get that dog away from me right now" and moved at the dog like he was going to do something.

Officer #1 rushed my brother punching him in the nose causing a fracture. They took my brother to the hospital and after he was checked out they took him to jail for the night.

My brother took them to court and lost because the officer informed the jury that officers stay at the street to ensure no one rushes them or throws something at them from behind. They also clear the area around a party so drunks don't get brave and do anything stupid. Even though my brother had every right to stand where he was (he said he had just arrived and hadn't even finished one beer), we as a people have given authority to officers so they can effectively protect themselves from being blindsided.

Being a cop is a dangerous job, and until a large number blatantly betray that trust, good citizens need to work with them not against them.

Longwinded, but needs to be said.

[supercat]

That's a great analogy of what happens at the typical "dwi checkpoint". Is that original to you? If so, kudos.

It is original; I thought of it while driving home from work, along with the notion I really don't think has been adequately explored: if DUI checkpoints are constitutional but drug checkpoints and the like are not, what distinguishes a constitutional DUI checkpoint from an unconstitutional "other" checkpoint?

If cops were to set up a checkpoint a few miles from a bar, at a time when most vehicles on the road were in fact coming from that bar, and if 25% of the drivers who were pulled over were found to be intoxicated, such a checkpoint would be allowable per the USSC, and not unreasonably so. It's not clear exactly what should constitute "probable cause", but if 25% of those being pulled over are DUI it would appear the police are doing at least a somewhat reasonable job of identifying those likely to be breaking the law.

On the other hand, when a checkpoint stops over 700 motorists to produce a whopping total of one DUI arrest, the notion that the police have probable cause to suspect those being pulled over are DUI is absurd. While it is not generally the Court's job to tell the police how to most effectively do their job, it should be clear that if the amount of labor required to pull over 700 motorists really were focused on DUI, it should be able to catch more than one drunk driver.

[TexasTransplant]

>>>>"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"<<<<

Used to be the case, Texas (Corpus Christi any way) has checkpoints for (pick your poison) Seat belts (Clickit or Ticket), Insurance, Registration, and General Safety Inspections... but on the other hand we have a Radio Station that gives the locations dates and times where the "voluntary" roadblocks are and where they will be set up.

TT

[bondserv]

I would also add that leaders who give rogue cops safe harbor, should be treated with the same public anger as the religious leaders that have swept the pedophiles under the rug.

The public trust must be protected by continuously monitoring the force for ego maniacs that are willing to cross the line. One might argue that is what you did on that night, but I think these cops passed the test. The supervisor diffused the situation from what I could tell.

[streetpreacher]

You mean like Rudy Guiliani?

[TexasTransplant]

>>>>"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."<<<<<

"The Court" that you are speaking of is? Not the Supreme Court. If so States would not have the vastly diverse Rules and Laws when the subject of "Roadblocks" are discussed.

TT

[bondserv]

It dings the record when juries determine leaders cover up rogue behavior.

[streetpreacher]

I used to really get upset at what I thought was police bashing but then I noticed it was ex-cops that were doing all the bashing.

[streetpreacher]

Touche.

[endthematrix]

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S.444 (1990)

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

[ZULU]

The cops alweays go through taht routine about "Where are you going".

The kid was right. He did nothing wrong and it was none of the government's business where he was going.

Just another case of "Cops Gone Wild" or "Domestic Gestapo Live"

I give the kid credit. It wasn't any of their business unless he was under arrest or under suspicion for something.

[TexasTransplant]

Stands in Michigan, see if it holds up in Texas or Alaska or Idaho or Montana (California would probably add a bonus cavity search)
Sorry California, I can't help myself... You folks are the next France, a bunch quitting surrender monkeys... yep I'm picking a fight, 08 or you are late. we need you now!
TT

[HiTech RedNeck]

Sausagemakers' confessional

[TexasTransplant]

PS Michigan was wrong! 6-3 Wrong!
TT

[HiTech RedNeck]

until a large number blatantly betray that trust,

How does a Free Citizen keep a "small number" from becoming "large"? Oh I know, by being a sheeple.

[stormer]

"Yeah, I'm a born and bred American MORON..."

Without a doubt the funniest thing I've read on this thread.

[endthematrix]

"Texas or Alaska or Idaho or Montana"

State's rights are music to my ears! I'm encamped in Illinois as of now, soon to escape.

[dennisw]

Then you have my respect .... not that you need or want it:)