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 saddens me to report that Texas is turning California

They bring their Money and their disease, what is a Capitalist to do?

TT

[TexasTransplant]

PS dennisw is a dolt

I am adding that ps to every post from now on

TT

[microgood]

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

Actually that is not correct. They actually ruled it did violate the 4th Amendment, but that it was OK to violate the 4th Amendment. Please read post #856 by tpaine

[endthematrix]

Thanks. My post was a cut and paste job. Yours is much more accurate. But IIRC Brett Darrow said the checkpoint was "unconstitutional (but unfortunately legal)" and it's in that spirit that lends him my support.

Amendment IV

"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."

[WLR]

Oh come off it...

My family is as "Copped up" as any. Only none of my cousins, Father in law, Grandmother (Yeah Granny was an armed Peace Officer (ret.). Oh yes we also have a former State Attorney General.
None of them have ever bought into this random check point thing as being somehow a good thing.
Now is your whine that the young man was calm, cool and collected asserting his rights in a firm responsible fashion? Or is it that he did not kiss the Officers heinie in the manner you would like to see in the face of what is deliberately a confrontational situation? The kid was not rude and it is none of your, mine or anyone else's business where a free man or women goes or when. Random check points, stopping people in the night may sound to you and those Supreme Moroons like a good idea but it is an idea founded in tyranny.

A Check point could just as easily be manned by terrorists just how the hell would you know approaching one? How many hundreds of people could they kill before people got wise?

The difference between your opinion and mine is found in your deliberate unwillingness to see what the Supreme Morons
"Sobriety Stop" truly represents.

"Pig haters?" Don't be an idiot..

FR Folk support Peace Officers all the time. I know I sure as hell do and try very hard to give the benefit of the doubt. I have spoken and written in support on many occasion and praised when praise was do.. Along with that I have never seen FR folk support thugs in any uniform or capacity so you will just have to deal with that.. You are way off on this issue. The opinion that matters is the Peoples not Law Enforcement. Remember it is not an adventure it is just a tough job.

[microgood]

Thanks. My post was a cut and paste job. Yours is much more accurate. But IIRC Brett Darrow said the checkpoint was "unconstitutional (but unfortunately legal)" and it's in that spirit that lends him my support.

I agree. As bad as the ruling was, the Michigan Supreme Court, which was ordered to reverse their ruling, told the Supreme Court to take a hike and ruled that even if the US Constitution did not forbid them, the State Constitution did. I live in Washington State, which has also ruled DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional. There are 11 states which forbid them.

I feel bad for the other 39, though.

[Brett Darrow]

"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."

Michigan State Supreme Court ruled against checkpoints because they DID violate the forth amendment. The US supreme court ruled the other way though. After the ruling of the USSC, Michigan SC said if the USSC wasn't going to protect their citizens then they would and made them illegal in their state under there own constitution.

[Brett Darrow]

"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."

I would say the supervisor swept it under the rug more than anything. He didn't take responsibility for anything nor care to find out what really happened.

[Isabel C.]

Looks like a snot-nosed punk being uncooperative with officers who are just trying to do their job. In fact, the snot-nosed punk was trying to provoke this whole situation with his little video cam already sent up. . .he's a punk. . a snot-nosed spoiled little punk that needs to go home to his mommie who probably bought him his piece o junk car.

What an ignorant, juvenile rant. You need to grow up.

[JamminJAY]

Play friendly, and you will be surprised how easy life can be!

This is all AQ asks also.

[JamminJAY]

Evading conversation is interfering with the officers duty.

HUH?
Nevermind.

[JamminJAY]

Are you a troll?

Why yes I am! I see your join date is 08/05 are you a cop?

[Thumper1960]

"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.

Insulting fluff without substance. A waste of bandwidth and energy.

You can see them coming, Dr., by the sheen on their jackboots.

[Thumper1960]

There are a few Freepers who'd make excellent fascists. I'm not sure who to be more concerned about; them or the occasional trolls.

[sport]

Yes they are.

If nothing else, this thread shows that there are no shortage of jackboot lickers in the U.S.

[rbmillerjr]

One can keep repeating oneself over and over, being devoid of logic and reality, but it doesn't change the reality of the law.

Just because YOU don't feel or think it is constitutional, doesn't make it unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has ruled that DWI traffic stops are constitutional. So if you come on here and state they are unconstitutional, you lived in fantasyland. If you disagree, then challenge it in court, but the courts have already ruled.

[RayStacy]

You sound crazy.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"Or is it that he did not kiss the Officers heinie in the manner you would like to see "

What is so invasive about answering a simple question? Constitutional or not, the officer wasn't born to deprive this kid of his "right" to be non cooperative.

The officer asked a simple everyday question.

Do you understand that?

The officer asked a simple everyday question.

One more time. The officer asked a simple everyday question.

The response was constitutional, but confrontational.

Do you really think the officer actually gave a RR about where the kid was headed? Not a chance.

It was small talk to determine sobriety. Quite a few drunks get confrontational when tanked up. This kids response was an instant flag.

Kiddo didn't have to be confrontational. Kiddo could have saved himself a lot of trouble.

This kid brought it on himself by being confrontational. End of story. Constitutional yes, confrontational yes.

I never accused you or anyone of hating LEOs. Chillazax.

[rawcatslyentist]

No AQ asks a bit more. Actually quite a bit more. They want world wide slavery. Totally different story here.

What is wrong about being polite? The officer was making small talk to determine sobriety. This kid failed that simple test by being confrontational. The officer couldn't care less where the kid was actually headed. It was conversation to determine impairment. The kid brought it on himself. Drunks often display confrontational behavior. After displaying non cooperative confrontational behavior by refusing to engage in even a two word sentence, the officer had no choice but to investigate further. Kid could have been running a batch of meth to sell to your children... It's possible.... It was an unknown at that time...

As far as the officers using intimidation, that is a tactic they use to keep confrontational suspects from getting out of control. It seems heavy handed because it IS. It has to be. What are ya gonna do give a belligerent intoxicated individual a smiley sticker if he behaves? Some jobs and situations require not so nice actions to be done. Being a cop is one of them.

[Charlespg]

If nothing else, this thread shows that there are no shortage of jackboot lickers in the U.S.

or here on free republic :(