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.

[68skylark]

What kind of country have we got when little smartasses think they have some right not to answer a policeman's questions?

We're the kind of country that puts the right against self incrimination (i.e. "some right not to answer a policeman's questions") into our constitution.

[UpAllNight]

It gives one an entirely different impression.

[DCPatriot]

Most people would instantly tell the officer where they were headed...as the question is merely a way to get the driver to speak more in sentences...to judge whether the driver was DWI.

[JTHomes]

LOL!

[RobRoy]

>>On the flip side, I find nothing "right-trampling" about revealing my destination to a police officer.<<

You are right. What is "right-trampling" is if you HAVE TO, OR ELSE.

I have learned that being confrontational with cops is VERY productive for me now. But that is because I drive a nice car, I'm 52, and complete strangers walk up to me and say I look like Howie Long. To me the cops are kids and intimidating them is pretty easy. But when I was under 30, like this kid, it was a little different.

I have intimidated several cops out of giving me tickets. Even when I ADMITTED I had my cruise control set five over.

[Lx]

Bump to watch at home.

[rahbert]

"Yes...why was this young fellow driving with this camcorder set up in his car and running."

Why does it matter? Its not illegal. Do cops have to
operate properly only when they're on film?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Think "I'm on my way to the local crack house" would have satisfied the officer?

[VeniVidiVici]

Yeah, he planned this from the get-go.

And here I thought the little darling got his head stomped in or something.

What a yawner.

[tenthirteen]

This is a mess. On both parts. Officers could have achieved what they were after in a better way, and the kid could have gotten what he expected in the same fashion. Challenging cops and taping them is, in my opinion, not too smart. Sure, the Officer should have let him pull the car over, thereby avoiding the "I will sue you " barb. I seem to remember that the SC ruled that a citizen is required to provide ID to Police on demand; and DWI checks are legal.

All this lawyering and taping will lead to more trouble. Sometimes I think there are those, especially this kid, who just wish the cops will go away so that they can do whatever they want. Well, this crap keeps up and that just might happen. Then we can all kill each other and no one will give a damn.

Khrushev said that the they will bury us without firing a shot. Guess this kid is just one of his foot soldiers.

[MeanWestTexan]

Actually, the kid was pretty friendly. Read the transcript.

[lafroste]

The brat should have been arrested.

Bullshit. The kid did nothing wrong. We do not require submission in a free society, only adherence to the law. This kid had not broken any law, and refusing to talk to a cop is not, and should not, be illegal.

[BenLurkin]

This little punk thinks he is real funny. Do you suppose he'll be the first whining when the cops can't come quick enough to bail him out of jam?

Brett: Okay. I just want to let you know all of this is being recorded. Officer #4: That's good, we're recording it too.

[Brucifer]

It's not that people hate cops. It's that you can't tell the good ones from the bad ones and they all carry guns and badges. Further, far too many of the good ones will support the bad ones rather than supporting truth or justice.

If I see a military person, or a fireman, or an ambulance crew, I know what to expect. They'll try to help. With cops... who the hell knows?

I think that most Americans, and especially most freepers, want to support police and give them the benefit of the doubt. But...

Brett: Why am I being detained officer? (directed toward Officer #4)
Officer #4: You better stop runnin your mouth or the other officer will find a reason to lock you up tonight.
(Audio can now be heard again)
3:22
Brett: You're saying you're going to make up a reason to arrest me?
Officer #4: No I didn't. I said we would find a reason.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

"I'd say the driver had something in mind with his interaction with the police."
So what? He pretty much proved he was right! The cops were wrong in this case, and the supervisor knew it.

[JTHomes]

Evading conversation is interfering with the officers duty.

Now wait a minute. I'm no lawyer, but I thought we had the right to remain silent. I also recall a case I believe that went to the supreme court that affirmed an individual doesn't need to give his name to an officer if asked. Did I dream that?

[RobRoy]

Ah, but they took the bait. Sometimes the only way to catch bad guys is to set them up.

The kid done good! I suspect he was following the ACLU video to a tee, and the cops trashed his rights, and he got it on tape!

Brilliant!

[dfwgator]

Cop: "Where you headed tonight?"

Me: "I'm looking for a doughnut shop, do you know of any good ones in the area?"

[MeanWestTexan]

"The brat should have been arrested."

For what? Asserting his right to remain silent?

[JTHomes]

So entrapment is only okay when the cops do it?