Posted on 06/06/2010 10:28:18 AM PDT by Ken H
St. Louis County, Missouri police detain and search innocent motorist for a third time.
It has been almost three years since a young Saint Louis, Missouri motorist drew national attention by videotaping an out-of-control police officer's profanity-laced tirade during a traffic stop (view video). St. George Police Sergeant James Kuehnlein was fired because of the bad publicity generated by the incident captured by the taping system that Brett Darrow, 23, installed in his 1997 Nissan Maxima. On Saturday, St. Louis County Police stopped Darrow once again.
Darrow was with his girlfriend that evening when he came upon a drunk driving (DUI) roadblock. Because he was not in his Maxima, Darrow's only recording tool was his cell phone which captured 50 seconds worth of the interaction with Officer Kevin Lane before the phone was seized and Darrow ordered out of his car. Darrow complied, locking the door while his girlfriend waited in the passenger seat. Officer Lane then took the keys out of Darrow's pocket, entered the car without permission, and proceeded to move it down the street.
With the phone turned off and no longer recording, Darrow says Officer Lane began yelling at him in a profanity-laced style "very similar to Sergeant Kuehnlein's rant from the St. George video." Sergeant David Stuckmeyer, supervisor for the highway safety unit, intervened. He recognized Darrow.
"I want to leave now," Darrow told the sergeant. "Do you think I'm drunk? You don't smell any alcohol do you? I'm not slurring my words. You know I'm not drunk. Why am I not on my way?"
Stuckmeyer did not answer. Darrow complained that his car had been searched and that he was being detained without warrant or probable cause. Stuckmeyer insisted that the roadblocks were set up to check for drunk drivers. In the last fiscal year, however, Stuckmeyer's unit was responsible for generating 2864 seat belt tickets which has helped to land at least $275,000 in state and federal grants. After finally being told he could leave, Darrow asked for his driver's license and cell phone.
"Still, as I sit here a few days later, I cannot believe the brazen attitude of all of them towards someone who hasn't done anything wrong," Darrow told TheNewspaper. "Apparently they just won't learn."
Darrow intends to ask for the dashcam videos from the police cruisers that had their lights flashing on the scene. Listen to the recording of the first fifty seconds of the incident in a 200k MP3 file at the source link below.
Article Excerpt:
Transcript of audio recording
Brett: Hi.
Officer Lane: You got your driver's license on you?
Brett: Yeah. [Hands license over]
Officer Lane: How much have you had to drink tonight?
Brett: Nothing.
Officer Lane: Nothing?
Brett: No.
Officer Lane: Why are you in such a bad mood tonight Brett?
Brett: I don't like being stopped.
Officer Lane: You don't like being stopped?
Brett: I don't want to answer any more questions. Am I free to go?
Officer Lane: No. Not until I tell you you are free to go. What is your problem Brett?
Brett: I told you I don't want to answer any questions.
Officer Lane: Let me see your eyes.
Brett: Am I free to go?
Officer Lane: No, you are not free to go. Let me see your eyes.
Brett: Why do you need to see my eyes?
Officer Lane: Cause I'm asking to see your eyes. Turn your phone off
[Darrow moves phone from his lap to the center cup holder]
Officer Lane: Let me see your phone.
Brett: No
Officer Lane: Let me see your phone.
[Lane reaches in the car and grabs the phone]
Brett: Are you seizing my phone?
Officer Lane: Let me see your phone
Brett: Can I see a supervisor?
[Phone powered off]
Source: MP3 Audio recording of DUI roadblock (Brett Darrow, 5/29/2010
Popcorn.
Now we get the great FReeper thread war between those who believe that LEO’s can do no wrong and those who believe that simply wearing blue doesn’t make one a moral or ethical person.
Nothing wrong with this pissant Darrow that a sound thrashing couldn’t cure
punk needs to be taught a lesson. He should try his antics in Chicago: A tune up and dropped off at 63rd and Racine at midnight and told to walk back to the impound.
Seems like a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit to me. That police department clearly hates that guy (notice that the officer referred to the driver by his first name) and intends to harass him. The seizing of the phone and car weren’t even close to being based on probable cause.
Is this the same police department that threatened to arrest anyone, including TV commentators, who criticized Obummer, the Marxist now posing as a Fascist, during the months previous to the presidential election?
Any cop who refuses to be recorded in the public performance of his or her duty knows in his or her heart of hearts that they are abusing their authority and violating their oath of office.
We should pass laws so that a cop forcing someone to stop recording them could be criminally charged.
Oh please. This department clearly has a culture problem.
Sounds like we live in a Police State. We’ve become the old Soviet Union.
Explain why you think a thrashing is in order.
I appreciate you holding unprofessional jackasses accountable.
Keep up the good work and be careful out there, their gunning for you.
their=they’re
Both sides need to chill. A lot of Law Enforcement agencies are really pushing (and stepping over) legal lines with these roadblocks. However, this douchebag needs to at least show some symbolence of respect for authority and understand the motivation behind what they are doing isn’t personal against him. He seemed to want to push buttons to get a rise out of the police. All of this could have been over if he just politely answers the questions and moves on.
You guys serious? I am re thinking my Free Republic membership now.
First, he calls him by his first name because he's just examined his driver's license, and he's a young man, so the cop probably didn't feel the need to call him Mr. "x".
Secondly, you think they hate this guy so much that they set up a sorbriety checkpoint just in case he happens to drive through it? Does that make sense?
While this kid has a constitutional right to be an obnoxious dolt, you don't have a constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway. Most states have statutes that allow drivers to not incriminate themselves (vis-a-vis, non-compliance during a traffic stop), but in doing so, they forfeit their driving privileges.
The cop shouldn't have worried about the phone. It poses no danger to him, or impedes his ability to investigate, in any way. So, he's bears some culpability there. But, I doubt any court will find any fault with the cop for entering the vehicle and moving it. I've had the displeasure of going through a number of these sobriety checkpoints. Usually, there a line of cars, and you might be asked to pull out of the line as not to block the other motorists, if the police are in any way suspicious. The cop probably moved the car to allow others drivers to be inspected. The kid, in a childish fit, gets out of the car and locks the doors, blocking the path of the other drivers. It's not surprising, or illegitimate the police moved it themselves.
He’s a whiny snot nosed punk when I heard of him three years ago. Is he he some kind of libertarian poster boy for harassing cops?
Some wear the uniform to “serve and protect”, some are just a$$holes with a gun and a badge.
Read the phone transcript again.
Brett: Hi.
Officer Lane: You got your driver’s license on you?
Brett: Yeah. [Hands license over]
Officer Lane: How much have you had to drink tonight?
Brett: Nothing.
Officer Lane: Nothing?
Brett: No.
Officer Lane: Why are you in such a bad mood tonight Brett?
Brett said nothing anyone could criticize up until that point and that is where no further discussion should have taken place on the part of either, had the cop returned his license and sent him on his way.
Further, it is no cops damn business whether a driver is in a bad mood unless he has because of his mood broken a law.
Broke, girl said “no”, boss cussed him, none of the cop’s business.
It is obvious the cop is the one with an attitude.
Protect your privacy. Replace Google with IXQUICK at www.ixquick.com.
If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor’s right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.
Having the right to be a dolt doesn't mean you have the right to be protected from the consiquences of being a dolt. If you go out of your way to piss off someone and push buttons, you are going to get an emotional rise out of them, law enforcement or not. (not defending the LEOs, but in this case, the kid seemed like a douchebag).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.