Read and watch this, and see if it doesn't make you ill.
A 19-year-old man, Brett Darrow, while driving soberly was made to stop at a DWI checkpoint in St. Louis, Missouri last month. He complied with the officer's instructions, except when he decided not to answer the officer's question about where he was going, telling the officer "I don't wish to discuss my personal life with you". Darrow was then detained, his car was searched and moved without his permission by an officer who didn't know how to drive a manual transmission, damaging his clutch, and when he asked why he was being detained, was told "If you don't stop running your mouth, we're going to find a reason to lock you up tonight." You know, the typical bullying.
Fortunately for Mr. Darrow, he was recording the conversation. After being apprised of this fact, the officers let him go (surprise, surprise). He is now filing a formal complaint with the St. Louis County Police.
This was a very gutsy (and correct) move by this young man, one that I am not sure I had the balls to make at his age. Good for him.
If you happen to live in one of the states where these Soviet-style checkpoints are legal, you do not have to answer any questions other than license and registration, and if you have been drinking or not. All other questions are voluntary, and do not have to be answered if you don't wish to.*
*Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, please don't take this to be legal advice. You alone have to decide if you wish to have a legal discussion with a law officer at night on a wet and busy road. It IS exactly what I plan to do if I am in a similar situation, however.
A DWI roadblock, in my opinion, is not a "rights-free zone" where the Constitution does not apply, contrary to popular myth. I abhor drunk drivers, but I am not willing to give up my liberties for a fishing expedition in search of them. Find probable cause and pull them over, and increase the penalties for conviction. That'll make a bigger dent than wasting innocent peoples' time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I watched the video, the audio is barely legible but it sounds as though the transcript is accurate enough.
Cops tend to act based on their spidey-senses and when a young kid shows up and give unusual answers, they always take a closer look. I suspect that's what the kid was counting on since he brought his video camera along (the comment at the beginning where he feigned surprise at the upcoming checkpoint was hardly necessary). Cops are paid to investigate suspicious activity and someone who's unwilling to answer a simple question is always considered suspicious. It would have been really interesting to see what the cop's reaction would have been to, "Sir, I'm invoking my constitutional rights as stated in the fifth amendment to not answer your questions." Cops love it when people start talking about their rights (since most who do have no idea what their rights actually are).
The cops did let him go, but not because he was video taping - in fact they admitted they were taping as well and it wasn't until well after the kid advised the tape was rolling was he let go. He was let go because, surprise surprise, he didn't do anything wrong.
I don't know the extent of the Missouri law that makes checkpoints legal in their state, I suspect the cops were not breaking the law while investigating a suspicious kid at a checkpoint. (You could argue it's a sad commentary on America that when someone does attempt to appropriately invoke their constitutional rights the cops are so surprised by it they consider it suspicious and I'd agree with your argument.) I do suspect however that a officer broke his department's policy about driving privately owned vehicles. As for the bullying, the officers will likely get away with that because they were insistent that they were not going to make anything up, but that they were going to look really, really hard to find a violation, something that's not difficult considering how many laws are now on the books. It's unprofessional and childish, but probably not against any law or department policy.
I couldn't agree more with your position on road blocks. Yes, you'll catch more drunks but it tips the scales too far in the direction of relinquishing rights in favor of an increased sense of security. Unfortunately, it's a trend right now and it appears to only be getting worse.
Post a Comment