By Carlos Miller
Brett Darrow decided to mount a video camera inside his car a few years ago after receiving what he believed to be an unjust speeding ticket.
It turned out to be the best decision he ever made.
The St. Louis resident has been continually harassed for not brown-nosing police officers – aka contempt-of-cop – when he gets pulled over. One of his videos even got one cop fired in 2007, as you can see in the above news segment.
On Saturday, the 23-year-old man was pulled over again at a DUI checkpoint. But because he was not driving his Nissan Maxima, he did not have his video cameras rolling.
However, he decided to record the stop with his cell phone.
St. Louis County Police Officer Kevin Lane then seized his phone and ordered him out of his car. He then stepped into the car with Darrow’s girlfriend in the passenger seat and drove it down the street.
Darrow did not have any alcohol on his breath and was eventually released, but not before officers searched his car.
Now he intends to ask for the dash cam videos of the cops on the scene that night.
Fat chance he’ll get it. Last time he asked for a dash cam video, the footage was “inexplicably … nowhere to be found,” according to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article.
The drama started in 2006 when Darrow pulled up to a DUI checkpoint with his camera rolling.
He was detained and threatened with arrest when he refused to answer personal questions from the officer.
He was finally released when he informed the officers that he was recording the exchange.
A few months later, he was stopped after pulling into an empty parking lot at night.
His video camera shows him driving normal and using his turn signals.
St. George Police Sergeant James Kuehnlein accused him of swerving and failing to use his turn signals.
Kuehnlein also threatened to make up charges against him, including resisting arrest. Click here to see the entire video and read the full transcript.
The video ended up online and Kuehnlein ended up fired, which prompted other police officers to post Darrow’s address on a police forum.
Cops even began staking out his home.
Fortunately, Darrow hasn’t allowed their intimidation tactics to keep him from recording his interactions with police.
Popularity: 4% [?]
42 responses so far ↓
1 adam // Jun 7, 2010 at 4:48 AM
Another heroic officer caught on tape!
2 mundi // Jun 7, 2010 at 5:20 AM
Whats scary is that anything is probable cause. For example if they ask you something (like about your personal life) and you refuse to answer, now they have magic probably cause because only a suspicous person wouldn’t answer!
3 Alex J // Jun 7, 2010 at 8:06 AM
Easy solution for dash cam videos that are “..nowhere to be found” change officer with evidence tampering and obstruction of justice.
4 Thin Blue Whine // Jun 7, 2010 at 8:10 AM
If you Mutts don’t bootlick Absolute Power, you’re Al-Qaeda. And thanks for paying my fat pension fund.
5 MacK // Jun 7, 2010 at 9:00 AM
mundi:
“For example if they ask you something (like about your personal life) and you refuse to answer, now they have magic probably cause because only a suspicous person wouldn’t answer!”
Not sure if you were being sarcastic, but this is not probable cause. Probable cause is a specific set of facts, that would point to a specific crime.
In other words if a cop stops a motorist, and sees a hand rolled cigarette on the seat, that would lead a reasonable person to believe that illegal drugs are present.
If in the same situation the cops sees a manufactured cigarette laying on the seat, that would lead no one to believe that illegal drugs are present.
So if you refuse to answer a question what specific crime would that lead a reasonable person to believe? Would you think illegal drugs, DWI, domestic violence, bank robbery, these are not very specific crimes.
6 EdinMiami // Jun 7, 2010 at 10:13 AM
@Mack
Officer Statement: I asked the individual where he was going. He refused to answer. At the same instant, I witnessed the individual make furtive eye and hand movements which led me to believe something might be in the car within arms length. I ordered the individual out of the car. Individual refused. I then informed the individual he was under arrest for failure to obey a lawful order. Individual was arrested and booked per departmental policy.
Note: there are a few parts missing there but nothing that couldn’t be easily remedied by other lies. Without the aid of audio or video, it will always be your word against the officers. The officer will win. The best you can hope for would be an understanding prosecutor or magistrate.
7 Roger // Jun 7, 2010 at 10:46 AM
The past record gives him validity and standing, he should be able to make a very good (federal?) case as to harassment and retaliation against the cop. The possibility of a large amount of money is good.
They never learn, the ego always over riders.
8 Roger // Jun 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM
*&%%@ spell checker.
9 capn_amurka // Jun 7, 2010 at 10:52 AM
No.
Refusal to answer is not probable cause; it isn’t even suspicious in the relevant sense.
Reasonable suspicion does not refer to suspicion generally (e.g. I suspect the subject is being evasive for some unknown reason) but rather to suspicion *of a crime*. Police in PINAC videos seem to conflate the two often. A Terry Stop can be predicated upon reasonable suspicion of a crime (or witnessing a crime), but not suspicion generally.
10 MacK // Jun 7, 2010 at 12:08 PM
At the same instant, I witnessed the individual make furtive eye and hand movements which led me to believe something might be in the car within arms length.
Now a reasonable person could infer the item in reach may be a radio, cigarette lighter, picture of a puppy, chocolate bar, used condom, unused condom, sisters dildo, or even an ostrich egg; however nothing here is probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion of a crime.
I believe the main thing missing is that the individual was ultimately arrested on Contempt Of Cop charges.
11 Rusty Carr // Jun 7, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Exercising your 5th Amendment right to remain silent constitutes “suspicion” in their eyes because by God they’ve got the guns, the badges, the uniforms, and the police cars with the big insignias on the door and the lights on the roof! We are King Shit and you are a lowly citizen HOW DARE YOU refuse to answer a question, we’ve got ways to deal with smart asses!
12 John Howard // Jun 7, 2010 at 1:30 PM
Wait a minute. Officer Lane got into the car, with Darrow’s girlfriend AND DROVE DOWN THE STREET? Leaving Darrow standing there, alone, unrestrained?
What?
Would that not be:
(a) grand theft (auto),
(b) kidnapping (girlfriend) and
(c) unlawful confinement (girlfriend)?
Even it not (presumably through some perversion of the power to ‘investigate’), it’s
(a) highly irregular
(b) probably against department policy
13 Rance // Jun 7, 2010 at 1:51 PM
“Refusal to answer is not probable cause; it isn’t even suspicious in the relevant sense.”
Tell that to (the former) Sergeant Kuehnlein. He’ll make up 9 reasons to haul you in.
Rance´s last blog ..BinaryGravy: ＼ There’s a BIG anti-BP #Oilspill parade on Twitter!! ／ ( #isparade on http://isparade.jp/114934 )
14 Rance // Jun 7, 2010 at 1:56 PM
I was wondering the same thing.
Rance´s last blog ..BinaryGravy: ＼ There’s a BIG anti-BP #Oilspill parade on Twitter!! ／ ( #isparade on http://isparade.jp/114934 )
15 EdinMiami // Jun 7, 2010 at 2:47 PM
I believe Mundi’s point was that anything could be used as an excuse to arrest. You seem to be hung up on the concept of “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause”.
My hypo serves only to show that “reasonable suspicion” can be used as a pretext to get to probable cause in order to make an arrest (whatever the officer’s motive).
Furtive movements creates reasonable suspicion. True, the movements (if they occur) could be for an infinite number of things, but that is unimportant. That you can think of a perfectly good explanation does not negate the reasonable suspicion of the officer. In the hypo, the only reason to articulate the RS is to get to the lawful order which in most instance will not be carried out instantly by the person being given the order. Hence, failure to obey is an arrestable offense.
I think this type of scenario was what Mundi alluded to and is certainly the kind of thing these officers are referring too i.e. I can make up any number of things to which there is no defense.
16 Rance // Jun 7, 2010 at 2:52 PM
Good thing Darrow had his camera rolling the entire time then. I have to admit that I chuckled a little when the cop said he had recorded evidence that Darrow was swerving in his lane and failed to use his turn signals… Everyone should have a camera installed in their car for that very reason.
Rance´s last blog ..BinaryGravy: ＼ There’s a BIG anti-BP #Oilspill parade on Twitter!! ／ ( #isparade on http://isparade.jp/114934 )
17 MacK // Jun 7, 2010 at 3:47 PM
I am not sure what you think is reasonable suspicion isn’t more mere suspicion.
Reasonable suspicion is where events or situations would lead a person to believe a crime is being, has been, or will be committed.
Example: A burglary occurred an hour ago you see Jack walking down the street with a crowbar, wearing gloves, holding a flash light, and ducking into alleys. A reasonable person would think Jack may be involved in the burglary, because the facts are pointing to it.
Mere suspicion is the thing that makes Spider Man all tingly inside. Yes I know that all cops have this super sense, but I’ll tell they are full of shit.
Example: An hour ago a girl was raped, and stabbed with blood spewed in all directions up to 10 feet from where she was found. You see Tom walking down the street he has no cuts, clean cloths, no marks on him, no sign he has struggled with anyone. A reasonable person would not think he was involved in the rape, and stabbing, because the facts do not point to it.
18 EdinMiami // Jun 7, 2010 at 5:22 PM
I’m just going off of Florida Criminal Procedure s. 2:18, Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1, and 3yrs as a police officer. But these are just tools by which an officer can mold the circumstances around the law by articulating the requirements of RS and PC which may not conform to the actual facts of a stop.
In lieu of substantial evidence to the contrary, the courts prescribe to the legal fiction that officer’s are to be trusted over the word of a civilian.
At any rate, I think we are generally on the same page. /wave
19 Elliott // Jun 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM
One of the links on one of the article pages references this article:
Arizona Appeals Court Denies Drug Search Without Cause
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3104.asp
It was from this page:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1522.asp
That article DIRECTLY relates to exercising a right is NOT probable cause.
20 Jody // Jun 7, 2010 at 8:15 PM
Good lord the cop in this video is a wanker, he needs to go back to retard school. They better fire his ass, then throw it in jail, throw out all his previous work as well, who knows if he has ever told the truth, what a lying son of a bitch. People wonder why I hate cops.
21 Rich // Jun 7, 2010 at 8:46 PM
What is not surprising is that the media and the police chief completely ignored the fact that he police officer threatened to make up charges. He was not even reprimanded for that statement he was fired for not turning on his dash cam. what that says to me is that making up false charges is part of the police chiefs standard mode of operations.
22 Hazy // Jun 7, 2010 at 8:59 PM
Ugh, these DUI checkpoints are innately unconstitutional. When are we going to repeal this bully tactic by the police?
23 Rusty Carr // Jun 7, 2010 at 9:16 PM
Sorry Hazy the SCOTUS has given them the green light.
24 Elliott // Jun 7, 2010 at 10:32 PM
Unfortunately you are right, however, our legislatures don’t have to allow them to do it, just because it is legal. The downside is that they will say it saves lives, which it probably does, what they won’t say is how many OTHER violations they get that they would NEVER have gotten otherwise. So good luck finding any politico with a shred of backbone to try and sponsor such legislation.
Better legislation would be to force them to use dashcams and if they failed to turn them on or couldn’t later find the audio/video then they would be barred from prosecuting ANY offense from the stop, that would get their attention. It would only take a few cases where they really scewed up to make sure that it got done. Initially they would complain like they did when the Miranda warning was forced but in the end it would be better for everyone.
25 Joel // Jun 8, 2010 at 2:03 AM
I read somewhere shortly after this video came out a person read on a police message board an officer said something to the effect of try and video me late at night, I’ll tell my boss all I saw was something silvery in color in his hand and I was afraid for my safety.
26 Rusty Carr // Jun 8, 2010 at 2:38 AM
Those kind of officers are known popularly as “pigs” but should, in fact, be called “criminals”.
27 Guy Freeman // Jun 8, 2010 at 10:17 AM
If a regular joe like me posted the residential address of a police officer I’ve come into contact with, I’d be in serious hot water.
28 Rail Car Fan // Jun 8, 2010 at 2:55 PM
And some people wonder why Cops are thought so badly of.
29 a // Jun 8, 2010 at 8:20 PM
Any notion what the system is that this guy used to record this stuff? In the CNN video, it just looks like a regular camcorder, but he also claims at one point that the video is being uploaded to a secure location. Wonder if that’s accurate.
30 Rance // Jun 8, 2010 at 8:31 PM
In my estimation, when he said it was uploading to a secure location, he was just bluffing… Pretty good bluff I’d say. The officer obviously wasn’t bright enough to call it.
Rance´s last blog ..BinaryGravy: Does anyone know anything about growing tomatoes? I think one of my tomato plants may have Tomato Mosaic Virus. I’ll take pics tomorrow…
31 Rusty Carr // Jun 8, 2010 at 9:37 PM
If you can’t lie at least as well as the enemy, YOU LOSE!!
32 Scott // Jun 9, 2010 at 8:10 AM
I too would be interested in a system that can upload to a secure server, live, as in streaming. It’s too easy for the cop to take out the SD card or delete.
I’ve heard of Qik, but you need to use an expensive phone, and I doubt uploading every minute of every drive is feasible with a 3rd party service.
33 Roger // Jun 9, 2010 at 4:18 PM
As there are now wearable audio/video cameras available at a cheep price, I think all cops should be required to use them. Also we should too. As to a wireless link, I have a Nikon that transmits to a computer at a 1000 ft. I believe it will also connect to Wfii networks. Will have to check it out.
34 Rance // Jun 9, 2010 at 6:02 PM
All my cameras have Eye-Fi cards in them that automatically upload to my computer as I’m taking photos/video as long as there is a wi-fi network around. Since I keep my laptop with me and have a sprint hotspot connected to it, my stuff is always backed up.
35 pointman // Jun 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM
The police will make up after-the-fact reasons to find you criminal guilty.
The Original Truthtube
36 Roger // Jun 9, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Jole:
Nice of him to make this statement in advance, now if any one caps his ass they have good case for selfe defence.
37 Curious // Jun 10, 2010 at 6:41 AM
What system are the cops using for their dash cams? If I where the people of this town I would demand a review of the systems that are used, what if a video of a murder is lost by that system. They should either fix the problem or remove it from the cars and get a reliable system. Could I file a foia for reports about videos that were lost by this faulty system. If the system isn’t plagued by system errors then it must be human errors and they can be easily fixed.
38 Elliott // Jun 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM
Actually I think that is a great idea. I would think that they should be able to produce stats for how many videos have been unavailable..
39 Eye-Fi memory card + mobile hotspot // Jun 11, 2010 at 4:40 AM
That eye-fi memory card looks awesome. Use it in conjunction with a mobile hotspot, like the one Sprint advertises, and you’re all set as long as they don’t steal your laptop.
40 capn_amurka // Jun 11, 2010 at 2:44 PM
Oddly enough I’ve haven’t seen any laws addressing making it real easy to find out a LEO’s address if you stop short of stating it explicitly.
For example, my neighbor is a police officer. My other neighbor at 122 Address St. City, State and his other neighbor at 116 Address St. City, State like having him nearby.
41 Elliott // Jun 11, 2010 at 3:15 PM
I’ve seen very few (if any) laws that make it illegal to make that information readily available. Now if you are posting it on a site that readily advocates violence against police then that is where they get you.
Police don’t magically have special privacy rights, they like to think they do, but in general they don’t. Even if they are undercover as some cops in florida found out.
42 capn_amurka // Jun 14, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Not anymore.
Leave a Comment