Got our regular newsletter from Inder Lynch (solicitors) and there was a big article on the rights of officers to enter your property.
It was written by John Foliaki (senior firm lawyer who specialises in traffic law).
As I'm not sure about the legal ramifications of duplicating the contents I'll just outline the main points. The whole thing can probably be viewed at www.inderlynch.co.nz for anyone really fascinated sufficiently to read it all.
Main points:
1. The Land Transport Act allows an officer to enter any premises which a person (the officer believes or suspects to have commited a serious traffic offence) has entered BUT there is an emphasis on it being in the course of "fresh pursuit". i.e. it is not an automatic right for an officer to enter if there has been a break in the chain of events during the "fresh pursuit". Turning up on your doorstep some time after the event does not constitute "fresh".
2. "No one is permitted to set foot on the land of another unless they can show lawful justification for doing so". Trespass will not be accorded if (a) the entry is authorised by statute (e.g. fresh pursuit), (b) the entry is expressly authorised by or on behalf of the landowener e.g. inviting someone onto your property, (c) entry is impliedly authorised by or on behalf of the landowner, (d) entry is justified by necessity or on some other basis recognised by law.
All this means is that once a driver is on his/her own property the driver has some protection from Police officers. The legal provision of "fresh pursuit" only operates if conditions of the Land Transport Act are strictly adhered to by such officers. If it is NOT a "fresh pursuit" then the officer is still legally entitled to be on the property by virtue of the implied licence, until that licence is revoked "clearly and unequivocally" by the owner or occupier of the land concerned.
The example used in the article was of a driver who was sighted driving erratically after consuming alcohol but the Police only followed up on him at home later, requesting a breath test. The driver had locked himself in his garage and refused to come out. The Appeal Court held that the verbal refusal by the occupier/driver to come out of the garage constituted a lcear and unequivocal revocation of the officer's implied licence to remain on the driver's property.
As it turned out the officer involved said that he might have to use force to enter so the guy basically gave in, opened the door and submitted to the breath test.
The article was based around how occupiers can revoke implied licence for officers to be on their property. (Although I'm sure they weren't actually encouraging people being pursued by Police to obstruct the course of justice...!) I'm sure no riders here would have to resort to locking themselves in their garage and refusing to come out for the law, would they.
Bookmarks