Important - Your Rights.

[Oscar]

This thread was in the Road Bike Section...


http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1157

But it descended into a buncha pullers comparing traffic tickets…


target motorcyclists
06 November 2003

Waikato road policing staff plan to stop at least one motorcyclist a day this month as part of an ACC motorcycle compliance and safety campaign.

The initiative, called Dying To Be Seen, will see road police stopping motorcyclists to check their driver's licences and warrants of fitness.

Waikato's Highway Patrol acting Senior Sergeant Jeff Penno said the campaign was designed to highlight motorcycle safety, safe driving habits and to make motorists more aware of bikes.

In the 2002-03 financial year motorcyclists made up 1.4 per cent of registered vehicle users but motorcycle crashes made up 18 per cent of ACC claims.


The bottom line is - this is illegal.

If you guys are pulled up by a cop, ask him why.

These wankers can't just pull you over for nuttin' (except for breath testing). It's in the bill of fucking rights!



Section 23 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 sets out some basic legal rights that a person can expect when being "detained" by the Police or other government agency. Being "detained" has a broader meaning than the stricter notion of being "arrested". A police officer must advise a person that they are being arrested for a specific criminal offence, before the person is legally under arrest. Up until this point, there is generally no obligation to accompany a police officer or answer any questions apart from giving a name, address and details about a driver's identity where the person being questioned is a passenger in a motor vehicle.

[750Y]

"But it descended into a buncha pullers comparing traffic tickets…"

OK I'll bite, Thanks for the information Oscar, oh & the compliments too. please inform all us 'pullers' how many times You have applied this information to good effect.
Generally, the cops don't give a shit about the bill of rights.
eg
I was stopped while walking at night to get some food from the service station.(this is New Plymouth in the winter so I had a beanie & jacket on) I was working night shift at the time and had left jobs running at work. 3 Police cars & 2 security cars descend upon me. I answered all questions truthfully & said I had to get back to work after getting a pie.
they said "You're not going anywhere", I said "I know my rights" to which the reply was shouted back "Look mate, right now You don't have any rights". the guy at the gas station threatend to 'call the cops' to make a complaint about them.
or My mate who was apprehended while getting his sleeping bag out of the back of his car one night outside my house (on private property) & thrown handcuffed into the back of a police car.(sorry, wrong color ...again).
Man I have a list of this crap as long as my arm which i won't bore evryone with.
I would politely suggest that You have very little experience dealing with police on the street.

[Lou Girardin]

The Police can stop you for a licence or vehicle check whenever they please. They cannot search you or your vehicle except under certain drug or firearm provisions.
It's an unfortunate fact of life that your age, dress and manner make a big difference to the cops attitude. They wouldn't try that 'you have no rights' bullshit on a middle aged man in a suit.
But if you know your stuff, it's fun to call their bluff.
Lou

[bikerboy]

I won't get into the particulars bit I know for a fact the police trample on peoples rights all the time. In the end it's your word against theirs unless you have witnesses, and they are very carefull about that.

There are a whole host of "charges" that can be laid against you if they want to hastle you, loitering, offensive behavior, offensive language, interfering with a policeman in the course of his duty, etc. Then after you try to make a case against them they just drop the charges and your stuffed,:argh:

[Oscar]

These are your rights.
Protect them.
You are perfectly entitled to ask: "Why did you stop me?"
and then say: "I'm sorry, I do not have to discuss this with you - I am leaving now"

Any further questioning should have you asking "Am I being arrested?"

Asked in a polite and forceful manner, this works - it has for me.

[Jackrat]

Standing on the side of the road,middle of the night,one of me,two of them,slightly brown skin,bill of rights,yeah sure, I may as well change my name to,your fucked mate.
Been there,not a nice place. :o

[Nouseforaname]

You and you rights? I have many examples of when ive had no rights!

One night i was walking through the city, my mate asked me for a ciggie, so i took out my pack and handed him one..... a bunch of cops about 100 metres behind us saw this and pounced on us thinking i was handing him drugs or something. I was polite and answered all questions until one cop put his hand into my pocket and started searching me. I told him i didnt consent to a search ( not because i was hiding something but out of prinicpal ), so i take the cops hand and forcefully remove from my pocket. Next i know im getting broken down by the cops.

End result, one bruised eye from where a cop nailed me, assult on a police officer and a resisting arrest charge!

And all of this because a cop didnt respect my rights as a human being and just stuck his hand into my pocket.

[Slim]

Originally posted by Oscar
The bottom line is - this is illegal.

If you guys are pulled up by a cop, ask him why.

These wankers can't just pull you over for nuttin' (except for breath testing). It's in the bill of fucking rights!
What about when the police block off the road just to do warrant/rego checks (looks like a breath test station, but isn't)???

I know that the Police have the Traffic Law to act under in conjunction with standard law and it changes slightly the circumstances in which they can pull you over as opposed to what would happen if you walking down the street under your own power.

You could investigate the Traffic Law & report back to us or wait until I've got clarification from my "horses mouth". :cool:


And I have to say that if you present that attitude when you're pulled over by a cop, you must get done for everything!! :shit:

[Oscar]

Originally posted by Slim
What about when the police block off the road just to do warrant/rego checks (looks like a breath test station, but isn't)???

I know that the Police have the Traffic Law to act under in conjunction with standard law and it changes slightly the circumstances in which they can pull you over as opposed to what would happen if you walking down the street under your own power.

You could investigate the Traffic Law & report back to us or wait until I've got clarification from my "horses mouth". :cool:


And I have to say that if you present that attitude when you're pulled over by a cop, you must get done for everything!! :shit:

Nope.
I'm white, middle aged and professional.
Under traffic laws you have the "right of innocent passage". A WOF road block relies on the motorist's willingness to co-operate. If you didn't stop, and weren't otherwise infringing, what would they charge you with?

[Slim]

Originally posted by Oscar
A WOF road block relies on the motorist's willingness to co-operate. If you didn't stop, and weren't otherwise infringing, what would they charge you with?
Running over Police Officers???

[Big Dog]

Failing to stop when directed by an officer of the law. is the charge you are looking for.

You are quite right under the bill of rights you have no obligation to stop.

But if you read the little form you filled out when you applied for your license you consent to "following lawful directions of duly appointed officers" as part of the conditions of your license.

Effectively they can't detain you unless you try to not stop or they get probable cause for a drug or gun search. But they can detain your car with or without your consent!

A freind tried to get smart in NP having just done a course on the bill of rights so they impounded his car "awaiting a warrant to search the car". 72 hours without a car sux when your in Hawera going home to NP.

The bill of rights aint the be all and end all.

Protect your rights but be pleasant, inoffensive and calm.

Placing an uninvited hand on a police officer is assualt now.

[Big Dog]

P.s no warrant was ever issued, no charges ever laid but one hell of an inconvenience.

[wari]

Well , I think there are a lot of wrong rights anyway ...

:confused:

[lanesplitter]

Waikato's Highway Patrol acting Senior Sergeant Jeff Penno said the campaign was designed to highlight motorcycle safety, safe driving habits and to make motorists more aware of bikes.


could this be the same acting senior sergeant jeff penno that rides a ZZR600 (like a fucking maniac from what i've seen) with the personalised plate PENNO ????

[scumdog]

Take it from me, some cops like nothing more than to have a half-assed bush lawyer saying "I know my rights, you c***s can't do f*** all now piss off", they see it as a challenge to see what they CAN do.
B.T.W did you know it was an offence now to have an "insecure spare tyre"? so I gues you'll have to open the boot so they can check.
And as someone else said, you won't get very far trying to tell them it is illegal to pull you over.
Funny how if one Toyota driver cuts you off that all Toyota drivers aren't pricks but hoo-boy, one bad run in with the man means they are ALL wankers.
:confused:
Have a happy day!!!

[Motu]

The insecure spare tyre rule is another of those ones from those mindless pricks at the testing stations - sure it's in the book,but it's not suposed to be applied to everything! - it applies to trucks and pick ups that have an externaly mounted spare...if one falls off it's kinda dangerous....ANYTHING in your boot is ok to be loose....like,thats what they are for eh.

Hey Scumdog - an XN85 owner stepped into the country last night...my brother.If he gets near my computer I'll get him to say hello.

[scumdog]

Motu, I hear what your'e saying but I was just giving an example that the man has more than one way to skin a cat.
Regarding your brother, cool! Ive never seen another XN85 or spoken to anyone that owns one althought i did contact a guy in Chritchurch who use to own one.
The one piece I need for mine is the double-walled exhaust tube that goes from the 4-into-1 up to the turbo, they are even rarer than the bike so I believe :(

[bikerboy]

One thing i doubt most know about the "Bill of Rights". It has not been "entrenched", which means that it is really only a legal suggestion of rights. If it had been "entrenched" it would mean no law could be passed or stay in force which infringed on any right listed in the bill.

Example, Bill of Rights gives us freedom of speech, but there exists a law against the use of offensive language in public. The definition of offensive is up to the police and then a judge. If the Bill of Rights had been entrenched that law would be illegal and need to be removed or ammened so as not to infringe on the right to freedom of speech.

So really there is not a Bill of Rights in New Zealand.:argh:

[Lou Girardin]

Insecure spare tyre or load only relates to the possibilty of it falling from the vehicle. If it's in the boot it's not insecure.
As for the vehicle impounded 'while awaiting a search warrant', a lawyer would make a meal of that one.
The important point is not to physically resist an illegal search, tell them that thay may not search you. If they do and are found to have acted illegally then you can thank them everytime you fire up your Duc, MV, Harley, whatever.
Lou

[riffer]

I recall that when the Misuse of Drugs act first came out my friends and I were regularly searched for no reason by the Lower Hutt police.

This is going back at least 15 years now (my late teens, early twenties) but its my understanding that they can still search you without warrant on suspicion of possession of illicit drugs.

They never found anything but it was a regular occurence.

Has that law been tweaked at all, or can they still use it?

[riffer]

I recall that when the Misuse of Drugs act first came out my friends and I were regularly searched for no reason by the Lower Hutt police.

This is going back at least 15 years now (my late teens, early twenties) but its my understanding that they can still search you without warrant on suspicion of possession of illicit drugs.

They never found anything but it was a regular occurence.

Has that law been tweaked at all, or can they still use it?

[Oscar]

Jeez, wid these sorta attitudes, we'll be living in a socialist totalitarian paradise sooner'n I thought.

Don't be breaking the law - just state your rights.
If enough of us do it, the message will get through.

[marty]

Section 18(2) [vehicles etc] & 18(3) [persons] Misuse of Drugs Act (any drugs/utensils)
S60 Arms Act (firearms)
S202B Crimes Act (offensive weapons incl. knives)
S317A Crimes Act (stolen property)

these all require identification (if not in uniform) and quoting of the statute to be legal, although an illegal search is not always unreasonable (time and place argument)

some local govt. regulations such as the search for alcohol in a public place which has a liquor ban running (eg the whole of central hamilton thurs - sunday) simply require you to be in the ban area.

the drugs searches are unchanged since 75, Arms Act since 83, the weapons and stolen property are amendments to the crimes act since 1961

[750Y]

Originally posted by Oscar
Jeez, wid these sorta attitudes, we'll be living in a socialist totalitarian paradise sooner'n I thought.

Don't be breaking the law - just state your rights.
If enough of us do it, the message will get through.

I hope that the culture changes.

[scumdog]

Hey celticno6, you'll be pleased to know they don't use the s.18 search for drugson people quite as much any more so I hear, - apparently it's something to do with "abusing'"that power and the message was "if you overdo it you'll lose it" or something along those line.
I must have been lucky and/or good 'cause I never had grief from the man about searches and stuff (except the time I didn't come home when I was meant to and the Mrs sent them out to look for me!! - but that as they say is another story) :o

[Gixxer]

<DIV>
<DIV>maybe I am doing something wrong? I am maori, not at the middle age thing yet, a little rough looking, goatee &amp; normally unshaven, hairs bit long and unruly, I am a professional, I would say on a normal day I would be the kind of guy the cops would harass on a daily basis,&nbsp;but I can honestly say I have never been hassled by the cops when pulled over, or&nbsp;stopped &nbsp;whilst walking down the street at night. must be my charming smile.

as for removing the cops hand, you would have been better off saying you do not consent to the search, then take his number and reporting him for an illegal search.. but then again it has never happened the me.</DIV></DIV>

[Motu]

In the 70s they had a law called unlawfull assembly - we couldn't ride with more than 4 bikes in a group...even with 3 or 4 bikes being stopped was par for the course.Wonder if it still applies - watch out on your group rides.

A couple of years ago one of the guys who works for me came home to find some dudes snooping around his place - he asked one who he was and what he was doing...when he didn't answer he took him down and did some damage before the others came to help and evened the score.He spent the night in a cell,but had a small satisfaction in being proved innocent and the detectives the bad boys - naughty boys...don't do it again eh?

[marty]

Originally posted by Motu
In the 70s they had a law called unlawfull assembly - we couldn't ride with more than 4 bikes in a group...even with 3 or 4 bikes being stopped was par for the course.Wonder if it still applies - watch out on your group rides.



unlawful assembly is still an offence. the test is - is violence LIKELY to start. cops still use it against gangs. i've pasted it here......



Crimes Act 1961 section 86. Unlawful assembly—


[(1)An unlawful assembly is an assembly of 3 or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner, or so conduct themselves when assembled, as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that the persons so assembled—


(a)Will use violence against persons or property in that neighbourhood or elsewhere; or


(b)Will, by that assembly, needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to use violence against persons or property in that neighbourhood:


Provided that no one shall be deemed to provoke other persons needlessly and without reasonable cause by doing or saying anything that he is lawfully entitled to do or say.]



(2)Persons lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if, with a common purpose, they conduct themselves in such a manner that their assembling would have been unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.


(3)An assembly of 3 or more persons for the purpose of protecting the house of any one of their number against persons threatening to break and enter that house in order to commit a crime therein is not unlawful.


(4)Every member of an unlawful assembly is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

[marty]

at least we're not like in the UK where you can be arrested on SUSPICION of committing an offence, and held for 48 hours pending investigation - here at least the cops need 'GOOD CAUSE TO SUSPECT', which is WAY ABOVE the british requirement

[Lou Girardin]

I think you'll find that 'suspicion' must be based on good cause. Same clause, different wording.
The other side of the coin is, never go with a cop unless you've been arrested. Except for giving a breath or blood sample though.
Lou

[wkid_one]

I think you will find at a push&nbsp;- they can find a plethora of reasons to pull you over....searching you is a different story as that suddenly becomes a personal right issues.&nbsp; In speaking with my uncle, who is a detective, Lou is right about the whole 'suspicion' angle.

At the end of the day - you will struggle to win an argument with them on the side of the road - so what is the point fighting.&nbsp; Just ask them the questions: why? and on what grounds?

[Slim]

OK. Here's what I've found out:


The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 provides the provision that every person is to be free of any "unlawful detention".

When you obtain your Driver Licence you agree to certan conditions, such as you will obey road rules as defined in the Road code, the Land Transport Act, the Vehicle Driver licensing Act, etc etc etc. One of the conditions is section 113 (2)(b)(ii) which reads an enforcement officer may stop any vehicle for the following:

(b) Inspect, test, and examine

(i) The brakes or any other part of a vehicle on a road or any associated equipment; or

(ii) A land transport document, or a document resembling a land transport document, displayed or carried on the vehicle.

Section 114 provides the power to stop any vehicle to obtain particulars of the driver and owner of the vehicle. The provision for the Bill of Rights has been considered here under section 114 (5) which reads:

(5) An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver, but not for longer than 15 minutes if the requirement to remain stopped is made under this subsection only.

Now this section only applies to the identification of the driver. The enforcement officer may envoke a requirement that would require you to remain longer, such as requiring you to undergo a breath screening test. Once this requirement has been made then the 15 min window no longer is in effect and you are required to remain until he/she has finished their LAWFUL Business.

Just as a point of note: there has been some very new case law in relation to the 15 min period when a police officer stopped a
vehicle and waited for 25 min before they spoke to the driver who was arrested for other offences. The driver defended this
as a breach of his Bill of Rights - unlawful detention. The Judge ruled while this provision is in the Act it must be taken into context
and the safety of the officer was the reason for the delay and that WAS acceptable. Appeal dismissed.
Does that answer the appropriate questions???

[festus]

lanesplitter you are correct, Jeff Penno from Hamilton owns the ZX600.......