Do cops legally have to have their red and blues flashing if...

[SMOKEU]

they're exceeding the posted speed limit?

[crazyhorse]

Yes they do - but try to disprove their speeding.

My son lives at the start of a 70km area, and he stood on the side of the road chatting to a mate who was leaving, and the police cars flew past him, only inches away from him, at such a speed, but when he mentioned this to a cop who went into his work, he kinda just pushed it aside. So at the end of the day, they have rules for them, and rules for us :done:

[peasea]

they're exceeding the posted speed limit?

The legalities have little to with it; they do as they please and if anyone questions what they're up to they lie to cover their arses. If that doesn't work they get a higher authority to lie for them.

[davereid]

Do cops legally have to have their red and blues flashing if.....they're exceeding the posted speed limit?

No. They had already abandoned the pursuit a minute earlier.

[Usarka]

Follow them.

[Smifffy]

It depends whether or not they are chauffering the Chairman of the Council of Ministers to a flight for a rugby game.

[Dave Lobster]

they're exceeding the posted speed limit?

A policeman wouldn't exceed the posted speed limit. That's where the accidents are happening, sir.

[NighthawkNZ]

Easy enough to make your or laser radar to get their true speed. There is nothing special about them (the radars the police use) nothing what so ever if anything what they use is very old technology... parts can be bought from DSE :shifty:

or make a beam that when broken starts the clock then a second at a set distance to stop the clock speed is...

simple enough to do...

[Mully]

I like the ongoing debate that was on the TM messageboards about whether a cop had to wearing his hat to give you a ticket.

It went on for ages - "If he's not wearing his hat, the ticket is void"

T'was awesome.

[bogan]

I like the ongoing debate that was on the TM messageboards about whether a cop had to wearing his hat to give you a ticket.

It went on for ages - "If he's not wearing his hat, the ticket is void"

T'was awesome.

you mean there are people dumb enough to accept tickets from cops who aren't wearing their hats! :lol:

[The Stranger]

you mean there are people dumb enough to accept tickets from cops who aren't wearing their hats! :lol:

Come on. You are better to just accept the ticket and fight it in court.
Make sure you take a photo of him or her on your phone so you have proof.
If you say anything there and then he'll just go get his hat and you're fucked.

[Mully]

you mean there are people dumb enough to accept tickets from cops who aren't wearing their hats! :lol:

What if he's wearing it, but it's at a jaunty angle?

[Dave Lobster]

What if he's wearing it, but it's at a jaunty angle?

Raise one of your trousers and make a quack noise, and you'll be sweet ;)

[bogan]

What if he's wearing it, but it's at a jaunty angle?

hmmm, depends how jaunty, I mean he's got to have his 'game face' on.


Come on. You are better to just accept the ticket and fight it in court.
Make sure you take a photo of him or her on your phone so you have proof.
If you say anything there and then he'll just go get his hat and you're fucked.

yeh good point, but if he tries to give you a ticket without his hat you can just drive off anyway I think.

[Mully]

hmmm, depends how jaunty, I mean he's got to have his 'game face' on.

Ok, well what if he's wearing his hat a jaunty angle. As well, he's got a stripy shirt on, a string of garlic hanging around his nect and an unlit cigarette hanging from the side of his mouth.

Do you have to accept a ticket from the French-sterotype cop?

[Usarka]

Come on. You are better to just accept the ticket and fight it in court.
Make sure you take a photo of him or her on your phone so you have proof.
If you say anything there and then he'll just go get his hat and you're fucked.

Happened to a mate of mine. Said ha ha you weren't wearing your hat and sped off. Cop chased him, put his hat on and ticketed him for the speeding and for loss of traction when he sped off.

[bogan]

Ok, well what if he's wearing his hat a jaunty angle. As well, he's got a stripy shirt on, a string of garlic hanging around his nect and an unlit cigarette hanging from the side of his mouth.

Do you have to accept a ticket from the French-sterotype cop?

never take any crap from the frenchmen!

[stig]

Do cops legally have to have their red and blues flashing if.....
they're exceeding the posted speed limit?

http://http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/local/news/speeding-police-officers-called-to-task/3612053/ (http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/local/news/speeding-police-officers-called-to-task/3612053/)

I'm pretty sure they have to fill out the paperwork if they are snapped by a speed camera even with their lights flashing.
I live next a speed camera, four lanes with central median, nearly every time a cop goes past they slow down for the camera and then hit the gas after.
If they are really in a hurry they pull onto the central median as there is no sensors in the road there.

[CookMySock]

"If he's not wearing his hat, the ticket is void"He does have to identify himself as a police officer, and the hat is a method that will hold in a court of law. He might have other methods but I do not know if they are fully watertight. The hat is a legal ID.

Steve

[Mully]

He does have to identify himself as a police officer, and the hat is a method that will hold in a court of law. He might have other methods but I do not know if they are fully watertight. The hat is a legal ID.

Steve

The disco taxi isn't?

[CookMySock]

The disco taxi isn't?I'm not an expert on that, but I'd say a car is just a car regardless of how its painted and lit. It the officer of the law that is the symbol with the powers to arrest or otherwise detain you, and HE must identify himself as such or else his actions are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_vires">ultra vires</a>.

edit: ie, he might not have his hat on, and while you are punching his lights out he announced "I am a police officer" you legally would have to cease and desist. :blink:

Steve

[meteor]

Is it only the ones in plain clothes that have to provide id... isn't it a given that the ones in uniform and driving marked cars are cops... otherwise why'd you pull over in the first place? Seems a bit daft... it's the cop that has the authority not the hat? Possibly the bush lawyers need to update their tablets me thinks.

[Edbear]

http://http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/local/news/speeding-police-officers-called-to-task/3612053/ (http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/local/news/speeding-police-officers-called-to-task/3612053/)

I'm pretty sure they have to fill out the paperwork if they are snapped by a speed camera even with their lights flashing.
I live next a speed camera, four lanes with central median, nearly every time a cop goes past they slow down for the camera and then hit the gas after.
If they are really in a hurry they pull onto the central median as there is no sensors in the road there.

Interesting... Must remember that.. :innocent:


I'm not an expert on that, but I'd say a car is just a car regardless of how its painted and lit. It the officer of the law that is the symbol with the powers to arrest or otherwise detain you, and HE must identify himself as such or else his actions are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_vires">ultra vires</a>.

edit: ie, he might not have his hat on, and while you are punching his lights out he announced "I am a police officer" you legally would have to cease and desist. :blink:

Steve

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind... :yes:

[Tank]

I'm not an expert :yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

Well thats a start.

[Max Preload]

they're exceeding the posted speed limit?

Hey, peasant! Do as they say, not as they do!

[Coldrider]

Does their warrant mean nothing these days?

[Skyryder]

The legalities have little to with it; they do as they please and if anyone questions what they're up to they lie to cover their arses. If that doesn't work they get a higher authority to lie for them.


And if you dare to question them...............ya got attitude.


Skyyrder

[Morcs]

Last time I followed alongside a speeding copper who didnt have his lights on, at the next set of traffic lights he gave me an earful... i pointed out he was also speeding, and his response simply was 'cant you see we have someone in the back?'

WTF?

[Ixion]

"Well, Officer, I knew I was going at the same speed as you. And I am certain you would not break the speed limit unless responding to an emergency (in which case it would be logged with comms). So I reasonably assumed that my speedometer had become defective. I will have it checked at the first opportunity"

[scumdog]

He does have to identify himself as a police officer, and the hat is a method that will hold in a court of law. He might have other methods but I do not know if they are fully watertight. The hat is a legal ID.

Steve

Mwahahaha...and the urban myth lives on...:shifty:

[Big Dave]

Mwahahaha...and the urban myth lives on...:shifty:

What would you know. We're talking about Police who wear clothes here.

[Ixion]

Mwahahaha...and the urban myth lives on...:shifty:

That part is not urban myth, it is law
Any constable who stops a vehicle under subsection (1) must— (a) be wearing a uniform or distinctive cap, hat, or helmet with a badge of authority affixed to that cap, hat, or helmet; or (b) be following immediately behind the vehicle in a motor vehicle displaying flashing blue lights, or flashing blue and red lights, and sounding a siren. Of course, it does not say that the hat must be on the officers head. He might , in some cases :wink: :wink: hang it frm his cock.

[red mermaid]

The authority to stop vehicles for traffic offences is found in the Land Transport Act, not the Crimes Act.

[Max Preload]

Of course, it does not say that the hat must be on the officers head. He might , in some cases :wink: :wink: hang it frm his cock.

It'd have to be a pretty shallow hat for that to work. :whistle:

[Ixion]

The authority to stop vehicles for traffic offences is found in the Land Transport Act, not the Crimes Act.

The Crimes Act seems to imagine that it confers a power to stop



General power to stop vehicles
(1) Any constable may stop a vehicle for the purpose of conducting a search under a statutory search power if the constable is satisfied that,—
(a) in respect of a statutory search power to search without a warrant, the ground or grounds, as the case may be, for exercising that statutory search power, as set out in the applicable statute, exist; or
(b) in respect of a statutory search power to search with a warrant, the warrant has been issued and is in force.


But, I'm sure you rewrite the legislation to suit your own purpose.

[Usarka]

Mwahahaha...and the urban myth lives on...:shifty:

So you deny it?????? I feel the need to..................:shutup:

[SMOKEU]

What if the officer is a biker cop? Do they have to take their helmet off and put a hat on then?

[Ixion]

See my point below. Helmet on head, hat on cock, sorted

[marty]

Happened to a mate of mine. Said ha ha you weren't wearing your hat and sped off. Cop chased him, put his hat on and ticketed him for the speeding and for loss of traction when he sped off.

The requirement for a hat went out with the MOT in 1992. A constable (every sworn cop including the commisioner) only has to produce ID, if not in uniform.

[marty]

He does have to identify himself as a police officer, and the hat is a method that will hold in a court of law. He might have other methods but I do not know if they are fully watertight. The hat is a legal ID.

Steve

Link please.

[Fatjim]

Two things are certain in this world.

1. DB will make a cock of himself.
2. Tank won't be far behind.

[Forest]

The Crimes Act seems to imagine that it confers a power to stop


But, I'm sure you rewrite the legislation to suit your own purpose.

Did you bother to read the legislation you quoted?

The Crimes Act confers the right to stop traffic for the purposes of a statutory search.

The Land Transport Act confers the right to stop the traffic for traffic offenses.

[peasea]

The requirement for a hat went out with the MOT in 1992. A constable (every sworn cop including the commisioner) only has to produce ID, if not in uniform.

Which brings us back to the problem of the copper being naked. What then? How can you carry ID if you're starkers? I know of one case where a naked cop made an arrest while naked; where was the ID that night? Is this a case of unlawful detention?

[red mermaid]

My point exactly 'Forest' when i made my earlier post but then Ixion thinks he knows it all and can't be told and usually finishs with an insult.

I would love to know the occupations of 'some' people on here so I can tell them how to do their job without knowing a single thing about it.



Did you bother to read the legislation you quoted?

The Crimes Act confers the right to stop traffic for the purposes of a statutory search.

The Land Transport Act confers the right to stop the traffic for traffic offenses.

[Ixion]

Did you bother to read the legislation you quoted?

The Crimes Act confers the right to stop traffic for the purposes of a statutory search.

The Land Transport Act confers the right to stop the traffic for traffic offenses.

Quitep so. And your point is? The original quote was in response to the suggestion that the "officer wearing a hat" was an 'urban myth' . The Crimes Act specifically references a provision for a constable to stop a vehicle whilst wearing a hat . So, not a myth.

It was the scaley gentlewomen who introduced the extra, tangential and irrelevant argument as to traffic.

[Ixion]

My point exactly 'Forest' when i made my earlier post but then Ixion thinks he knows it all and can't be told and usually finishs with an insult.

I would love to know the occupations of 'some' people on here so I can tell them how to do their job without knowing a single thing about it.

Other professions perhaps are not so universally and obsessionally convinced of their Godlike omnicompetence and infallibility. They do not claim that their fellows are incapable of error , or that if one of their number claims anything it must be correct merely by definition of that claim. Nor do they deman an absolute impunity for accountability for wrongdoing.

On the paper this noting a senior judge is suggesting that another judge is guilty of impropiety. And the entire Appeal Court system is a recognition that lawyers and judges can get it wrong.

Compare that to the police force, who claim never to make an error, and deny any suggestion of wrongdoing, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Apart from you, the only other mortal who claims to be infallible is the Pope. And even he does extend his claims of infallibility to the rest of the Church

[scumdog]

Quitep so. And your point is? The original quote was in response to the suggestion that the "officer wearing a hat" was an 'urban myth' . The Crimes Act specifically references a provision for a constable to stop a vehicle whilst wearing a hat . So, not a myth.

It was the scaley gentlewomen who introduced the extra, tangential and irrelevant argument as to traffic.

The myth is: "He can't give you a ticket unless he's wearing his hat" or "If he wasn't wearing his hat the ticket doesn't count" - just wearing the rest of the uniform suffices. (Or showing ID if in plain clothes)

And I ain't never worn no hat while dishing out a ticket, noe sirree bob!

[red mermaid]

Yes, that what I thought the thread was about as well, issuing a ticket which is clearly related to a traffic offence.

And if you know how to read the legislation you will notice the frequent use of the word 'or' and what that means in law.

[peasea]

Apart from you, the only other mortal who claims to be infallible is the Pope. And even he does extend his claims of infallibility to the rest of the Church

No, no I won't have that! You're quite wrong there.

I have crossed paths with an MOT officer (back in the day) and two policemen in Auckland who pulled that stunt, so there's three others for a start.

[Usarka]

How can you carry ID if you're starkers? I know of one case where a naked cop made an arrest while naked; where was the ID that night? Is this a case of unlawful detention?

He was equipped with a truncheon which is standard cop issue.

Usually small truncheons though :rofl:

[firefighter]

Ohhh you are wrong there!

Try getting the Navy to admit to wrong doing.....R.I.P Byron James Solomon.
Another died after receiving a blow to the head during CQC training. (bet you never heard of that one)
The liferaft that fell off HMNZS Endeavour in Sydney harbour......and injured backs and necks, then left behind the injured sailors all alone in the hospital (remember this is an overseas hospital so family had to buy plane tickets to visit) all because they were too cheap to fly them home because it had to be first class......

Never once heard the Navy admit fault for any of these......



Other professions perhaps are not so universally and obsessionally convinced of their Godlike omnicompetence and infallibility. They do not claim that their fellows are incapable of error , or that if one of their number claims anything it must be correct merely by definition of that claim. Nor do they deman an absolute impunity for accountability for wrongdoing.

[Ixion]

Firstly, specifically for the benefit of the scaley gentlewoman : the Transport Act 1998 :




Power to require driver to stop and give name and address, etc
(1) An enforcement officer who is in uniform, or wearing a distinctive cap, hat, or helmet, with a badge of authority affixed to it, may signal or request the driver of a vehicle to stop the vehicle as soon as is practicable.


So, it makes no difference whether the stop be for a traffic offence or otherwise. The hat is relevant regardless.


Which brings us back to the problem of the copper being naked. What then? How can you carry ID if you're starkers? I know of one case where a naked cop made an arrest while naked; where was the ID that night? Is this a case of unlawful detention?

As to your point, a police officer does not need to be in uniform to make an arrest. (Though if he is not in uniform or displaying hat cap badge etc and does not indentify himself or produce ID, then a subsequent charge if resisting arrest or escaping from arrest could be problematic).

Nor, more significantly, does a cop need to be in uniform or wearing hat etc etc to give you a ticket . A cop may be stark naked taking a shower, look out the window and see you doing a wheelie, and send you a ticket in the mail. It has always been thus. It was not different in MoT days. A snake would have laughed at the idea that he could not ticket because he was not wearing a hat .

The relevance of the hat, and the ONLY relevance of the hat relates to the power to stop. As I said in the very beginning of this argument .

If I am riding along and some random signals me to stop I am under no obligation to do so. BUT if said random is wearing the hat (or cap badge uniform etc etc) then I must stop. The hat confers a power to stop. It has nothing to do with the power to arrest or hand out tickets.

The Crimes Act conferred such a power to stop on every constable, in the exercise of any statutory function.Such as those functions defined by the Transport Act.

Back then , traffic cops were not constables. So the Transport Act specifically provided the same power to stop, for traffic offences only, to enforcement officers.

Now, (almost) every enforcement officer is also a constable and vice versa. So a cop wishing to stop me might take his choice whether he invokes his general power under the Crimes Act, to carry out his statutory functions under the Transport Act; or invoke his powers as an enforcement officer directly under the Transport Act. The practical effect is the same. If he is wearing his hat (or etc etc) you must stop.

The question of producing ID is unlikely to be relevant. If I am bowling along at even 50 kph I can hardly be expected to recognize what the small card the hatless dude is waving is.

This is (like most law before cops obfusticate it) quite clear and sensible. I should not be expected to stop just because some random wants me to. But I should have to stop if a police officer wants me to. How am I to know whether or the dude waving me down is a police officer ? Why, if he is wearing etc etc then I know he is.

(to forestall the obfusticatory efforts of the scaley gentlewoman, let us note that red and blue lights are a separate matter; and let us further note that we know full well the meaning of 'or' , as likewise of commas and semicolons)

[red mermaid]

In case anyone else wants to look up this piece of legislation, its the Land Transport Act 1998.

Correctness is essential when you are dealing with the law, as anyone who knows what they are talking about will tell you.

[Mully]

Correctness is essential when you are dealing with the law

Welcome to Kiwibiker, by the way......

[peasea]

In case anyone else wants to look up this piece of legislation, its the Land Transport Act 1998.

Correctness is essential when you are dealing with the law, as anyone who knows what they are talking about will tell you.

Correctness as according to who?

[GOONR]

Correctness as according to who?

The dude with the hat...

[peasea]

The dude with the hat...

Holy crap! How did you manage to get a current pic of red mermaid????

There's something fishy going on here, it's a biggie on the scale of things.
(Rouge aquatic slut indeed....)

[GOONR]

Holy crap! How did you manage to get a current pic of red mermaid????


That was easy, found it in Ten-One (http://www.worldclown.com/).

[marty]

Quitep so. And your point is? The original quote was in response to the suggestion that the "officer wearing a hat" was an 'urban myth' . The Crimes Act specifically references a provision for a constable to stop a vehicle whilst wearing a hat . So, not a myth.

It was the scaley gentlewomen who introduced the extra, tangential and irrelevant argument as to traffic.

Look for the word 'or'. It's quite different to 'and'

[peasea]

That was easy, found it in Ten-One (http://www.worldclown.com/).

Must spread rep, etc etc.

[Berries]

If they are really in a hurry they pull onto the central median as there is no sensors in the road there.


Interesting... Must remember that.. :innocent:

The sensors are loops cut in to each lane, if you are on a bike you can ride between them. If you are in a car the footpath is your best bet.

[Toaster]

What would you know. We're talking about Police who wear clothes here.

Yeah but at least he had his hat on in that photo!

[Toaster]

203488

Its pretty simple, If the cops are in a vehicle operating their lights/sirens etc, you have to pull over and stop.

If they are not in their vehicle and are signalling you to stop, they are obviously wearing their uniform and or combination of hats/glow jackets etc (except scummy, who prefers nude + hat) and probably standing next to a police vehicle, checkpoint of otherwise. It would be fair and reasonable to expect that it was clear you need to stop.

Take for instance the roadblocks used by the AOS/STG in the so called anti-terror raids.....


WOULD YOU NOT STOP FOR THESE BOYS?????

[carver]

A policeman wouldn't exceed the posted speed limit. That's where the accidents are happening, sir.

speeding

no excuses

[Toaster]

speeding

no excuses

There are plently of reasons why we, police or anyone speeds. An excuse is what can be acceptable in law and policy as a JUSTIFIABLE reason to speed.

I remember when I was a cop, we had to get to jobs quickly but did not use the sirens or lights (especially at night) because we were trying to catch burglars/prowlers etc and not give it away that we were coming. To anyone standing on the side of the road, they would have thought the buggers were just late for warm doughnuts. Reality was quite different but carried risk for us if it all went wrong.... dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

[carver]

There are plently of reasons why we, police or anyone speeds. An excuse is what can be acceptable in law and policy as a JUSTIFIABLE reason to speed.

I remember when I was a cop, we had to get to jobs quickly but did not use the sirens or lights (especially at night) because we were trying to catch burglars/prowlers etc and not give it away that we were coming. To anyone standing on the side of the road, they would have thought the buggers were just late for warm doughnuts. Reality was quite different but carried risk for us if it all went wrong.... dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

haha, have you not seen those signs?

getting tough on speed!

[Toaster]

haha, have you not seen those signs?

getting tough on speed!

Must have been going too fast............