to write a complain letter or not. (rant) [Archive]

aff-man

29th May 2005, 18:03

Right so here is how it went last night.
Was at a mates 21st last night not a really huge party afair just about 40 mates and rellies sitting around having a bit of a gab and only a few of us having a few beers.Most people go home at like 12ish and so at about 1 we head off going to drop people off in onehunga.

So here we are going over the south easter arterial with one of me mates who is a really consiencious (sp) driver. Well anything really cause she doesn't drink either. But anyway so we go through the lights at great south road and i notice she is still at about 63km/h (just coming out of an 80 zone). So i kindly point it out to her saying there are a lot of cops about etc so she looks down and goes whoo[ps and slows down to like 52-53ish.

So as we crest the rise and go through the set of lights by the mcdonalds i see's a police car on the side of the road. So i point at it and say see was i right or was i right. So we continue on and sure enough my pointing has got mr police man all flustered so on go the disco lights and me mate just pulls over and we wait.

SO here is my complaint. The officer comes over and says to us .... going a bit quiock there 84km/h. So me and the guy in the back were like WHAT!!! so she says like she was doing 57 maybe (which was over exagerating anyway) and he is like yeh well it must have been that old van behind you..............But we were the only ones on the road!!!!!!!!

After this though i must say the rest of the stop was handled fairly well he checked her license, WOF and rego and asked if she had been drinking, she said no and so he let us go on our way.

So do i write a letter to the complaints authority. I mean i can understand the whole pull over thing and checking on 4 young people (all over 20) in a car (especially if i pointed at them).
but the BLATENT lying i mean he is a member of the police force those we intrust to uphold and enforce the law and here he was blatently lying about what we were doing. My mate is pretty level headed but being puled over is a stressfull situation and a flustered person might have just apologized thereby admitting to something they didn't do.... would the officer have given the ticket if that is the case i don't know but in a stressfull situation lying about the speed we were doing does not help matters and i find it totaly disgusting.

What are your thoughts am i taking this to personally (cause it has happened to both me and my brother as well) or should i write a formal letter of complaint??

Wenier

29th May 2005, 18:07

I reckon you should complain, he should not be saying a speed like that when you know that ya weren't doing anywhere near that.

Hitcher

29th May 2005, 18:09

Sigh. Write your letter of complaint and post it for critique. You may find it cathartic. Momentarily.

aff-man

29th May 2005, 18:17

Sigh. Write your letter of complaint and post it for critique. You may find it cathartic. Momentarily.

Yeh i know it won't go anywhere and nothing will happen but i don't know i just think we shouldn't have this sort of behaviour in the police. You don't accept people lying to you in the workplace etc so why should we accept it from the police. It is basically a false accusation. And in a lot of different situations lying and false accusations usually lead to legal action/unemployment..... :nono: :nono:

justsomeguy

29th May 2005, 18:34

I know what you mean aff-man.

But:

Dear Sir/M'am

Me and a bunch of 20 year olds were heading home after a party at 1am. We got pulled over by a police officer.

He falsely accused me........

See what I mean.

Luckily nothing happened.

If he did ticket you then you could ask him to prove it - and then it would be a different matter.

But I guess he was just trying to be a cop- You know: "I am the law and you are a miserable criminal until proven otherwise"

I understand how your buttons have been pushed though. It's a bloody joke how they get away with these things........

Marty, BikeyCop, Scumdog what do you have to say???

madboy

29th May 2005, 18:39

Mate, I've had cops lie to me as they wrote a bogus ticket, they've lied in court, and they've lied to the police complaints authority. All three separate events years apart. And those are just three examples from my mispent youth.

The one to the PCA was funny, cos the two guys who lied didn't realise we had photographic evidence to contradict them - I took great delight when we got the cheque from the Police after that episode.

Reality is, unless YOU can PROVE it beyond ALL doubt, you're wasting your time. But don't let me put you off having a crack at them.

aff-man

29th May 2005, 18:41

Waylander

29th May 2005, 18:43

Bit like that one chick that ticketed me on the way up to the north ride. (my letter thingie was denied by the way.) She didn't know what she was gonna icket me for she just knew I was gonna get one. Anything I would have said would have just made the ticket worse. Just have to remember that aslong as people have some power there will be those that will abuse it. Maybe if you have someone older than you like your dad or something then it might get some attention but other than that I have no idea.

250learna

29th May 2005, 18:44

Sigh. Write your letter of complaint and post it for critique. You may find it cathartic. Momentarily.

your are 100% right, its a sad world we live in :no:

WINJA

29th May 2005, 18:48

Motu

29th May 2005, 19:24

I don't see any problems here,I expect cops to be stopping people at random early hours of the morning,it's happened to me plenty enough.One verbal slip up and you want to crucify the guy - hope you need him one day and say thank you...

Skyryder

29th May 2005, 19:59

YOU KNOW I HATE PIGS BUT SOUNDS LIKE HE WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND DRUNKDRIVERS AND JUST SAID THAT SPEED AS AN EXCUSE TO PULL YOU UP, IF HE WAS POLITE AND DIDNT GIVE YOU A TICKET THEN DONT WASTE YOUR PEN AND PAPER

My thoughts entirely. If you ever have to write a complaint to the police make sure it is something with some teeth. At the end of the day his superior will take the officers word over yours and even with witnesses the police are trained so that their word (witnessess) may be in doubt. Did your companions hear all the conversation; had they been drinking; if so then they may have misheard the conversation etc.

Don't often agree with Winj but he's got this one right.

Skyryder

guzzi_nz

29th May 2005, 20:13

I sean to get pull over alot maybe the black bike (GUZZI), black helmet ,black leathers :Punk: :Punk: and straight pipes

but if they dont give a ticket its good dont care for the wanks cops but if they puLL some one up just to check and find a drunk then good
no room on the roads for drunks and if random stops find then good :niceone:
i would hate to losses one of my sons to drunk drives :no:

crashe

29th May 2005, 20:19

If you are gonna write the letter... did you get his police number on his lapels... or the car number to back you up... cos you will need that as well as he could say that he wasnt there at all. If you do write the letter be specific about what happened and everything that was said.

Were you sober? Did you have anything to drink? Could you have misheard a few words?

Yep I would be a tad peeved off if I was told I was doing a higher speed than I was.
But think yourselves lucky, he let your mate go on her way without a ticket and he wasnt nasty about it.

Have ya rant and let it go... move on.... but in the end its your decision in what you decide to do. We cant make that decision for you.

spudchucka

29th May 2005, 21:01

Marty, BikeyCop, Scumdog what do you have to say???
The "complaint" is really quite pathetic and it doesn't warrant comment other than to point out its patheticness.

Biff

29th May 2005, 21:05

I wouldn't waste the ink.
Just an excuse to check you out I'd say. No harm done, but I bet the cops catch shit loads of pissed midget smugglers doing these kind of stops.

Rainbow Wizard

29th May 2005, 21:18

But did you get a badge number or name? Pity you didn't string the prick along a bit to get a longer length of hanging rope.

Indoo

29th May 2005, 21:23

But did you get a badge number or name? Pity you didn't string the prick along a bit to get a longer length of hanging rope.

Err rope for what?

Im sure his superiors will be horrified that hes pulling over cars with drunks in them at 1am in the morning.

Ixion

29th May 2005, 21:32

Err rope for what?

Im sure his superiors will be horrified that hes pulling over cars with drunks in them at 1am in the morning.

OP specifically stated that driver did not drink. And the complaint was not at being pulled over, but at the fabrication of a fictitious speed offence. Would that allegation have been so quickly dropped I wonder if there had not been several witnesses ?

FROSTY

29th May 2005, 21:39

sorry dude but I agree with Winja - Yea matybee ya weren't speeding but he's just keepin the roads safe.
Shoe on other foot for a mo.
you're riding ya bike late one night and a drunk driver fucks up and you end up dead -cos a cop couldn't be fucked pulling him over.
I know its a pain in the ass but it might just save your life

StoneChucker

29th May 2005, 21:52

It's not about the being pulled over, everyone is perfectly happy about random checks...

It's about the blatant lie to entrap you! Legally, the officer can give you a ticket if he wants to, whether you are speeding or not. Obvisouly, or I like to think so, this only happens on the extremely infrequent occasion. But the point is the officer lied.

Whats wrong with "Good evening, random licence / breath testing check. That's what the officer said to me the few times I've been pulled over.

You know me, I like cops - have nothing against them at all. Agree with random licence and alcohol checks too, so don't say I'm just bitter. I just happen to agree, that I find it very worrying that cops routinely talk shit to see what you'll say. They know that it's "flustering" to be pulled over, and may just agree to anything.

Anyone watch motorway patrol the other night, the tone with which people get spoken to is so ludicrously condescending it's just not funny.

But, can you blame them? Look at the way "we" slag off cops all the time. (I can live with the tone, but not the false statements).

phaedrus

29th May 2005, 21:57

The "complaint" is really quite pathetic and it doesn't warrant comment other than to point out its patheticness.
so, someone getting a little miffed because they have been falsely accussed is pathetic is it spud?

Skyryder

29th May 2005, 22:02

Hey Spud just noticed Winj has the same avatar as yourself. Does this mean you nail him for impersonating a cop :Police:

Skyryder

spudchucka

29th May 2005, 22:05

so, someone getting a little miffed because they have been falsely accussed is pathetic is it spud?
Cop suspects someone has stolen a TV, cop says, "Where did you steal that TV from"?

Cop suspects someone was speeding, cop says, "Going a bit quick back there weren't ya"?

Cops ask all sorts of questions for all sorts of reasons, a persons reaction to a simple question can tell you alot about them and its a cops job to be nosy.

aff-man is being over senstive I'm afraid.

spudchucka

29th May 2005, 22:08

Hey Spud just noticed Winj has the same avatar as yourself. Does this mean you nail him for impersonating a cop :Police:

Skyryder
What makes you think I'm a cop?

I've been pulling your fulla's legs all this time. I'm actually an unemployed flag pole painter on a sickness benefit.

WINJA can get his cheap thrill that way if he wants, I really couldn't give a toss.

StoneChucker

29th May 2005, 22:08

phaedrus

29th May 2005, 22:16

Cop suspects someone has stolen a TV, cop says, "Where did you steal that TV from"?

Cop suspects someone was speeding, cop says, "Going a bit quick back there weren't ya"?

Cops ask all sorts of questions for all sorts of reasons, a persons reaction to a simple question can tell you alot about them and its a cops job to be nosy.

aff-man is being over senstive I'm afraid.

i notice she is still at about 63km/h (just coming out of an 80 zone). So i kindly point it out to her saying there are a lot of cops about etc so she looks down and goes whoo[ps and slows down to like 52-53ish.

The officer comes over and says to us .... going a bit quiock there 84km/h.

yes, it's their job to be nosy - but could you tell me where the 84Km/h could have come from? Why not just "going a bit quick there"

call me over sensitive if you want but I would take a cop saying "you were doing [insert speed over the limet] " as an accusation and would expect the the follow up of tickets and fines.
[edit] forgot the bit about the van

marty

29th May 2005, 22:17

winja could get done for impersonating a PERSON............

marty

29th May 2005, 22:20

yeah i do think you should write a letter. just don't get it mixed up with the 'free schapelle' one

FROSTY

29th May 2005, 22:26

Oh for fuck sake -jeysus have we become so totally PC that the very people out there saving our lives are being reviled.

StoneChucker

29th May 2005, 22:36

Oh for fuck sake -jeysus have we become so totally PC that the very people out there saving our lives are being reviled.
Look, Tony is jumping up and down again (I think he's frothing) ;)

YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT...
I want to be pulled over, I want my licence checked and I want to be breath tested. I want a Reg/Wof check and a quick police check. I'm not joking, having this done on a random basis is what saves lives. I'm all for what the cops do.

Just don't friggen lie! Cmon Tony, you know what I mean. I agree with what you're saying in sentiment, but see what I'm saying for a second.
He wasn't going 84 infront of the old van for feck sake.

hondacmx450

29th May 2005, 22:40

I agree mate, really I do. But, there is a difference between "Going a bit fast back there weren't ya" and "Going 84, infront of that old van"...

PS: The time I got a ticket on the way to Taupo, the cop used that exact line! ("Going a bit quick back there weren't ya"?). Do they teach that at the academy? ;) :niceone:

that comes after how to eat a doughnut
and befor there is your ticket have a nice day :rofl: :rofl: jokes

phaedrus

29th May 2005, 22:50

Look, Tony is jumping up and down again (I think he's frothing) ;)

YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT...
I want to be pulled over, I want my licence checked and I want to be breath tested. I want a Reg/Wof check and a quick police check. I'm not joking, having this done on a random basis is what saves lives. I'm all for what the cops do.

Just don't friggen lie! Cmon Tony, you know what I mean. I agree with what you're saying in sentiment, but see what I'm saying for a second.
He wasn't going 84 infront of the old van for feck sake.
yay, someone who knows how to say what i'm thinking better than I do

Zapf

29th May 2005, 22:50

justsomeguy

29th May 2005, 23:06

At the risk of sounding like an utter loser I must say that somebody I know doesn't mind getting the odd speed ticket - though that person has only ever got ONE speed ticket. and that too a stupid 63kmph 10 meters before a stop sign in a 89 1300cc corolla......

However that person speeds so regularly (not necessarily in an unsafe manner) a speeding ticket here and there is actually not too bad value for money as far as cheap thrills are concerned.

So I guess that person should greet the coppa with, "Oh Hi there mate, bout time isn't it".

:niceone:

aff-man

29th May 2005, 23:19

Most of you EXCEPT SC have missed the point entirely. I don't mind getting pulled over for random breath test (even though he didn't administer one) and i think it's even a good idea.

IF you read my post again you will notice that i said the rest of the stop was excellent he was easy going checked license and car details and then sent us on our merry way. A very good impression of how the situation should be dealt with..

I DO have a problem with the blatent lie to try and entrap us and when we called him up on it the cover story was flimsy ... the mighty non-existant van.. I am not trying to take a dig at the police in general and i do realise that any sort of letter is a complete waste of time. I just don't like people blatently lying and i given passed experiences it seems to be a common factor when being pulled over. If he had actually got us doing 84 he would have given us a ticket. so why say we were doing 84 why not just say random stop ,licence please???

And spud as said above there is a lot of difference between "going a bit fast back there" and actually naming a number. the first is like a questioning statement while naming a number is an accusition. How would you feel if someone accused you of something you hadn't done? Also would not naming a speed in such excess of the posted limit only highten the amount of stress on the driver being pulled over??

agggggggg :whocares: i was just a little miffed and needed to vent

Biff

29th May 2005, 23:26

Vent away mate - this is the place to do it, and I know where you're coming from with the BS from the cop. But IMO opinion I'm happy for any cop to tell me that he thought he saw Osama Bin Laden in the back of my car as an excuse to stop me if it means that in doing so he catches drunk drivers/scumbags every now and again.

But in giving you this BS story about the speed he alledged you were doing he has done some damage to the respect the public has in the police. He should have simply been honest with you.

aff-man

29th May 2005, 23:31

scumdog

30th May 2005, 00:14

YOU KNOW I HATE PIGS BUT SOUNDS LIKE HE WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND DRUNKDRIVERS AND JUST SAID THAT SPEED AS AN EXCUSE TO PULL YOU UP, IF HE WAS POLITE AND DIDNT GIVE YOU A TICKET THEN DONT WASTE YOUR PEN AND PAPER

Man this is SO scary, *WINJA making this much sense!!

Good valid comment WINJA, sums up my thoughts exactly.

The cop MAY have been trying to 'wind-up' these dudes, who knows??

*Are you SURE you are not really Spud/Hitcher/Frosty/White Trash or somebody sort of 'normal' WINJA??

scumdog

30th May 2005, 00:30

It's not about the being pulled over, everyone is perfectly happy about random checks...

It's about the blatant lie to entrap you!
But, can you blame them? Look at the way "we" slag off cops all the time. (I can live with the tone, but not the false statements).

'Entrapment' suggests that a penalty of some sort is dished out in a somewhat unethical manner.

No penalty was applied in this incident.

Yes, if true it could be at worst seen to be unprofessional.

Mehh, I've used the line "Looked to me like you must have been doing at least 200kph when I first saw you", normally they take it in the manner I meant - that they were going a bit quick but that I did not know their true speed.

spudchucka

30th May 2005, 08:34

but could you tell me where the 84Km/h could have come from?
Who the fuck would know! Go track down the cop and ask him.

marty

30th May 2005, 08:38

and to think that i've insisted that the drivers name must be schumacher, even when they've argued that it was smith....

spudchucka

30th May 2005, 08:50

I DO have a problem with the blatent lie to try and entrap us and when we called him up on it the cover story was flimsy ... the mighty non-existant van.. I am not trying to take a dig at the police in general and i do realise that any sort of letter is a complete waste of time. I just don't like people blatently lying and i given passed experiences it seems to be a common factor when being pulled over. If he had actually got us doing 84 he would have given us a ticket. so why say we were doing 84 why not just say random stop ,licence please???Perhaps he had a reading of 84kph, wasn't sure where it came from and the question was simply to gauge the drivers reaction? But then again perhaps he was bored and was just screwing with you for a laugh?

And spud as said above there is a lot of difference between "going a bit fast back there" and actually naming a number. the first is like a questioning statement while naming a number is an accusition. I can only assume that you don't have a great deal in your life to worry about if you are getting all het up about this. Its really no big deal, the cop is just doing his job regardless of whether you like his methods or not.

How would you feel if someone accused you of something you hadn't done? In this situation I'd politely point out that there had been some sort of error. If the cop gave me a ticket for an offence I didn't commit then I'd be seeing him in court.

I wouldn't be getting all precious about it and writing pointless letters.

vifferman

30th May 2005, 08:59

I understand your annoyance, at the driver effectively being accused of summat that was patently (to all parties concerned) a fabrication. Yes, it would've been far better for the policeman to have just said "Random breath-test / licence check, because you pointed at me and doncha know it's rude to point?" However, given that there was no harm done (apart to the officer's credibility, and perhaps by transferrance/extrapolation to that of the Police force as a whole), I don't think you're going to gain anything by complaining in writing. It's likely to be fobbed off (as it should be - no real harm's been done), and may just make your peevitude (yeah, I know that's not a real word) even more worserer.

MSTRS

30th May 2005, 10:04

Forget the letter - waste of time, paper & stamp. But I'm sure that the lesson of 'us & them' will not be forgotten. The alleged incident is right at the bottom of the scale, but is yet another nail in the coffin of the esteem in which the police were once held. It is but a small step to the scenario of 'Going a bit fast back there - however I could be per$uaded to not write you up'

Beemer

30th May 2005, 10:59

"And spud as said above there is a lot of difference between "going a bit fast back there" and actually naming a number. the first is like a questioning statement while naming a number is an accusition. How would you feel if someone accused you of something you hadn't done? Also would not naming a speed in such excess of the posted limit only highten the amount of stress on the driver being pulled over??"

At the risk of being abused, when being pulled over, your hearing is one of the first things that goes haywire - you know the feeling "oh my god, I've been pulled over, what was I doing wrong?" so PERHAPS you didn't hear him correctly. I've found most cops say something like "do you realise what speed you were doing back there?" or "that was a bit quick don't you think?" - I've never had one say "you were doing xyz speed" unless I was being given a ticket - and that comes after he says your're getting one!

I wouldn't bother writing because all you are going to do is waste your time and theirs and maybe just make them keep an eye out for you in the future. You weren't driving, you weren't being accused of anything, the driver was. If she feels significantly peeved about it, get HER to write in. I got done for going through an orange light many years ago - I was charged with going through a red so I contested it and took it to court. The police altered the charge to going through an orange light (bet you didn't know that was an offence that carries the same penalty as going through a red) and the police prosecutor said that the cop had 15 years' experience and therefore my judgement wasn't as good as his and I lost. I had been writing letters to the police to get red light cameras installed in Wellington but I wasn't even allowed to produce those letters - "because they weren't relevant".

Considering you didn't get a ticket and the cop didn't argue that you WERE doing the speed he allegedly stated, I would shut up and count my lucky stars you didn't get an arsehole who wanted to make your life a misery!

aff-man

30th May 2005, 11:45

[I]"And spud as said above there is a lot of difference Considering you didn't get a ticket and the cop didn't argue that you WERE doing the speed he allegedly stated, I would shut up and count my lucky stars you didn't get an arsehole who wanted to make your life a misery!

Prepare for abuse :weird: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: . No our hearing wasn't impared as all 4 people in the car heard it and were just as "surprised" he said it.

Counting lcuky starts has nothing to do with it , we were withing our rights were doing nothing wrong the vehicle was in good order with a warrent and rego so there is no lucky stars about it.

HE WAS VERY POLITE IN FACT man i am getting crucified on this but it's NOT about being pulled over at all, and i will probably / most definatley not be bothere writing a letter........................................is there someway to delete this thrad cause noone (except me) seems to have a problem with a poilce officer lying to them .

Oh and scumdog. there is a bit of a difference between saying 200km/h and 84km/h because he said it not in a "joking" manner but as if we had actually been doing that speed. :whocares:

Ixion

30th May 2005, 12:04

...is there someway to delete this thrad cause noone (except me) seems to have a problem with a poilce officer lying to them .
...

I see the problem. I'm also curious where the 84kph CAME from. I can understand a cop saying "I reckon you must have been going at least 80kph there" , ie a "round number" estimate. But 84kph is VERY exact. As if he was getting set up for a bust, then changed his mind when he realised there were too many witnesses.

But - in fairness, do cop radars maybe have a "wake up and show speed" mode where they come out of 'sleep" when they detect an illegal speed and show the speed? In which case he might have noticed "Ah , SOMEONE'S doing 84 kph. But I didn't notice who. I'll rattle this driver and see if she admits to it". Which is a bit less worrying. Don't know if that's how the radar things work though, I thought they had to point them at a target.

MSTRS

30th May 2005, 12:15

....is there someway to delete this thrad cause noone (except me) seems to have a problem with a poilce officer lying to them .

I do too but know you are wasting your time trying to prove it. File it in the Be PoliteTo'emButDon'tTrust'em drawer

bikerboy

30th May 2005, 14:07

The "complaint" is really quite pathetic and it doesn't warrant comment other than to point out its patheticness.

Gee, a cop that feels it's perfectly fine to illegally detain the public "just in case".....will wonders ever cease?

So called random stops are nothing more than a pathetic attempt to find someone guilty of something. There is nothing random about them, as Aff-man pointed out, a car of young people, out late, must be up to something illegal, out of date rego, learners license etc, just because they didn't do anything wrong is no reason not to stop them right, officer?

To stop, search or otherwise detain a person for no reason other than "just in case" is illegal. That's why they have the breath testing stop where EVERY car on a particular road at a particular time is stopped. Not just the guilty looking ones, same with rego/wof checks.

Talk about pathetic..... :weird:

scumdog

30th May 2005, 14:14

Gee, a cop that feels it's perfectly fine to illegally detain the public "just in case".....will wonders ever cease?

So called random stops are nothing more than a pathetic attempt to find someone guilty of something. There is nothing random about them, as Aff-man pointed out, a car of young people, out late, must be up to something illegal, out of date rego, learners license etc, just because they didn't do anything wrong is no reason not to stop them right, officer?

To stop, search or otherwise detain a person for no reason other than "just in case" is illegal. That's why they have the breath testing stop where EVERY car on a particular road at a particular time is stopped. Not just the guilty looking ones, same with rego/wof checks.

Talk about pathetic..... :weird:

Harden up, I pull over heaps of cars 'just in case' and get a 'hit' more often than not.
Shitty looking car driven by shitty looking person = good chance of no reg/wof/lic. and probably something unsafe, normally backed with the driver having a shitty attitude...

Anywhere-any time with me, no b.s. reasons needed or given, not sure where the 'illegal' part is as mentioned above.

Complaints? Waiting my first one.

Ixion

30th May 2005, 14:16

..
To stop, search or otherwise detain a person for no reason other than "just in case" is illegal. ..

No it's not. Whether it should be is another matter. Police may stop any motorist at any time to check WOF , rego, driver's licence. And detain the driver for up to 15 minutes for the purpose of establishing identity. No execuses needed.

Also a constable may stop ANY person and require them to provide name address and (I think) occupation. Though no right to detain, and no law about having to PROVE name etc.

And we won't even get into the powers under the fireqarms act, misuse of drugs act and a bunch of others . And customs, immigration and inland revenue ahve even more powers than the police.

Ah, liberty , what crimes are committed in they name.

scumdog

30th May 2005, 14:20

No it's not. Whether it should be is another matter. Police may stop any motorist at any time to check WOF , rego, driver's licence. And detain the driver for up to 15 minutes for the purpose of establishing identity. No execuses needed.

Ah, liberty , what crimes are committed in they name.

Eh?, shit man, I've been letting them drive off when I could have held them up for about another 139 minutes!!

Ya weren't quick enough to edit THAT out!! ("154 minutes")

marty

30th May 2005, 15:13

Gee, a cop that feels it's perfectly fine to illegally detain the public "just in case".....will wonders ever cease?

So called random stops are nothing more than a pathetic attempt to find someone guilty of something. There is nothing random about them, as Aff-man pointed out, a car of young people, out late, must be up to something illegal, out of date rego, learners license etc, just because they didn't do anything wrong is no reason not to stop them right, officer?

To stop, search or otherwise detain a person for no reason other than "just in case" is illegal. That's why they have the breath testing stop where EVERY car on a particular road at a particular time is stopped. Not just the guilty looking ones, same with rego/wof checks.

Talk about pathetic..... :weird:

blah blah blah. read the land transport act before making a dick out of yourself again

Lou Girardin

30th May 2005, 15:35

Maybe he had a speed check and was unsure which vehicle it was. Your outright denial convinced him it was the other vehicle. Maybe he was fishing for an admission. Who knows, but there are worse things to worry about with the Police and Justice system these days.
At least he didn't write a ticket based on the speed he saw.

justsomeguy

30th May 2005, 15:45

I think he may have simply asked you the question to see what kind of response the driver would have given.......and the corresponding body language, etc.

One of those rotten mind games things.......

And don't deny it...... I know you cops use it.
And good on you too -- what ever helps you catch the bad guys is OK with me.

mikey

30th May 2005, 16:35

i was trying to hold together an not write in my million bukcs worth but

I used to own a skyline, always hada wof/reg/never drunk driving/ an had full licence even insurance some times it was a lowered over boosted by more than double, turbobeast with an exhaust that was as far from legal. huge exhaust an few holes i nthe exhaust for extra ""POWER"" - anyway in the 3 long months of owning it i got pulled over more about 60 times give or take a few.

The worst 24 hour period i got pulled over 8 times. i already a tad on the mental side an this put me over in the paranoid state. iu calmly went an tallked to senior sarge at lower hutt. said it was all legal an so on. an i had no proof.

bought a cheap video camera. filmed 2 hours of cops pulling me over ""randomly"" pulling me over. well i didnt passengers did. would of been dangerous driving or some bs.

cops didnt like the camera, would be told to put it away but had smart ass mates at uni who knew there rights an so on. cop would try an wind us up, get someone to throw a punch then arrest us all, nomal cop behaviour around here.

after there questions for licence/rego/breath/wof i would politely ask them to state there name or badge number for the camera, if a rude remark resulted, i would say and say hello to senior sergant something an then go an get cops number plate.

we had abnout 2 hours footage each seen being about 5-10 minutes depending on howe thick the cop was.

went back in to cop shop with a letter an copy of video for senior sarge.

it went something like

THIS IS BLATANT FUCKING HARRASSMENT

I CANT FUCKING AFFORD TO BE PULLED OVER 3 to % times a day

get a call from him saying he watched fist 5 miuntes an that ill be done for wasting police time and to let them do there job an so on

power tripping fuckiong wankers

couldn do anything so i sold car an got a bike

havnt been pulled over by a cop once ""touch woody"" well ive been knocked off by a HP car but that doesnt count.

anyway.

them be the breaks of being a boy racer under current legislation.

Coldkiwi

30th May 2005, 17:34

bummer Aff. this must be at least the 2nd time you've had cops lie to you about road behaviour?
I can see why you're a bit het up about it. Like you say, random check for WOF.. no problem. Random accusation of speeding .. sounds suspect. ( I know I get very nervous and a guilty complex if pulled over).

Porblem is, I doubt you've got an officers number to write in about?

WINJA

30th May 2005, 19:48

winja could get done for impersonating a PERSON............
DONT BE A DICK I JUST DONT THINK ITS WORTH COMPLAINING ABOUT LITTLE THINGS .I WANT COPS TO PULL OVER PEOPLE FOR SPOT CHECKS WHEN THEY TARGET DRINKING AND DRIVING, I DONT CARE IF I SIT IN A LINE OF TRAFFIC WAITING TO BE BREATH TESTED , THIS IS GENUINE LIFESAVING POLICE WORK , I HATE DRUNK DRIVERS.THE PIG DID NOT GIVE OUT A TICKET HE MAY HAVE GOT IT WRONG BUT HE BACKED DOWN SO NO DAMAGE DONE

scumdog

31st May 2005, 00:37

DONT BE A DICK I JUST DONT THINK ITS WORTH COMPLAINING ABOUT LITTLE THINGS .I WANT COPS TO PULL OVER PEOPLE FOR SPOT CHECKS WHEN THEY TARGET DRINKING AND DRIVING, I DONT CARE IF I SIT IN A LINE OF TRAFFIC WAITING TO BE BREATH TESTED , THIS IS GENUINE LIFESAVING POLICE WORK , I HATE DRUNK DRIVERS.THE PIG DID NOT GIVE OUT A TICKET HE MAY HAVE GOT IT WRONG BUT HE BACKED DOWN SO NO DAMAGE DONE

C'mon man, you're starting to sound like the rest of 'us', where is the WINJA of old?? have you lost your soul man? what happened?

Seriously, once again you summed the whole thing up. :niceone:

spudchucka

31st May 2005, 07:08

But - in fairness, do cop radars maybe have a "wake up and show speed" mode where they come out of 'sleep" when they detect an illegal speed and show the speed? In which case he might have noticed "Ah , SOMEONE'S doing 84 kph. But I didn't notice who. I'll rattle this driver and see if she admits to it". Which is a bit less worrying. Don't know if that's how the radar things work though, I thought they had to point them at a target.
It sounds like the cop was stationary at the time. Depending on the radar unit it could be set to capture speeds from one direction only, however it is most likely a unit that captures speeds from both directions when in stationary mode.

The radar doesn't go into sleep mode at all, (unlike the operator) but if there is nothing to read they just sit there with a big fat 0 on the readout. When a vehicle comes into the beam they display the vehicles speed on the readout.

As explained above, in stationary mode the unit can pick up vehicles coming towards or going away from the radar unit. If at the time there are vehicles going in both directions it will usually display the highest speed or the signal from the vehicle that is giving the strongest reading, (usually the bigger of the two). Sometimes if there are multiple vehicles in the beam the readout will flick between the different speed readings. In these cases the operator needs to be able to visually determine which is the fast vehicle if they are to issue an infringement.

The radar isn't aimed at a target but rather pointed in an area of interest. The radar beam is relatively narrow but not such that it can be aimed at a specific target. Lasers are hand held and can be accurately aimed at any vehicle going in either direction.

spudchucka

31st May 2005, 07:14

Gee, a cop that feels it's perfectly fine to illegally detain the public "just in case".....will wonders ever cease?
Gee, another idiot who has no idea what the relevant laws actually allow.

marty

31st May 2005, 08:52

with a bit of luck we'll soon be able to search people/cars/houses without a search warrant :)

scumdog

31st May 2005, 10:07

with a bit of luck we'll soon be able to search people/cars/houses without a search warrant :)

Dang!! You mean we can't already??? :whistle:

Coldkiwi

31st May 2005, 12:51

The radar doesn't go into sleep mode at all, (unlike the operator) but if there is nothing to read they just sit there with a big fat 0 on the readout.

so does the radar have a doughnut mode instead? :whistle:

j/k - you coppers here are a pretty good bunch. I just couldn't resist. Sorry. Really I am. :yes:

scumdog

31st May 2005, 13:01

so does the radar have a doughnut mode instead? :whistle:

j/k - you coppers here are a pretty good bunch. I just couldn't resist. Sorry. Really I am. :yes:

You will be matey, rest assured you will be!!!! :msn-wink: :bleh: :laugh:

Lou Girardin

31st May 2005, 14:17

so does the radar have a doughnut mode instead? :whistle:

j/k - you coppers here are a pretty good bunch. I just couldn't resist. Sorry. Really I am. :yes:

No, but it does have flag fall on the meter.

Phurrball

31st May 2005, 15:42

Wow, what a thread...

So many interesting things said, and interesting (if perhaps predictable) responses.

Firstly, I'm with Scumdog - what is up with WINJA? He appears to be making sense!? WINJA, can I have some of what you're on? It might improve my exam study :yes:

There is a difference between Scumdog suggesting a motorist is doing 200KM/H (clear hyperbole and demonstration of some sense of humour) and an unsubstantiated [as far as I know] assertion of 84KM/H - being a plausible speed that a confused/nervous/easily shocked person could 'confess' to unwittingly. This is the problem that aff man is suggesting with this conduct, and that that Stonechucker has distilled from the thread.

The pointing thing is an interesting one. I was pulled up for being a cheeky bugger last year. Tooting a friendly hello to an unlit mufti car, on an unlit road, sitting in radar 'silence' until any car went by gets you that...[WRT tooting - it was before 11pm and was not a residential area]

Random checks are fine (good even). Given the size of the vehicle fleet we all share the roads with every day: going in the opposite direction...waiting at intersections...sharing our lanes; I for one am very pleased to be pulled up from time to time to have my warrant, vehicle licensing, and breath checked. Hopefully it means that clowns who ain't following the rules will be less likely to come my way.

Random stops are part of the price we pay for the privilege of using the roading network in a vehicle of our choice, whenever we choose. It is not illegal detention to be stopped and to have your details, and those of the vehicle checked. [Correct me if I am wrong - I seem to recall in one of my statute book journeys that there was an amendment act passed at some stage (1986?) that allowed for such 'random' checks on motorists??]. I can't be sure on regulations or internal rules governing detention time etc - they would be interesting to know, and have been partially discussed here. Cases and rules on the point all seem [IMHO] to lean towards 'reasonableness' ie it is reasonable to delay access to a lawyer until back at the station, rather than wait at the roadside. (Someone tried this on after the NZ Bill of Rights was enacted)

We do give up some of our civil liberties on occasion for the greater good [Arguable depending on your position on the political/societal spectrum]. There is a legal theory that it is provable that 'small' penalties, and a high chance of getting caught work much better in modifying behaviour than huge penalties with a small chance of detection - it seems to me that this is what the policy allowing random stops is aiming at. I would suggest to anyone who is in any way upset with the conduct of any officer, to get his or her badge number (This is on all tickets BTW). Otherwise the horse has bolted.

As to Mikey's post - I'm not sure if there is a line in the sand as to when being pulled over becomes too much? If I was in his position, I'd collect evidence too, but rather than making a harassment complaint, I'd try and get it noted on the computer system that the car has been pulled over previously, and is OK. Whether this would stop [I]being pulled over, I don't know, as calling in details seems to happen at the same time as pulling a car over. But it could stop delay once pulled over, and is less confrontational, so perhaps more likely to be workable? [Could the cops here tell me if I'm talking out my ars* on this one?] I agree with Mikey suggesting that them can be the breaks if you or your car are of a certain type - Scumdog is most likely right that there is a correlation between dodgy appearance and actual dodgyness.

[Insert memories of driving the mighty (Licensed, warranted and insured) 180B and its primer patches around Dunedin with a number 2 haircut. All delays averted by cooperation and polite demeanour.]

And perhaps the most salient point :devil2:

No, but it does have flag fall on the meter.

:rofl:

[/überpost]

marty

31st May 2005, 15:50

WINJA

31st May 2005, 17:38

C'mon man, you're starting to sound like the rest of 'us', where is the WINJA of old?? have you lost your soul man? what happened?

Seriously, once again you summed the whole thing up. :niceone:
IM THE SAME WINJA SO DONT WORRY ,I STILL THINK YOU PIGS SUCK

SPman

31st May 2005, 18:35

We do give up some of our civil liberties on occasion for the greater good [Arguable depending on your position on the political/societal spectrum].

Benjamin Franklin.......

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety..."

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature."

"A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."

Beware of people who claim to be helping you, while they put you in chains. ……….One link at a time.!

phaedrus

31st May 2005, 19:23

It sounds like the cop was stationary at the time. Depending on the radar unit it could be set to capture speeds from one direction only, however it is most likely a unit that captures speeds from both directions when in stationary mode.

The radar doesn't go into sleep mode at all, (unlike the operator) but if there is nothing to read they just sit there with a big fat 0 on the readout. When a vehicle comes into the beam they display the vehicles speed on the readout.

As explained above, in stationary mode the unit can pick up vehicles coming towards or going away from the radar unit. If at the time there are vehicles going in both directions it will usually display the highest speed or the signal from the vehicle that is giving the strongest reading, (usually the bigger of the two). Sometimes if there are multiple vehicles in the beam the readout will flick between the different speed readings. In these cases the operator needs to be able to visually determine which is the fast vehicle if they are to issue an infringement.

The radar isn't aimed at a target but rather pointed in an area of interest. The radar beam is relatively narrow but not such that it can be aimed at a specific target. Lasers are hand held and can be accurately aimed at any vehicle going in either direction.

Now that i've had time to calm down, i can see this sort of thing happen. Thanks for the description of how the radars work, 'twas quite helpful.

a question about the laser, could they get confused if they were to hit the top of a knobbly tyre by accident?(since the top of the tyre is going forwards at double the road speed)

spudchucka

31st May 2005, 19:54

a question about the laser, could they get confused if they were to hit the top of a knobbly tyre by accident?(since the top of the tyre is going forwards at double the road speed)
I can't really answer that one, however it seems highly unlikely as when aiming a laser at a biker most would aim it at the centre of mass, which in reality would be the headlight or riders torso, depending on the configuration of the bike. The leading or top edge of the front tyre is the last place you would aim a laser.

Phurrball

31st May 2005, 20:42

Benjamin Franklin.......

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety..."

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature."

"A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."

Beware of people who claim to be helping you, while they put you in chains. ……….One link at a time.!

Interesting, BF was obviously a Natural Law thinker. The word essential in the first quote is probably of relevance here - owning and riding/driving a vehicle is not an essential right, but a privilege many mistake for a right...

I am pretty happy with my common law and statutory protctions personally. What I am not happy with is the fact that too few know them (and a swag of other legal rights) well enough to assert them when the brown stuff is hitting the fan.

the land transport act 1998 tidied up all those amendments. there is record of the vehicle being checked on the system, but of course it has the be checked, to find out that it's been checked, if you know what i mean. and i'm sure mikey turning up at the police station with the attitude he alluded to wouldn't have endeared himself to the s/sgt....he had a reasonable issue (i believe), but basically shot himself in the foot.

Thanks Marty -I share your thoughts on the latter. 1998 was a recodification to tidy up a statute messy with amendments - am pretty sure that that the ability to stop any motorist arose in a amendment prior to this...

Good [maybe?] to see a hint of the WINJA of old appear...

StoneChucker

31st May 2005, 21:49

I can't really answer that one, however it seems highly unlikely as when aiming a laser at a biker most would aim it at the centre of mass, which in reality would be the headlight or riders torso, depending on the configuration of the bike. The leading or top edge of the front tyre is the last place you would aim a laser.
Screw you buddy, you calling my torso the centre of mass, on a 172kg bike??? Get stuffed, I'm not THAAAAAT fat ;) :rofl: :motu: :niceone: :whistle: :)

Ixion

31st May 2005, 22:36

.. 1998 was a recodification to tidy up a statute messy with amendments - am pretty sure that that the ability to stop any motorist arose in a amendment prior to this...

...

The ability of police to detain for 15 minutes [double checks, yes correct 15] was actually a fallout from INCIS. Originally all police cars were going to have laptops in them. And the ability to download the digitised photo-licence photo, so that the cop could determine if the guy claiming to be John Smith actually looked at all like Mr Smith. But, the RF connections of the day were not fast, and some trials determined that the download would be a slow business. The law then said that a motorist had to give name and address etc. But it was thought that without specific statutory authority, the police might not have legal right to make the motorist wait while the download downloaded. So the 15 [check, 15] minute period was built into law.

In the event INCIS karked it, the police never got their laptops, or the ability to view the pretty pictures, which could nowdays be downloaded in about one minute. But the 15 minutes remains enshrined in law, and doubtless ever will be. Despite it being now largely pointless. That seems to be the way the law works.

StoneChucker

31st May 2005, 22:41

Hell, if I'm going to pay $120 (for example), I atleast want my money's worth! 15 minutes is nothing, the cop could talk to me for longer I reckon! Tell me how his day's going maybe :niceone:

scumdog

31st May 2005, 22:58

Wow, what a thread...

So many interesting things said, and interesting (if perhaps predictable) responses.

As to Mikey's post - I'm not sure if there is a line in the sand as to when being pulled over becomes too much? If I was in his position, I'd collect evidence too, but rather than making a harassment complaint, I'd try and get it noted on the computer system that the car has been pulled over previously, and is OK. Whether this would stop being pulled over, I don't know, as calling in details seems to happen at the same time as pulling a car over. But it could stop delay once pulled over, and is less confrontational, so perhaps more likely to be workable? [Could the cops here tell me if I'm talking out my ars* on this one?] I agree with Mikey suggesting that them can be the breaks if you or your car are of a certain type - Scumdog is most likely right that there is a correlation between dodgy appearance and actual dodgyness.

[/überpost]

I often pull over the same car more than once a night, particularly a Saturday night and even more so if it is a larrikins car, after all (as I tell them) if they thought I was only going to stop them once a night then after that stop they would let drunk/disqualified/unlicenced people have a drive eh??

WINJA

31st May 2005, 23:01

Ixion

31st May 2005, 23:05

Warm tonight, don't you think ?

Lou Girardin

1st June 2005, 08:28

Lou Girardin

1st June 2005, 08:31

The cops, of all types, have always had the right to stop any person on any road and require name and address. They also have the right to ensure that information is correct. We used to take as long as we needed to do so.

spudchucka

1st June 2005, 08:48

Screw you buddy, you calling my torso the centre of mass, on a 172kg bike??? Get stuffed, I'm not THAAAAAT fat ;) :rofl: :motu: :niceone: :whistle: :)
With the ergonomics of an R1 they'd be better off waiting till you flew past them and then aiming it at your butt, now there's a centre of mass! :whistle:

bikerboy

1st June 2005, 12:45

No it's not. Whether it should be is another matter. Police may stop any motorist at any time to check WOF , rego, driver's licence. And detain the driver for up to 15 minutes for the purpose of establishing identity. No execuses needed.

Yes the police have a right to stop you for checks for the above reasons only. When stopped the officer must state why you are being stopped, just a rego check, you were speeding etc. not I don't like the look of you or your car so I'm stopping you mate. There is no law against having a bad attitude, a rough looking car etc. Speed is always the excuse cause it is their word against yours, and for you quote buffs, " the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

That's the problem here. There are rules and proceedures to protect the public from abuse, discrimination, harassment, etc. If you feel you were treated badly you should write in. Yes most likely nothing will happen but as the public complains the bosses will eventually have to act.

A while back a few guys were detained and questioned by the police because they "looked suspicious". While questioning them the police began searching the vehicle cause they "smelled" drugs. They found two joints I think. It went to court, and a Judge threw it out cause "looking suspicious" was not a crime nor a legal reason to detain, therefore the search was illegal.

Some of you might be outraged, grow up, the judge was right. The real reason these guys were stopped was because they were Maori, poor and driving a dodging looking car. Had the officers approached them for a rego check, and then discovered the drugs, highly unlikely as the guys were not high at the time, then that's fine. A fine line perhaps but so is the difference between living in a police state and living in a state with police.

We, at least most intelligent people, want the police to do their job legally. That doesn't mean making up things, lying, or hastling people. There is enough crime to solve without that kind of attitude.

I agree with Aff-man, it is the fact the man was dishonest, why lie, because he is a person of such pathetic character, he saw no reason to be honest afterall it was just a bunch of kids.

The ease with which most people dismiss the lack of integrety of this officer is the real worry. As it has been stated before, " Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"

marty

1st June 2005, 16:39

why do you we always stick our heads in the car to read the WOF?

scumdog

1st June 2005, 16:52

AND PULLING THEM OVER TWICE GETS YOU 2 BLOWJOBS

Only if it is a busy night and two is all I have time for....

Coldkiwi

1st June 2005, 18:04

well said BB

aff-man

1st June 2005, 18:36

Cheers BB that was well said :Punk:

Indoo

1st June 2005, 19:25

A while back a few guys were detained and questioned by the police because they "looked suspicious". While questioning them the police began searching the vehicle cause they "smelled" drugs. They found two joints I think. It went to court, and a Judge threw it out cause "looking suspicious" was not a crime nor a legal reason to detain, therefore the search was illegal.

You do realise the counter side to that though, if Police didn't stop people who looked suspicious how many criminals do you think would be caught, it would be free reign to car thieves, burgulars and the like. Unless your suggesting Police just stop them on the pretext of a 'warrant' check.

Phurrball

1st June 2005, 20:47

I often pull over the same car more than once a night, particularly a Saturday night and even more so if it is a larrikins car, after all (as I tell them) if they thought I was only going to stop them once a night then after that stop they would let drunk/disqualified/unlicenced people have a drive eh??

South Otago only really brings two towns of any size to my mind, and if you're posted in either of those SD, then this is an understandable response given the special and unique 'culture' of some South Otago youth :devil2:

At least South Otago ain't Gore (Which even has its own special word for cruising the main drag - doing 'domes' so I heard :whistle:)

mikey

2nd June 2005, 14:46

the land transport act 1998 tidied up all those amendments. there is record of the vehicle being checked on the system, but of course it has the be checked, to find out that it's been checked, if you know what i mean. and i'm sure mikey turning up at the police station with the attitude he alluded to wouldn't have endeared himself to the s/sgt....he had a reasonable issue (i believe), but basically shot himself in the foot.

\BULLS HIT MOFO WOULDN DO JACK FUCKING RIPPER CRACK FOR ME.

must of been mates with the lesbian cop, cause he didnt like me talking about her manly ness too

cops dont randomly pull people over.

my pop an his dad never been pulled over in there life\

ive been pulled over more times than ive cut my hair.

nothing random about it.

should be decent an call it pulling over boy racers to try get them to give them some frills doing a chase at dangerous speeds, an then not pressing charges against themselves for driving dangerously.

bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM

- from brave heart

ie ladee i dink irve4 lorsst my villy

scumdog

2nd June 2005, 17:18

South Otago only really brings two towns of any size to my mind, and if you're posted in either of those SD, then this is an understandable response given the special and unique 'culture' of some South Otago youth :devil2:

At least South Otago ain't Gore (Which even has its own special word for cruising the main drag - doing 'domes' so I heard :whistle:)

No more 'domes' in Gore anymore - at least not like they use to be when you could 'short-cut' through them, now they have to go at least a block to turn around!

Here we have 'laps' of about 9km, all you do is wait in one spot for 5 minutes ot more and they go past.

Just a different culture I guess.

BTW Ever wonder where all the HQ Holdens and XT to XE Falcon ('Coons) went???" Look no further, they're all down here.