Traffic Law - Access to your property

[PrincessBandit]

Got our regular newsletter from Inder Lynch (solicitors) and there was a big article on the rights of officers to enter your property.

It was written by John Foliaki (senior firm lawyer who specialises in traffic law).

As I'm not sure about the legal ramifications of duplicating the contents I'll just outline the main points. The whole thing can probably be viewed at www.inderlynch.co.nz for anyone really fascinated sufficiently to read it all.

Main points:
1. The Land Transport Act allows an officer to enter any premises which a person (the officer believes or suspects to have commited a serious traffic offence) has entered BUT there is an emphasis on it being in the course of "fresh pursuit". i.e. it is not an automatic right for an officer to enter if there has been a break in the chain of events during the "fresh pursuit". Turning up on your doorstep some time after the event does not constitute "fresh".
2. "No one is permitted to set foot on the land of another unless they can show lawful justification for doing so". Trespass will not be accorded if (a) the entry is authorised by statute (e.g. fresh pursuit), (b) the entry is expressly authorised by or on behalf of the landowener e.g. inviting someone onto your property, (c) entry is impliedly authorised by or on behalf of the landowner, (d) entry is justified by necessity or on some other basis recognised by law.

All this means is that once a driver is on his/her own property the driver has some protection from Police officers. The legal provision of "fresh pursuit" only operates if conditions of the Land Transport Act are strictly adhered to by such officers. If it is NOT a "fresh pursuit" then the officer is still legally entitled to be on the property by virtue of the implied licence, until that licence is revoked "clearly and unequivocally" by the owner or occupier of the land concerned.

The example used in the article was of a driver who was sighted driving erratically after consuming alcohol but the Police only followed up on him at home later, requesting a breath test. The driver had locked himself in his garage and refused to come out. The Appeal Court held that the verbal refusal by the occupier/driver to come out of the garage constituted a lcear and unequivocal revocation of the officer's implied licence to remain on the driver's property.

As it turned out the officer involved said that he might have to use force to enter so the guy basically gave in, opened the door and submitted to the breath test.

The article was based around how occupiers can revoke implied licence for officers to be on their property. (Although I'm sure they weren't actually encouraging people being pursued by Police to obstruct the course of justice...!) I'm sure no riders here would have to resort to locking themselves in their garage and refusing to come out for the law, would they.

[miloking]

Ok great, now i know that if i ever do a runner and make it home first i can just lock myself in a garage and horrible popo boogeyman cant get me there...as long as he doesnt "trick" me with friendly pleading and/or threats into opening the door.

[red mermaid]

There's more than one way to skin a cat, and if you are old enough and experienced enough you will know ways to work within the law and still get a result.


Ok great, now i know that if i ever do a runner and make it home first i can just lock myself in a garage and horrible popo boogeyman cant get me there...as long as he doesnt "trick" me with friendly pleading and/or threats into opening the door.

[PrincessBandit]

Ok great, now i know that if i ever do a runner and make it home first i can just lock myself in a garage and horrible popo boogeyman cant get me there...as long as he doesnt "trick" me with friendly pleading and/or threats into opening the door.

Leopards never change their spots and I see that neither do spotted dicks.

[marty]

i know of a couple of senior cops that have got off using this defence. if, though, you think that doing a runner into your property then locking yourself in the house will work - you're wrong. power of entry is complete if in 'fresh pursuit' -

[HenryDorsetCase]

There's more than one way to skin a cat, and if you are old enough and experienced enough you will know ways to work within the law and still get a result.

.............really?

[miloking]

i know of a couple of senior cops that have got off using this defence. if, though, you think that doing a runner into your property then locking yourself in the house will work - you're wrong. power of entry is complete if in 'fresh pursuit' -

Well and thats where you get into the slightly grey area of "fresh pursuit" ...so if popo lost a sight of the "fleeing rider", and they were heading in a general direction of the riders house...can popo just turn up hour later and kick the door down? What about two hours...or two days?

[miloking]

Leopards never change their spots and I see that neither do spotted dicks.

Its called "build a bridge & get over it" i was only trying to have hypothetical discussion on the topic you brought up...and you have to start with the whole "dick thing" all over again...

[Katman]

and you have to start with the whole "dick thing" all over again...

You've made it all too easy for us.

[AllanB]

Bugger
I can see it now - there I am minding my own business in my own private garage just finishing off a worn rear tyre at 6,000 rpm and a hand reaches through the smoke and taps me on the shoulder - 'ello ello sir, just what do you think you are doing then? ...."

And they would probably report me to the council for lighting up during the summer fire ban season.

[SMOKEU]

Ok great, now i know that if i ever do a runner and make it home first i can just lock myself in a garage and horrible popo boogeyman cant get me there...as long as he doesnt "trick" me with friendly pleading and/or threats into opening the door.

Jump a few fences and you'll be sweet.

[Max Preload]

Here's one we prepared earlier...
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/91918-So-a-rozza-enters-my-home...


Bugger
I can see it now - there I am minding my own business in my own private garage just finishing off a worn rear tyre at 6,000 rpm and a hand reaches through the smoke and taps me on the shoulder - 'ello ello sir, just what do you think you are doing then? ...."

And they would probably report me to the council for lighting up during the summer fire ban season.There's no smoke without fire! Oh... wait...

[marty]

Well and thats where you get into the slightly grey area of "fresh pursuit" ...so if popo lost a sight of the "fleeing rider", and they were heading in a general direction of the riders house...can popo just turn up hour later and kick the door down? What about two hours...or two days?


I have lost a NG on a 5 minute delay. I know of losses (or wins - depending which side you're on) on much less (like 2 minutes), so an hour later is unlikely to be even tried. IF though, they turn up, say 'were you driving?' and you're dumb enough to say yes, then blow in the bag by consent, you will have a tough time getting off (and yes people have done this and gone down for it)

And the cops can turn up and kick your door in any time they like. Whether they'll get away with it is another thing....

[rastuscat]

I've suggested this to a few people over the years.

If you don't want to get caught drink driving, (or doing any other illegal thing), invent a time machine. Wind it back a few hours, then relive the time without breaking the law.

Certainly you'll not get caught.

In summary, until you can invent a time machine, don't break the law, and you won't get caught.

[scumdog]

Jump a few fences and you'll be sweet.

Funniest sight is a drunk 'jumping' (more like scrambling clumsily) over fences and think they're fast enough to get away..:rofl:

[The Stranger]

In summary, until you can invent a time machine, don't break the law, and you won't get caught.

Or simply don't speed. I mean what's the odds of actually getting caught for any crime other than speeding in NZ?

Pretty fucken slim.

[SMOKEU]

Funniest sight is a drunk 'jumping' (more like scrambling clumsily) over fences and think they're fast enough to get away..:rofl:

It's even funnier when the delta units get them, right?

[miloking]

Or simply don't speed. I mean what's the odds of actually getting caught for any crime other than speeding in NZ?

Pretty fucken slim.

Are you realy just saying... or simply dont speed but shoplifting is fine? (kind of makes sense since most cops are at the bottom of the hill with laser gun...instead of where they are actualy needed)

[miloking]

I have lost a NG on a 5 minute delay. I know of losses (or wins - depending which side you're on) on much less (like 2 minutes), so an hour later is unlikely to be even tried. IF though, they turn up, say 'were you driving?' and you're dumb enough to say yes, then blow in the bag by consent, you will have a tough time getting off (and yes people have done this and gone down for it)

And the cops can turn up and kick your door in any time they like. Whether they'll get away with it is another thing....

My Dad always taugh me "deny..deny...deny" and if you get caught "red handed" doing it...DENY! :) (talking about infidelity not realy a crime but anyway)
So i wont be stupid to admit anything if someone asked "were you driving", but under 2 minutes is pretty harsh for you guys....i would be happy with 10-15 minutes but i guess it makes the "game" more fun for all participants..

[The Stranger]

Are you realy just saying... or simply dont speed but shoplifting is fine? (kind of makes sense since most cops are at the bottom of the hill with laser gun...instead of where they are actualy needed)

Shoplifting? Is that even a crime these days?
I mean it's not good behaviour, but lets face facts, it's not exactly speeding is it?

Example of an actual case:
You have your car broken into by some idiot that's seen too many American movies and thinks all you do is grab any 2 wires, bare them, rub them together, they spark and the engine starts and you drive off. Well it doesn't, so they walk away. Will the cops attend? Not a chance. Odds of getting caught 0.

Now had numpty actually stolen my car and sped away past a Police car there would have been a full on Police chase involving 3 cars and a chopper - at least up until 1 minute before the accident. As we all know all Police chases are called off 1 minute before any accident. Either that or it may well have resulted in the shooting of some poor innocent passer by.

[miloking]

Shoplifting? Is that even a crime these days?
I mean it's not good behaviour, but lets face facts, it's not exactly speeding is it?

Example of an actual case:
You have your car broken into by some idiot that's seen too many American movies and thinks all you do is grab any 2 wires, bare them, rub them together, they spark and the engine starts and you drive off. Well it doesn't, so they walk away. Will the cops attend? Not a chance. Odds of getting caught 0.

Now had numpty actually stolen my car and sped away past a Police car there would have been a full on Police chase involving 3 cars and a chopper - at least up until 1 minute before the accident. As we all know all Police chases are called off 1 minute before any accident. Either that or it may well have resulted in the shooting of some poor innocent passer by.

You are totaly right, speeding is one of the worst crimes out there i was just blind all those years, did you know that the earth is moving at 107,000km/h thru space so we should all be in for some realy heavy demerit point deductions!

... hey one more thing as i was just reading your post i had one of those "brain moments" and i just figured out since all police chases do indeed end up in accident 1 minute before they are called off...wouldnt it be better if police never called off any pursuits? Think of how many lives it could potentialy save!

[Berg]

380+ road deaths last year vrs 68 murders yet out of a staff of over 10,000 only about 600 are dedicated traffic units. Just imagine the outcry if we had 380+ murders. The traffic guys are just far more visible and are usually the only contact most people ever have with police which is why people seem to think that's all police are interested in.
Also have a dig into government funding to NZ police. You will find it has been cut every financial year for decades. I accept they cannot be everywhere and all things to all people. I also accept we have a massive problem with road attitude in NZ (just read how many in here have been hit or knocked off) so an effective road police force is reqd.
Just my thoughts on the matter

[Owl]

all police chases do indeed end up in accident 1 minute before they are called off...

That's not what he said!:no:

[Usarka]

Stopping cars for speeding is an overall crime strategy for the NZ police. Their thinking is that it's easier to stop a random car and see if there is a stolen TV in the backseat rather than doing all the investigation/prevention stuff.

In the news today; a guy with a mobile P lab in his car just got busted during a routine traffic stop.

[miloking]

That's not what he said!:no:


oh my bad i see what i wrote now... of course meant all chases end up being called off before accident..

[scumdog]

Or simply don't speed. I mean what's the odds of actually getting caught for any crime other than speeding in NZ?

Pretty fucken slim.

And what are the odds of getting caught speeding?

Also pretty fucken slim..:yes:

[MSTRS]

And what are the odds of getting caught speeding?

Also pretty fucken slim..:yes:

Time and place, eh? :yes:

[st00ji]

i guess the trouble is if you speed everywhere, sooner or later you go past one of those 600 :P

[Winston001]

Well and thats where you get into the slightly grey area of "fresh pursuit" ...so if popo lost a sight of the "fleeing rider", and they were heading in a general direction of the riders house...can popo just turn up hour later and kick the door down? What about two hours...or two days?

It has to be reasonably fresh in the sense that the police are following a trail and/or know where the offender is headed.

I remember a chap once who abandoned his car and headed off into the paddocks. Police dogs out and the constabulary knew who he might be from the car registration. They caught up with him 2 hours later at his home still in "fresh pursuit"....

To make matters worse, he had a couple of quick whiskeys when he got in the door - not knowing that the law deems the blood/alcohol level at the time of test to be the same as at time of driving. That's to avoid the obvious defence "oh I've had a few drinks since driving..." Not allowed. Bummer.

[Banditbandit]

It has to be reasonably fresh in the sense that the police are following a trail and/or know where the offender is headed.

I remember a chap once who abandoned his car and headed off into the paddocks. Police dogs out and the constabulary knew who he might be from the car registration. They caught up with him 2 hours later at his home still in "fresh pursuit"....

To make matters worse, he had a couple of quick whiskeys when he got in the door - not knowing that the law deems the blood/alcohol level at the time of test to be the same as at time of driving. That's to avoid the obvious defence "oh I've had a few drinks since driving..." Not allowed. Bummer.

I knew a guy in Chch who got away with just that ... got home ahead of the boys in blue - when they arrived, he opened the door with a bottle of whiskey to his lips, having a good long pull .. they tested him and took him to court .. and then had to admit to the Judge that they had seen him with the whiskey bottle and drinking, just before they tested him ...

He was found not guilty as the judge ruled that the police had no way of knowing the blood/alcohol level at the time me mate was driving - only the level after they had seen him drinking in his own home ... and the police had no idea how much he had drunk at home ...

[scumdog]

I knew a guy in Chch who got away with just that ... got home ahead of the boys in blue - when they arrived, he opened the door with a bottle of whiskey to his lips, having a good long pull .. they tested him and took him to court .. and then had to admit to the Judge that they had seen him with the whiskey bottle and drinking, just before they tested him ...

He was found not guilty as the judge ruled that the police had no way of knowing the blood/alcohol level at the time me mate was driving - only the level after they had seen him drinking in his own home ... and the police had no idea how much he had drunk at home ...

Hmmm..interesting...how long ago was that??

[Toaster]

Funniest sight is a drunk 'jumping' (more like scrambling clumsily) over fences and think they're fast enough to get away..:rofl:


Or a fat copper hanging upside down from his duty belt.....

[Pascal]

The example used in the article was of a driver who was sighted driving erratically after consuming alcohol but the Police only followed up on him at home later, requesting a breath test. The driver had locked himself in his garage and refused to come out. The Appeal Court held that the verbal refusal by the occupier/driver to come out of the garage constituted a lcear and unequivocal revocation of the officer's implied licence to remain on the driver's property.

This annoys me.

Some halfwit was out there driving drunkenly enough the police noticed him. He appealed the conviction, even if it was obtained because of an officer transgressing on the drinker's rights.

If you've fucked up, pay your dues and own what you do.

[scumdog]

This annoys me.



If you've fucked up, pay your dues and own what you do.

Oh, if only it was that easy!

No need for lawyers then...

[Fatjim]

I knew a guy in Chch who got away with just that ... got home ahead of the boys in blue - when they arrived, he opened the door with a bottle of whiskey to his lips, having a good long pull .. they tested him and took him to court .. and then had to admit to the Judge that they had seen him with the whiskey bottle and drinking, just before they tested him ...

He was found not guilty as the judge ruled that the police had no way of knowing the blood/alcohol level at the time me mate was driving - only the level after they had seen him drinking in his own home ... and the police had no idea how much he had drunk at home ...

That's why the need for continuity of pursuit. I remember this case was in the papers, 2009 I think, so it must have happened that way.

[karmobRob]

He might have got off that time, but did he learn anything??

[Bassmatt]

The example used in the article was of a driver who was sighted driving erratically after consuming alcohol but the Police only followed up on him at home later, requesting a breath test.

So.... if i am 5ks over the speed limit i will be pulled over immediately but if i am driving erratically i am allowed to continue on my merry way home?
And its all about road safety not revenue collecting?

[scumdog]

So.... if i am 5ks over the speed limit i will be pulled over immediately but if i am driving erratically i am allowed to continue on my merry way home?
And its all about road safety not revenue collecting?

Nice (but poor) troll...I give you 3 out of 10 for it.

If you had watched the re-run of Motorway patrol last night you would have seen the answer.

[Bassmatt]

Was a genuine question. I didn't and dont watch Motorway Patrol, why wasnt he stopped straight away?
3/10 is a bit harsh. Im new to this trolling business.:innocent:

[scumdog]

Was a genuine question. I didn't and dont watch Motorway Patrol, why wasnt he stopped straight away?

I dunno - what case are you talking about and was it police or public that saw the 'erratic driving'?

And on M.P the cops stopped at least two drivers they noticed were driving in an erratic fashion (and they WERE ferkin erratic too)

Still not sure why you would expect to be 'pulled over immediately' if you were doing 5km over???

[Bassmatt]

I dunno - what case are you talking about and was it police or public that saw the 'erratic driving'?

And on M.P the cops stopped at least two drivers they noticed were driving in an erratic fashion (and they WERE ferkin erratic too)

Case was quoted in the OP. If you dont know then why would i have seen the answer on telly last night?

[Bassmatt]

Still not sure why you would expect to be 'pulled over immediately' if you were doing 5km over???[/QUOTE]

Thought that was the new tolerance. Why wouldnt I be stopped. I have been. I am speeding and speed kills.

[Pascal]

Case was quoted in the OP. If you dont know then why would i have seen the answer on telly last night?

Do Police do checks on regos? If they see a driver driving erratically, do they have a little computer they can check a rego on and see the details of the owner, etc?

[scumdog]

Case was quoted in the OP. If you dont know then why would i have seen the answer on telly last night?

(a)So again I ask you: Who DID see the 'erratic driving' in the OP? - Police or public? (It would make quite a difference to the story.)

(b)Because last night it showed people being pulled over straight away for their erratic driving???

[Bassmatt]

(a)So again I ask you: Who DID see the 'erratic driving' in the OP? - Police or public? (It would make quite a difference to the story.)

(b)Because last night it showed people being pulled over straight away for their erratic driving???

I dont know. I made an assumption.:facepalm: You are correct it would make a big difference.
I withdraw the implied accusation against the police.

[Jantar]

I believe the Christchurch case was a number years back and involved a senior police officer. The constable who stopped him initially didn't ask for a breath test, but followed up with a visit to the senior offer's home a couple of hours later. The incident was described in Ian Wishart's book on Helen Clark.

[Bassmatt]

I believe the Christchurch case was a number years back and involved a senior police officer. The constable who stopped him initially didn't ask for a breath test, but followed up with a visit to the senior offer's home a couple of hours later. The incident was described in Ian Wishart's book on Helen Clark.

Ok. I withdraw my withdrawal if thats the case.:bleh:

[scumdog]

I believe the Christchurch case was a number years back and involved a senior police officer. The constable who stopped him initially didn't ask for a breath test, but followed up with a visit to the senior offer's home a couple of hours later. The incident was described in Ian Wishart's book on Helen Clark.


IF it is that case then it sort of answers the question.

It doesn't clarify if it it was Police who saw the erratic driving and stopped the car - or if they stopped the car because a member of the public saw the erratic driving, reported it and Police responded and stopped the car without seeing any erratic driving.

The impression I got a few posts back (post #37) was that Police had seen erratic driving and ignored it.

[Bassmatt]

IF it is that case then it sort of answers the question.

It doesn't clarify if it it was Police who saw the erratic driving and stopped the car - or if they stopped the car because a member of the public saw the erratic driving, reported it and Police responded and stopped the car without seeing any erratic driving.

The impression I got a few posts back was that Police had seen erratic driving and ignored it.

So what is police procedure when a car has been reported driving erratically and is later stopped by police even though they may not have witnessed said erratic driving.
Surely a breath test into one of those machines you say your address into should be the least they would do.

[Banditbandit]

Hmmm..interesting...how long ago was that??


That's why the need for continuity of pursuit. I remember this case was in the papers, 2009 I think, so it must have happened that way.

My friend did it sometime in the 1970s ... so it's not the recent one ..


This annoys me.

Some halfwit was out there driving drunkenly enough the police noticed him. He appealed the conviction, even if it was obtained because of an officer transgressing on the drinker's rights.

If you've fucked up, pay your dues and own what you do.

I'm with Pascal ... getting off a charge is one thing ... but I don't want drunken cage drivers coming the other way when I'm on the road ..

[rustic101]

and a Supt in Wellington still has his 'contract car'; and job, albeit in the 'special projects' team in the Ivory Tower after his refusal to be screened when the lads did a door knock.... Legally he was correct, morally he is bankrupt!!!