Highway Patrol making stuff up

[jimbo600]

Interesting find when I got home from a ride today. Turns out I was speeding at a certain time at a certain place while crossing a double yellow. Thing is I was never at this place at this time so I have been subject to HP just inventing infringements. luckily I have a CCTV security system that backs up the fact that my bike was safely at home during the alleged offending. It also shows the HP officer rifling through my mail. Think I'll be having a word with the local district commander. I have heard tales about HP making shit up but always discounted the stories. Turns out they actually do invent bollocks up.

[Str8 Jacket]

Man you'd think that they would've been clever enough to have waited until they actually spotted you out on the road sometime... Bet your stoked that you have cctv, bet they're spewing! hehe

[onearmedbandit]

WTF? You are joking right?

[Swoop]

If you have him on film going through your letterbox...

I thought it was an offence to interfere with the mail.

[doc]

Somehow you have drawn their attention. Not a good sign mate

[98tls]

As one arm said..........you gotta be jokin........why would he be going through your mail........to try and intercept said infringement notice :gob: ha ha if this is true will be great entertainment..............:yes:

[Jantar]

Make a copy of your survelience, then contact the Police Complaints Authority and the media.

[Clivoris]

Maate! Gob-smacked:gob: Have you been romancing his favorite farmyard animal or something? He must have some kind of beef with you and has decided to settle it in a somewhat dishonest way. Anyway, I thought that they had to stop you and discuss the infringement before booking you, or is that prehistoric thinking? Me thinks he is in the poo now:yes:

[Steam]

Holy crap dude, TV3 and TV1 current affairs will pay heaps for that footage!
DO it!

[Motu]

I saw this on Shortland St last week - he's pregnant!

[jimbo600]

If you have him on film going through your letterbox...

I thought it was an offence to interfere with the mail.

He didn't open the mail, just had a good fossick at what was in there. Still pissed me off though

[jimbo600]

Make a copy of your survelience, then contact the Police Complaints Authority and the media.

Won't go that far. I have his QID so I'll go see him and his district commander

[Jantar]

He didn't open the mail, just had a good fossick at what was in there. Without either your permission or a search warrant. Its still illegal.

[jimbo600]

Holy crap dude, TV3 and TV1 current affairs will pay heaps for that footage!
DO it!

I'm not going to drag the whole police through the mud as they're always getting shitty press and NZ media aren't exactly unbiased towards the cops. One bad apple and all that.

[NighthawkNZ]

I saw this on Shortland St last week - he's pregnant!

And he's married his sister... oh wait that was another episode... :dodge: :gob:

[doc]

I'm not going to drag the whole police through the mud as they're always getting shitty press and NZ media aren't exactly unbiased towards the cops. One bad apple and all that.
You are getting soft

[DMNTD]

Thing is I was never at this place at this time so I have been subject to HP just inventing infringements.
I'm currently taking them to court for a similar thing...claimed it was me they saw when really my info was simply passed on from another officer later that day. I only wish I had video evidence to prove otherwise so could get a bit...messy. :mellow:
Good luck :yes:

[davereid]

Its got to be a mistake.. the highway patrol would never go through your mail, cos they can't read. Maybe it was yer garbage bin an he was looking for cigarette butts...

[jimbo600]

Its got to be a mistake.. the highway patrol would never go through your mail, cos they can't read. Maybe it was yer garbage bin an he was looking for cigarette butts...

Or receipts for RPGs for my al-Qaeda obligations.

[The_Dover]

same shit happened to me man.

I never speed.

Get one of your single mates to go fuck his wife or boyfriend.

[jafar]

He was probably going through the mail to get your name, take all the information you have to your lawyer as soon as you can , there are several charges that can be laid against the officer in question . By the time your lawyer has finished this cop should be out of the force with a dishonourable discharge. He will be lucky to get a job cleaning shit cans . He is supposed to be an officer of the court , with video evidence of his dishonesty available his future testimony will always be suspect !!
You are one of the lucky ones ,you have the cctv footage to nail his sorry arse. There are a few dishonest cops around with the evidence you have do us all a favour & MAKE IT ONE LESS:done:

[elle-f]

youtube!....

[The_Dover]

do us all a favour & MAKE IT ONE LESS:done:

do you have a gun jimbo?

[Swoop]

He didn't open the mail, just had a good fossick at what was in there. Still pissed me off though

It is the same thing. Nobody has the right to access your letterbox.

Sometimes I wonder if courier drivers know this. They can deposit a piece of paper into your letterbox, but have no right to open it and retrieve anything.

[Finn]

Post your CCTV video here of him going through your letterbox.

[Skyryder]

Most officers are honest. Some will lie and cheat to cover their butts. Others use the force to bully those that are unable defend themselves. It can cost a lot of money to get rid on a dishonest cop. You seem to have the evidence. By all means inform the DC. He will agree with everthing you say and tell you that the officer will be disciplined. Maybe? Police officers are trained in the law. They know what is legal and what is not. If as you say he went through you letter box he commited an offence.

Think on this. Do you think this police officer was going to show you the same kind of compassion that you are showing him or her. I very much doubt it.

I would not hesitate to place this matter in the hands of my solicitor. Who knows what he has been doing in the past or may do in the future.

I would not post the evidence on this site. Not yet.

[Swoop]

Others use the force to bully those that are unable defend themselves.
Yeah, he was on telly tonight... GO DARTH baby!!!! (that asthma isn't getting any better)

[Dafe]

Man, Thats a suprise...... Considering who you are working for.

It sure does sound like they have it in for you. If cops are going through your mail, I wouldn't put it past them to be setting up a HP trap at some stage, just for you.

Watch your back and ride safe. Hopefully whatever eventuates, doesn't involve some cop gaining a personal vendetta against you.

Your best bet maybe getting a lawyer involved who will raise the issue on your behalf with the DC and PCA.
That way if this guy does nail you sometime down the track, you have a record to fall back on, you can also log a complaint for harrasment etc. Either way, It won't look so good for the cop if he books you. Especially if he has a previous harrasment claim logged with the PCA.
Any fine you get you can then defend by writing into the PCA again, claiming your word against his, with emphasis on harrassment of course!

What sort of CCTV system do you run? Am considering putting one up myself.

What to do???

[Toaster]

Make a copy of your survelience, then contact the Police Complaints Authority and the media.

I agree with Jantar.... I am just horrified any cop in NZ would do that. Dude, if this is indeed a fact someone did this, then I really hope you do something about it - if anyone in that job does that shit, they need to be prosecuted asap and kicked out with a size 15 boot up their date so hard they can taste shoe polish.

[Toaster]

youtube!....

Great idea!

[Toaster]

There are a few dishonest cops around with the evidence you have do us all a favour & MAKE IT ONE LESS:done:

AND hopefully send a strong message they cant do this corrupt shit....

[merv]

I hope you're not attracting too much trouble to our fair city.

It wasn't that dude that drives the Yankee police cars around here just making out he's fresh out of Police Academy is it?

Otherwise, yeah do the bastard.

[skelstar]

Sounds a bit bizzarre, it's not personal is it Jimbo?

[RantyDave]

youtube!....
Seconded. Quit fucking around, it's not that we want to drag the "whole police through this mud" but rather start to educate the New Zealand police that perhaps it's time they tried to earn the trust of the community they are supposed to be working for.

Let me know if you need technical help.

[Fatjim]

Mate, if your not pulling our tits then you've got a get out of jail free card there. Don't play it till you have too. Like when you're really screwed and in front of a judge.

Maybe you shouldn't show the tape, just mention that you might have one, and ask them "nicely" to back off. Failing that, if you've got the guys name, get some piccies (do you know any good photographers :gob: ) of his kids leaving school, and post them wih a list of the local known child sex offenders. He's likely to be more reasonable in future.

[Toaster]

nah... post the tape, giz us somet to look at dude.

[Skyryder]

Mate, if your not pulling our tits then you've got a get out of jail free card there. Don't play it till you have too. Like when you're really screwed and in front of a judge.

bIGGER tHAN wINJA and with brains to match.

That shit you just posted is about the very worst thing you can do.

Skyryder

[Fatjim]

come on "riding in the rain", why?

[jimbo600]

Mate, if your not pulling our tits then you've got a get out of jail free card there. Don't play it till you have too. Like when you're really screwed and in front of a judge.

Maybe you shouldn't show the tape, just mention that you might have one, and ask them "nicely" to back off. Failing that, if you've got the guys name, get some piccies (do you know any good photographers :gob: ) of his kids leaving school, and post them wih a list of the local known child sex offenders. He's likely to be more reasonable in future.

Jesus mate I'm not that pissy about it.

[Fatjim]

Well your ritalin dosage must be too high. A copper going into my letter box would get me all pissed. If the copper was acting on his own, then I'd be making plans to get him off my back.

The kiddies picks mught be going too far, but sometimes the sledgehammer works best. "trust me, I know what I'm doing"

[Timber020]

Your in a fortunate position, you have evidence of an attempted stitch up. Others arent going to be so lucky.

Get the media on it and the police, its the only way to keep the police honest when some of them are doing this kind of rubbish. You will be doing all other motorists a favour by doing this, especially fellow motorcyclists.

[spudchucka]

Mate, if your not pulling our tits then you've got a get out of jail free card there. Don't play it till you have too. Like when you're really screwed and in front of a judge.

Maybe you shouldn't show the tape, just mention that you might have one, and ask them "nicely" to back off. Failing that, if you've got the guys name, get some piccies (do you know any good photographers :gob: ) of his kids leaving school, and post them wih a list of the local known child sex offenders. He's likely to be more reasonable in future.

Heard of blackmail?

[spudchucka]

Your in a fortunate position, you have evidence of an attempted stitch up.

The cop was probably just trying to confirm who lived at the address.

He should have just knocked on the door though.

[Krusti]

You know don't you that cops don't have red uniforms and ride CT110 bikes?:scooter:

Keep smiling...

PS.....I'm back!

[scumdog]

There's some ferkin immature childish posts on this thread - and sadly some of them are not joking, sheesh, never knew so many 12 year olds were on KB!!

[White trash]

Sounds to me like a case of mistaken identity, nothing more. Cop wanted to confirm who lived at the address.

He fucked up, I doubt wether he had a personal vendetta or anything.

Some of you guys REALLY need to lay off the conspiracy theorys.

[jimbo600]

Sounds to me like a case of mistaken identity, nothing more. Cop wanted to confirm who lived at the address.

He fucked up, I doubt wether he had a personal vendetta or anything.

Some of you guys REALLY need to lay off the conspiracy theorys.

Well I also have footage of the same cop going through my bins and leaving a mutilated pigs head in my letterbox.

Plus the address on the ION was "that cunt on the gsxr" so I guess he had the right person.

[The_Dover]

Plus the address on the ION was "that cunt on the gsxr" so I guess he had the right person.

he could have been looking for any of a number of us.....

[Jantar]

Sounds to me like a case of mistaken identity, nothing more. Cop wanted to confirm who lived at the address.

He fucked up, I doubt wether he had a personal vendetta or anything.

Some of you guys REALLY need to lay off the conspiracy theorys.

Maybe it was simply a case of mistaken identity, but if you received a ticket through the mail for speeding and overtaking on a double yellow at a time that your bike was parked up safely at home, could you PROVE that you weren't guilty?

Under New Zealand law, in traffic offence cases, the onus of proof is on the defendent. That means that if a cop gives you a ticket then you have to prove that you aren't guilty; the cop doesn't have to prove that you are.

This makes the claim of mistaken identity even more abhorent than if it was a vendetta. A vendetta would be easier to prove. No matter how this is viewed it is still a matter for the police complaints authority. There are too many good cops out there to be tainted by the actions of a few bad ones.

[jimbo600]

he could have been looking for any of a number of us.....

OK it was "that pommy cunt on the gsxr with the dribbly cock"

[The_Dover]

or maybe he was just looking for those dodgy gay animal porn mags that you get sent over from Holland.

there's quite a growing market for that stuff in New Zealand you know.

[White trash]

So a cop sees a bike being ridden in a dangerous and reckless manner, gets what he thinks is the number plate, should he do nothing JUST IN CASE it's not the right number?

I aggree, it's disgusting that we have to prove our innocence in our fucked up judicial system, but that aint the pigs fault.

[Steam]

So a cop sees a bike being ridden in a dangerous and reckless manner, gets what he thinks is the number plate, should he do nothing JUST IN CASE it's not the right number?

Yep, that's right. It's the law. Requiring someone to prove their innocence is the hallmark of facist police states.

[Jantar]

So a cop sees a bike being ridden in a dangerous and reckless manner, gets what he thinks is the number plate, should he do nothing JUST IN CASE it's not the right number?...
If he had the number plate then he wouldn't have needed to check the identification by going through the contents of a mail box.

[White trash]

Yep, that's right. It's the law. Requiring someone to prove their innocence is the hallmark of facist police states.
Complete agreement from me mate. Still aint the cops fault.

[cowpoos]

Complete agreement from me mate. Still aint the cops fault.
I dunno jimmy....the letter box thing is a bit OTT...police have the ablity to to find out who lives at a certian address and link it to rego...would have though that was only a RT call away...what he was doing actually requires a warrent...I dunno the full story or his intent...but the police have ways and means of doing things and a proticol to follow... but I'm with jimbo on the quietly careful approch to talk to the DC...this doesn't need to be a public witch hunt... because the public genralise... so gives the whole force a bad name... when there are some bloody good coppa's out there... the public already think alsorts of shit about bikers...??? and there seems to be this "ALL CAGES ARE STUPID" thing going on here on KB....not to mention drivers of 4X4's....

[The_Dover]

or farmers...

[spudchucka]

I aggree, it's disgusting that we have to prove our innocence in our fucked up judicial system, but that aint the pigs fault.

Actually you just have to establish reasonable doubt, which wouldn't be that difficult in Jimbo's case.

[MD]

There's a perfectly legit reason Jimbo. I lifted a copy of your licence a while back when you weren't looking and it's worked a treat. Since the heats on you a bit much now I will switch to the copy I'm getting of fatjim's when it arrives from the printers. Should only be another couple of days so I suggest you lie low.
Bye the way, when I said on the blower the other day that we must get out for a ride - best not! We can't both produce the same licence now can we.
Hey the good news is if you lose your number plate I have a spare with your rego on it for you..$10, otherwise it goes on trademe

Seriously, this doesn't sound to good. Was it the Policeman himself claiming you did wrong or a case of bloody do-goodie joe pubic hairs with a grudge making up stories. Maybe it was that Cop that stopped me a year ago in Piecock, now he's the first Cop I've meet that I wouldn't trust and he gave me the creepies. It just felt like at any minute he would fabricate an offence just for fun to prove that he had the power of the badge.
I'd try not to escalate things. A quiet word with the DC as you suggested. definitely no posting pics on the web or media games.
Good luck
ps- If you need a spare drivers licence in your name check out trademe before the auction ends.

[marty]

maybe the cop hand delivered a letter to you, then decided (he just wanted to double check the ticket was error-free before he left it there) to remove it from the letterbox, and was making sure he had the right envelope, but it had got mixed up with the others when he put it in there - you wouldn't want him to open your telecom bill by mistake now would you?..........

[Ixion]

Hm. I'm not clear if the mailbox incident was before or after the date of the alleged offence. HP checking out your mailbox THEN a ticket arriving does seem a bit suspicious. Makes one wonder about someone complaining about "that dreadful motorcyclist who lives at No .... " , and the cop needed to find out who you were to "arrange" a ticket. Rather a big coincidence otherwise.

T'other way, seems innocuous enough.

[Skyryder]

Sounds to me like a case of mistaken identity, nothing more. Cop wanted to confirm who lived at the address.

He fucked up, I doubt wether he had a personal vendetta or anything.

Some of you guys REALLY need to lay off the conspiracy theorys.

He could have knocked on the door and asked. There's no conspiracy here WT. Just a copper acting in a suspicious manner. He needs to be asked by his superiors 'what and why' he was opening up a letter box. And his explanation needs to be given to the home owner. That would be the very minimum courtesy.

We all wait in anticipation..............hopefully not in vain.

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

Just a copper acting in a suspicious manner. He needs to be asked by his superiors 'what and why' he was opening up a letter box.

Skyryder

I've had a quick look at the legislation, (Postal Services Act1998) and it doesn't appear that opening a mail box is an offence.

Opening mail certainly is, (section 23, punishable by 6 months prison or $5000 fine).

Disclosing information as to the contents of that mail once opened is another offence, (section 20 - same penalties).

I can't speak for this cop because I don't know what his intentions were but when I've been trying to track down offenders with warrants to arrest I've examined the contents of mail boxes as an investigative means of determining who resides at an address, (all you are interested in is the name on the mail, not the contents).

To seize mail and examine its contents would require a search warrant, as far as I can tell simply opening a mail box and looking at its contents isn't an offence. In fact I would suggest that anyone has a common law right to open a mail box, (how else would you post something that is too large to insert through the slot at the front).

It will be interesting to hear what the outcome of this is.

[marty]

but it's much more fun chasing false accusations and conspiriciary stories

[Shadows]

He saw the CCTV camera and thought it was a tinny house. The ticket is a totally unrelated matter.

[Skyryder]

I've had a quick look at the legislation, (Postal Services Act1998) and it doesn't appear that opening a mail box is an offence.

Opening mail certainly is, (section 23, punishable by 6 months prison or $5000 fine).

Disclosing information as to the contents of that mail once opened is another offence, (section 20 - same penalties).

I can't speak for this cop because I don't know what his intentions were but when I've been trying to track down offenders with warrants to arrest I've examined the contents of mail boxes as an investigative means of determining who resides at an address, (all you are interested in is the name on the mail, not the contents).

To seize mail and examine its contents would require a search warrant, as far as I can tell simply opening a mail box and looking at its contents isn't an offence. In fact I would suggest that anyone has a common law right to open a mail box, (how else would you post something that is too large to insert through the slot at the front).

It will be interesting to hear what the outcome of this is.

Perhaps the measures that you have taken could be argued as acceptable if indeed their is no offence in checking mail for names as to who lives on the premises, if no one is at home. But any form of 'prying' for any reason can lead to situations of compromise.

As a police officer you have connections to the Crown Law Office. Maybe a query to your superiors on this would enlighten not only myself but others on here also.

I agree I hope we do hear what the outcome is...............if for no other reason, that the 'incident' was completly innocent.

Skyrder

[spudchucka]

I've been on leave for seven weeks, I start back on Wednesday for 7 nights of night shift, it won't be on my priority list I'm afraid.

I'm sure Jimbo will tell us what happens in the end.

[Skyryder]

I've had a quick look at the legislation, (Postal Services Act1998) and it doesn't appear that opening a mail box is an offence.

Opening mail certainly is, (section 23, punishable by 6 months prison or $5000 fine).

Disclosing information as to the contents of that mail once opened is another offence, (section 20 - same penalties).

I can't speak for this cop because I don't know what his intentions were but when I've been trying to track down offenders with warrants to arrest I've examined the contents of mail boxes as an investigative means of determining who resides at an address, (all you are interested in is the name on the mail, not the contents).

To seize mail and examine its contents would require a search warrant, as far as I can tell simply opening a mail box and looking at its contents isn't an offence. In fact I would suggest that anyone has a common law right to open a mail box, (how else would you post something that is too large to insert through the slot at the front).

It will be interesting to hear what the outcome of this is.



No but it's very clear in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

My wifes a JP and she had a look through some corrospondance that the Canty JP Association flicks of periodicaly for their 'education' on legal matters etc.

I she gave me some interesting comments from the 'blurbs.' in respect of SEARCH WARRENTS.

Legislation

New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990

Section 21 [Unreasonable Search and Seizure]
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence, or otherwise.

**

The starting point here is that people have a right 'not' to be searched or have their 'property' searched. The letter box and its contents are private property. Now you have the right to enter the property. No dispute. If in the course of entering property and walking up to the door you see some stolen property or whatever you actions will not constitute a search. But if you decide to take a 'nosy' around the property i.e. leave the path to the dwelling for example then the legislation is very clear.....Section 21 in part.......Everyone one has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property,.etc .......Section 21 also clearly defines corrospondance. The removal of mail from a letter box is for whatever reason a search under section 21 of the NZ Bill of Rights, of that there is not the slightest of doubt and as such illegal.


Skyryder

[mikey]

Skyryder

dont get your wife/jp buddies/law writers/ law/ spudchucka wrong but i think i have mis read or mis interpreted somewhere along the lines

say officer bumble bee is walking up my path to the front door (worn down grass, not over growen grass) he knocks on door, no one answers, but is nosy he takes a few steps off the beaten path,

finds my grow shed witha hundred plants, my asian slave family locked up in there cage, maris in the garage ripping up the latest bmws and harelys ive stolen, uncle jo molesting cousin beth on the stoep, and cousin earl in the back shed trying to brew me some real meth.....

officer bumblee bee would have no legal grounds to arrest anyone as he had no legal grounds to search? maybe i should build i big massive fuck off wall around the house and not answer the gate. sorted. tell me im right.

[Big Dog]

dont get your wife/jp buddies/law writers/ law/ spudchucka wrong but i think i have mis read or mis interpreted somewhere along the lines

say officer bumble bee is walking up my path to the front door (worn down grass, not over growen grass) he knocks on door, no one answers, but is nosy he takes a few steps off the beaten path,

finds my grow shed witha hundred plants, my asian slave family locked up in there cage, maris in the garage ripping up the latest bmws and harelys ive stolen, uncle jo molesting cousin beth on the stoep, and cousin earl in the back shed trying to brew me some real meth.....

officer bumblee bee would have no legal grounds to arrest anyone as he had no legal grounds to search? maybe i should build i big massive fuck off wall around the house and not answer the gate. sorted. tell me im right.
Until someone gives them a reason.
or until sights sounds or smells from the public domain attract just cause.

[spudchucka]

No but it's very clear in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

My wifes a JP and she had a look through some corrospondance that the Canty JP Association flicks of periodicaly for their 'education' on legal matters etc.

I she gave me some interesting comments from the 'blurbs.' in respect of SEARCH WARRENTS.

Legislation

New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990

Section 21 [Unreasonable Search and Seizure]
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence, or otherwise.

**

The starting point here is that people have a right 'not' to be searched or have their 'property' searched. The letter box and its contents are private property. Now you have the right to enter the property. No dispute. If in the course of entering property and walking up to the door you see some stolen property or whatever you actions will not constitute a search. But if you decide to take a 'nosy' around the property i.e. leave the path to the dwelling for example then the legislation is very clear.....Section 21 in part.......Everyone one has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property,.etc .......Section 21 also clearly defines corrospondance. The removal of mail from a letter box is for whatever reason a search under section 21 of the NZ Bill of Rights, of that there is not the slightest of doubt and as such illegal.


Skyryder

Ask her to explain the Shaheed balance test.

[Dafe]

officer bumblee bee would have no legal grounds to arrest anyone as he had no legal grounds to search? maybe i should build i big massive fuck off wall around the house and not answer the gate. sorted. tell me im right.

Nah Mikey, You can't just build a wall these days, Bloody councils. You'll have your place crawling with cops disguised as building consentors.
Thats as much as 30 police visits.

Stick to your doberman/s and move your mail box a couple of metres back from the fence/pathway. Paint a red bullseye with "Throw here!" written on it.

Keep up the Positive Re-enforcement dog training too.
Chocolate drops for every Police Officer Joe teddy Bear that gets ripped apart.

and keep Uncle Jo, the Mari's and your Asian Slave family out of view. Shame you don't have any closet space to hide them in.

[jimbo600]

dont get your wife/jp buddies/law writers/ law/ spudchucka wrong but i think i have mis read or mis interpreted somewhere along the lines

say officer bumble bee is walking up my path to the front door (worn down grass, not over growen grass) he knocks on door, no one answers, but is nosy he takes a few steps off the beaten path,

finds my grow shed witha hundred plants, my asian slave family locked up in there cage, maris in the garage ripping up the latest bmws and harelys ive stolen, uncle jo molesting cousin beth on the stoep, and cousin earl in the back shed trying to brew me some real meth.....

officer bumblee bee would have no legal grounds to arrest anyone as he had no legal grounds to search? maybe i should build i big massive fuck off wall around the house and not answer the gate. sorted. tell me im right.

Um I believe that under the misuse of drugs act there is a power to search without warrant.

[Skyryder]

dont get your wife/jp buddies/law writers/ law/ spudchucka wrong but i think i have mis read or mis interpreted somewhere along the lines

say officer bumble bee is walking up my path to the front door (worn down grass, not over growen grass) he knocks on door, no one answers, but is nosy he takes a few steps off the beaten path,

finds my grow shed witha hundred plants, my asian slave family locked up in there cage, maris in the garage ripping up the latest bmws and harelys ive stolen, uncle jo molesting cousin beth on the stoep, and cousin earl in the back shed trying to brew me some real meth.....

officer bumblee bee would have no legal grounds to arrest anyone as he had no legal grounds to search? maybe i should build i big massive fuck off wall around the house and not answer the gate. sorted. tell me im right.

All da Man gotta do is holla' Hey Mikey........hey Mikey. Go figure.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Um I believe that under the misuse of drugs act there is a power to search without warrant.

Yes but the police still need reasonable cause. Section 21 states.

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence, or otherwise.

The sticky point is what information or evidence is reasonable. This thread was about an HP officer 'rifleing' through a letter box. And it is pretty clear both in action and intent that any kind of search on a property without a warrent or without reasonable cause is illegal.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Ask her to explain the Shaheed balance test.

No I think you need to explain where the law gives you the right to conduct a search of mailboxes to establish the identity of the occupier of the dwelling.

Skyryder

[Shadows]

Um I believe that under the misuse of drugs act there is a power to search without warrant.

And you dismissed my tinny house theory :doobey:

[Skyryder]

Ask her to explain the Shaheed balance test.

I read all of this

http://www.adls.org.nz/doclibrary/public/whiteboard/TELEVISIONNEWZEALANDLIMITEDVROGERS(JUDGMENTS_JTK_3 01.pdf

Bottomline don't talk to the Police with the camera running

THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7) In late July 2004 a copy of the reconstruction videtape was supplied to TVNZ by a Police Officer.


I'm still not sure just what this has to do with a police officer checking out a mail box. Mind you on this decision the Police could hardly complain if this tape was 'supplied' to the media. Somehow I don't think that was the intent of you post.

Skyryder


I forgot to post this.

(127) Part of

On the other hand many judges and commentators are of the view that the Sharheed balancing test should be replaced by an approach which is more rights centered and more likely to result in the exclusion of evedence obtained in breach of the the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

[Ixion]

dont get your wife/jp buddies/law writers/ law/ spudchucka wrong but i think i have mis read or mis interpreted somewhere along the lines

say officer bumble bee is walking up my path to the front door (worn down grass, not over growen grass) he knocks on door, no one answers, but is nosy he takes a few steps off the beaten path,

finds my grow shed witha hundred plants, my asian slave family locked up in there cage, maris in the garage ripping up the latest bmws and harelys ive stolen, uncle jo molesting cousin beth on the stoep, and cousin earl in the back shed trying to brew me some real meth.....

officer bumblee bee would have no legal grounds to arrest anyone as he had no legal grounds to search? maybe i should build i big massive fuck off wall around the house and not answer the gate. sorted. tell me im right.

Correct. But (there's always a but) PC Bumble Bee can get straight on the radio to base "Sarge, go get me a warrant right now, cos this is what I see. I'll wait here to make sure they don't take it away. And what I see is sure reasonable grounds to suspect (which is all that's needed for a warrant)". And once PC Bumble Bee has his warrant , you're toast.

See.Easy. You do it the way the law works.

And some of those things don't even need a warrant.

In general the law works. Smart cops figure this and work with it. It's only the dumbos that bash their heads against it.

[Ixion]

Yes but the police still need reasonable cause. Section 21 states.

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence, or otherwise.

The sticky point is what information or evidence is reasonable. This thread was about an HP officer 'rifleing' through a letter box. And it is pretty clear both in action and intent that any kind of search on a property without a warrent or without reasonable cause is illegal.

Skyryder

Exactly so. "Reasonable cause". That bastard on the Clapham omnibus again.

In Mr Mikeys's well argued and cogent (see Mikey, you never knew you were cogent, did y') instance, PC Bumble Bee would have "reasonable cause".

In the OP's instance, it would depend on the whether the rifling was before or after the ticket. If after, then there is reasonable cause. " I , PC Bumble Bee, saw a person commiting various heinous and illegal acts. I had reasonable cause to suspect that it was the dude who lived at XX Blog Street, and , acting in pursuance of that reasonable suspicion, I checked the mailbox to see if that suspicion were correct". If the rifling took place before the ticket, no reasonable cause, and therefore unconstitutional.

[imdying]

Hahahaahha, would take two minutes to post some screenies from the video here... Pics or it didn't happen. (very effective troll mind you!)

[scumdog]

I read all of this

http://www.adls.org.nz/doclibrary/public/whiteboard/TELEVISIONNEWZEALANDLIMITEDVROGERS(JUDGMENTS_JTK_3 01.pdf

Bottomline don't talk to the Police with the camera running

Hmm, it was LAWYERS that wanted the video interviews installed "That way the Police will not be able to obtain confessions from out clients by means of inducement or other physical or mental duress"

Hahahah!

All it did was make their clients look like the twankers they are.
Now a lot advise against video interviews.


BTW I make anybody I'm speaking to at the roadside turn off their cell phone - otherwise......

[Fatjim]

After reading that disgusting ruling it is plain that the justice system of the western world is not concerned with justice.

My limited experience of judges shows them to be isolated from the "common man" and are therefor out of tune with both common sense and proper justice. Judges are more in tune with lawyers, and I think they get a kick out of a well constructed argument, and this clouds their independence.

I would also like to know how a jury, given that evidence and instructed to ignore it could. Surely a jury is the backstop of stupidity, and has the power to ignore a judges instructions if they deem them plainly contrary to justice.

Hasn't anybody seen "The verdict".

[Fatjim]

Hmm, it was LAWYERS that wanted the video interviews installed "That way the Police will not be able to obtain confessions from out clients by means of inducement or other physical or mental duress"

Hahahah!


I think those who are in the right would be the ones who are most likely to have this sort of evidence available.




All it did was make their clients look like the twankers they are.



Might I suggest that blanket attitude of all who need a lawyer are "twankers" is the attitude that turns law abiding citizens against the fuzz.

[scumdog]

I think those who are in the right would be the ones who are most likely to have this sort of evidence available.

Might I suggest that blanket attitude of all who need a lawyer are "twankers" is the attitude that turns law abiding citizens against the fuzz.

Notice I did not say "all" clients.

But the ones who lawyers thought had most to gain from a video interview are the ones who now shun it like the plague.:yes: - well especially after their lawyer 'suggests' it would not be to their advantage for a Judge to see them au natural so to speak (when they have not shaved/had a hair-cut/got a clean smart set of clothes/been 'groomed' as to what to NOT say etc)

[davereid]

I would also like to know how a jury, given that evidence and instructed to ignore it could. Surely a jury is the backstop of stupidity, and has the power to ignore a judges instructions if they deem them plainly contrary to justice.


You are quite right Fatjim - the original purpose of a jury was to ensure that the law was sensible as well as determining the innocence or guilt of the accused. Thats why you get "your peers" on a jury, rather than the G'mint just hiring 12 full time people to be jurors.

The assumption that "because it is the law it must be right" should be challenged by all credible jurors. Don't forget that over the years it has been legal to keep slaves and beat your wife, but illegal to dance if you are irish.

In recent times we have forgotten that as a jury we can say "yep, looks like he may have done it, but no way will we convict someone of that"

[Actually, I haven't forgotten, if your "crime" is victimless, I'd be hard pushed to vote for guilty, I guess thats why the prosecution never let me get on a jury]

[spudchucka]

No I think you need to explain where the law gives you the right to conduct a search of mailboxes to establish the identity of the occupier of the dwelling.

Skyryder

Police examining the names on mail in a mail box for the purpose of determining who may or may not reside at a residence once other means have been exhausted is not unreasonable, (assuming of course that the police officer involved has a legitimate and lawful purpose for wanting to locate that person). It would not amount to being anywhere near a serious breach of section 21.

The bill of rights act and the shaheed balancing test make the whole thing quite subjective, it isn't as black and white as you suggest.

And if you have read the R vs Shaheed ruling you will understand that even if a search is unreasonable in terms of the bill of rights act it isn't necessarily unlawful and vice versa.

[spudchucka]

Judges are more in tune with lawyers.......

Judges are lawyers........

[Finn]

Isn't it amazing what the cops will do for revenue yet try and get them to investigate a burglary or vandalism (with evidence of the scumbag) and they'll laugh in your face.

[SPman]

It helps if you take off the false nose and chin.........

[Skyryder]

Police examining the names on mail in a mail box for the purpose of determining who may or may not reside at a residence once other means have been exhausted is not unreasonable, (assuming of course that the police officer involved has a legitimate and lawful purpose for wanting to locate that person). It would not amount to being anywhere near a serious breach of section 21.

The bill of rights act and the shaheed balancing test make the whole thing quite subjective, it isn't as black and white as you suggest.

And if you have read the R vs Shaheed ruling you will understand that even if a search is unreasonable in terms of the bill of rights act it isn't necessarily unlawful and vice versa.

So your are saying if you knock on the door and no one is home then it is not unreasonable to search the letter box to ascertain who lives in the dwelling? What about other dwellers on the property of whom you have no 'interest' in? Waht right do you have to remove their mail. I would argue the search of a letter box is one of expediancy other than reasonableness as you claim. Section 21 makes very clear the intent of that clause. And you know as well as I 'intent' is as important as meaning. 21 of the Bill of Rights specifacly mentions 'corrospondence' and 'other,' both of which could be argued as the letter and mailbox respectively and when coupled with the Shaheed test, may well include the removal of the mail from the letter box.


Skyryder

[spudchucka]

So your are saying if you knock on the door and no one is home then it is not unreasonable to search the letter box to ascertain who lives in the dwelling? What about other dwellers on the property of whom you have no 'interest' in? Waht right do you have to remove their mail. I would argue the search of a letter box is one of expediancy other than reasonableness as you claim. Section 21 makes very clear the intent of that clause. And you know as well as I 'intent' is as important as meaning. 21 of the Bill of Rights specifacly mentions 'corrospondence' and 'other,' both of which could be argued as the letter and mailbox respectively and when coupled with the Shaheed test, may well include the removal of the mail from the letter box.


Skyryder

Your intent is only to ascertain who or who doesn't reside there.

You have no interest in the "correspondence" only the name on the envelope.

I don't believe it is unreasonable at all and in the cases I have mentioned where there is a court warrant for the person's arrest it would be totally reasonable.

[Jantar]

Your intent is only to ascertain who or who doesn't reside there.

You have no interest in the "correspondence" only the name on the envelope.

The name on the envelope doesn't confirm that addressee lives at the address, only that they are the intended recipient of the correspondence. Nor will the correspondence in the mailbox identify everyone who lives at the address.

eg. I often receive correspondence for my son. He doesn't live at my address, but its more convenient than trying to chase him all over the world. (He's currently in Darwin after spending almost a year in europe.) Anyone seeing his name on a letter in my mail box would be mistaken to believe he lives at the address on the envelope.

[scumdog]

The name on the envelope doesn't confirm that addressee lives at the address, only that they are the intended recipient of the correspondence. Nor will the correspondence in the mailbox identify everyone who lives at the address.

eg. I often receive correspondence for my son. He doesn't live at my address, but its more convenient than trying to chase him all over the world. (He's currently in Darwin after spending almost a year in europe.) Anyone seeing his name on a letter in my mail box would be mistaken to believe he lives at the address on the envelope.

I've heard (ahem!) that the mail chack may not prove somebody is actually living there but it is a good lead that they MAY have or have had links with it - and the neighbours (not talking about YOUR particular location of course) may confirm or not that this is true.

[SixPackBack]

One thing I have noticed over the time spent on KB is the attitude of some online Police Officers, who almost without fail support their fellow workers regardless of the circumstances.

The Law and Policing in general are ever changing, attempting to reflect the present society we live in and it would seem the majority of KBers [and I would argue general population] find the thought of anyone going through their private mail abhorrent.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible Coppers, try being a litle more subjective.

[Skyryder]

Your intent is only to ascertain who or who doesn't reside there.


I am not talking about 'your' intent or for that matter anyone else's, but the 'intent' of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

If as you say there is a warrent out for arrest then I would tend to agree, but that was not the case in post #1 of this thread, and it seems to me that the searching of letter boxes for whatever reason is an acceptable practice within the policing community.

# In broad terms a search is an examination of a person or property and seizure is a taking of that which is discovered. Entry and search of private property by officers of the state without permission of the owner or occupier is an actionable trespass unless authorised by the common law or under specific statutory provision. While not ordinarily a crime it is customary to refer to such trespassory intrusion as unlawful and illegal.


The above is from

Ministry of Justice

NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990:
SUMMARY OF CASE ANNOTATIONS


Now to me that seems pretty clear.


Skyryder

[scumdog]

One thing I have noticed over the time spent on KB is the attitude of some online Police Officers, who almost without fail support their fellow workers regardless of the circumstances.

The Law and Policing in general are ever changing, attempting to reflect the presant society we live in and it would seem the majority of KBers [and I would argue general population] find the thought of anyone going through their private mail abhorrent.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible Coppers, try being a litle more subjective.

Loosen up.

I've done it.
Empty looking building where XXXX was meant to have been living, a mailbox bulging with a mixture of junk and normal mail.
Of course I'm going to have a look to see if I'm at the right place.

Not saying the thread starter was under those circumstances

[SPman]

I think using fair and reasonable means to attempt to ascertain if someone is possibly residing at an address, would encompass checking the details on the outside of any mail in a letterbox. As long as it is publicly accessible - not locked and the mail is not otherwise tampered with and it is done in the legitimate execution of their duty, I see no problem with it, whatsoever.

People get too hung up, over the supposed infringement of their rights, in minor matters, without considering some of the responsibilities entailed in trying to live in a functioning community, yet in major matters, they roll over and let the "authorities" screw them over!

I wonder why that is??????

Oh well, back to the land of dreams........

[jrandom]

People get too hung up, over the supposed infringement of their rights, in minor matters...

Indeed.

Ever noticed that people pissing and moaning about 'infringement of their rights' are usually just trying to weasel out of the consequences of doing something dodgy?

[spudchucka]

The name on the envelope doesn't confirm that addressee lives at the address,

Thats why I said that it may or may not confirm who lives there.

If you find the name of the person you are looking for then that would indicate that the address would be one which you would continue making enquiries at.

[scumdog]

Isn't it amazing what the cops will do for revenue yet try and get them to investigate a burglary or vandalism (with evidence of the scumbag) and they'll laugh in your face.

Mehh, pretty low grade troll here......



(And 'revenue'? - never even think of it as such since I gain no more from the alleged 'revenue' than I do for the person that I put on front of the Court and who is sent to jail.)

[Squeak the Rat]

(And 'revenue'? - never even think of it as such since I gain no more from the alleged 'revenue' than I do for the person that I put on front of the Court and who is sent to jail.)

But do you have a quota for catching burglars?

:whistle:

[scumdog]

But do you have a quota for catching burglars?

:whistle:

Yup, the same one I have for the number if tickets I 'have' to issue.

[sAsLEX]

(And 'revenue'? - never even think of it as such since I gain no more from the alleged 'revenue' than I do for the person that I put on front of the Court and who is sent to jail.)

ah but it fills some of your performance quota

[scumdog]

ah but it fills some of your performance quota

:gob: We have a 'performance quota??, NOW I find out!:doh:

[Ixion]

I understand Chrissie Bimbo has always avoided mentioning to you, wisely recognising that brooding over your results would simply mean an even larger quota shortfall :whistle:

[scumdog]

I understand Chrissie Bimbo has always avoided mentioning to you, wisely recognising that brooding over your results would simply mean an even larger quota shortfall :whistle:

Hmm, not so worried about THAT aspect, got in a 'performance' before getting out of bed this a.m., no criticism from CB of my performance but how do you measure the quota of that sort of thing!!!????:shutup:

[El Dopa]

how do you measure the quota of that sort of thing!!!????:shutup:

decibels

....

[scumdog]

decibels

....

See my contribution on the thread on "How to make your own screamer" it was a long time back.

[Squeak the Rat]

Or was that a HARD system?

[jimbo600]

Righto bit of an update. I contacted the officer in question and the conversation went like this.

J600: Hello, received your POL1010 (Not an ION after all) today and would like to clarify a few things.

PC: OK

J600: Was it a *555 call that raised concern about my rego or did you see it.

PC: I saw it. Paraparaumu SGT saw you speeding along SH1 road works and passing on double yellows. I picked you up in Pukerua bay but lost you. You guys are always getting away from us.

J600: Definitely was my rego?

PC: Yes

J600: Well what happens now then?

PC: Well was it you driving?

J600: Well the thing is I have CCTV security at home that clearly shows that I was at home as was my bike at the time of the alleged offending.

PC: Oh really, well could be a case of mistaken identity then. I was just going on the rego that was given to me.

J600: Er hang on you just said you saw my tags and was sure of it.

PC: Well seems like it is mistaken ID. I'm on leave now. Can I came around next week and have a look at the bike?

J600: No problem. Give me a call first.

I didn't mention the letterbox thing as really I couldn't give a shit about that. Thought it weird, but as the cops on the site have said the guy was probably confirming the address. What I am concerned about though is without the CCTV footage it would be my word against his and a SGT at Paraparaumu and I believe I would be in for a fight. I'll let you all know what happens after I speak to the guy next week.

[pervert]

Hmm, not so worried about THAT aspect, got in a 'performance' before getting out of bed this a.m., no criticism from CB of my performance but how do you measure the quota of that sort of thing!!!????:shutup:

Ewwwww old people sex...

Fucking viagra making people think they are young again...:laugh:

[Skyryder]

J600: Was it a *555 call that raised concern about my rego or did you see it.

PC: I saw it. Paraparaumu SGT saw you speeding along SH1 road works and passing on double yellows. I picked you up in Pukerua bay but lost you. You guys are always getting away from us.

J600: Definitely was my rego?

PC: Yes

J600: Well what happens now then?

PC: Well was it you driving?

J600: Well the thing is I have CCTV security at home that clearly shows that I was at home as was my bike at the time of the alleged offending.

PC: Oh really, well could be a case of mistaken identity then. I was just going on the rego that was given to me.

J600: Er hang on you just said you saw my tags and was sure of it.

PC: Well seems like it is mistaken ID. I'm on leave now. Can I came around next week and have a look at the bike?

J600: No problem. Give me a call first.



Should be interesting even without the letter box saga. Might just pay to have a witness with you. I doubt very much if this guy will turn up on his own. That's providing he shows.
Skyryder


Skyryder

[SixPackBack]

Should be interesting even without the letter box saga. Might just pay to have a witness with you. I doubt very much if this guy will turn up on his own. That's providing he shows.
Skyryder


Skyryder


Show or not the collective onsite constabulary will defend his actions regardless.

[scumdog]

Show or not the collective onsite constabulary will defend his actions regardless.



Hmm, I wouldn't say "defend' - more like explaing a rationale for his actions and otherwise adding a little balance to the rapid rantings of a raucous rabble..........

[jonbuoy]

Not that i want to rain on your parade Jimbo but what if the time and date on the CCTV recording was wrong - can you set it to whatever you want? Would they accept this in court?

[jimbo600]

Not that i want to rain on your parade Jimbo but what if the time and date on the CCTV recording was wrong - can you set it to whatever you want? Would they accept this in court?

I had thought about this and no you can't adjust time date on already recorded data. Plus if you do change anything on the recorder it details it in a log, to which I have also backed up in anticipation of the cop suggesting the same.

The recorder is a high end security recorder and the data is acceptable to the courts.

Date and time can also be confirmed by the arrival of the HP car at my address too.

[Paul in NZ]

Ewwwww old people sex...

Fucking viagra making people think they are young again...:laugh:

Fucking internet making young people think they are intelligent

[Ixion]

,,,
Fucking viagra ,,,

Is there another sort?

[SixPackBack]

Hmm, I wouldn't say "defend' - more like explaing a rationale for his actions and otherwise adding a little balance to the rapid rantings of a raucous rabble..........

LOL.......Hardly raucous scumdog and certainly not rabble.

Observations and opinions is all.

Police defend each other far to vigorously.

[scumdog]

LOL.......Hardly raucous scumdog and certainly not rabble.

Observations and opinions is all.

Police defend each other far to vigorously.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander....so what you're trying to say is that all criticism of Police should be met with hanging head, scuffing of the ground with one toe, downcast eyes and murmered apology from said Police???

Funny how so many non-Police KBers do the ranting - yet all ex-Police kinda (except for Lou - but then he was never Police) show an eveness of attitude, I guess it's because unlike the 'antis' they have seen both sides of the fence?
After all, it can't be because they have anything to gain by NOT slagging the Police.

BTW After 20+ years in the freezing industry plus tree-planting, textile factory work etc etc I can reasonably claim I too have seen both sides of the fence too.

My overdefensive-follow-the-company-policy-at-all-costs 2 cents worth.


PS It's 'too' vigorously, not 'to' Robin.

[SixPackBack]

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander....so what you're trying to say is that all criticism of Police should be met with hanging head, scuffing of the ground with one toe, downcast eyes and murmered apology from said Police???

Funny ho so many non-Police KBers do the ranting - yet all ex-Police kinda (except for Lou - but then he was never Police) show an eveness of attitude, I guess it's because unlike the 'antis' they have seen both sides of the fence?
After all, it can't be because they have anything to gain by NOT slagging the Police.

BTW After 20+ years in the freezing industry plus tree-planting, textile factory work etc etc I can reasonably claim I too have seen both sides of the fence too.

My overdefensive-follow-the-company-policy-at-all-costs 2 cents worth.


PS It's 'too' vigorously, not 'to' Robin.

Touched a nerve have I?

[Sparky Bills]

Geez Jimbo! Your such a crim! I dont blame them for trying to get you off the road!!:innocent:

[scumdog]

Touched a nerve have I?

Too old for that matey, (except for the grammar police nerve!), just trying to keep it in a balanced perspective - and to do that you need to have seen both sides.:yes:

[jimbo600]

Geez Jimbo! Your such a crim! I dont blame them for trying to get you off the road!!:innocent:

Well if I had my new visor I would have spotted the cops sooner and bolted before they got my rego!!

[sAsLEX]

J600: Was it a *555 call that raised concern about my rego or did you see it.

PC: I saw it. Paraparaumu SGT saw you speeding along SH1 road works and passing on double yellows. I picked you up in Pukerua bay but lost you. You guys are always getting away from us.

J600: Definitely was my rego?

PC: Yes

J600: Well what happens now then?

PC: Well was it you driving?

J600: Well the thing is I have CCTV security at home that clearly shows that I was at home as was my bike at the time of the alleged offending.

PC: Oh really, well could be a case of mistaken identity then. I was just going on the rego that was given to me.

J600: Er hang on you just said you saw my tags and was sure of it.

PC: Well seems like it is mistaken ID. I'm on leave now. Can I came around next week and have a look at the bike?

J600: No problem. Give me a call first.



Yes rather interesting to see his story changin in such a short conversation. Will watch the outcome with interest as this could happen to anyone and without cctv most of us would be stuffed.

[Pex Adams]

What concerns me Jimbo, is why the hell did you need CCTV with all the bells and bling???

Christ you only ride a 600!

[jimbo600]

What concerns me Jimbo, is why the hell did you need CCTV with all the bells and bling???

Christ you only ride a 600!

Protect my P lab!!!

Actually next door got robbed by some Mongrel Mob wankers. Got the system to protect my place and to catch them if they returned.

[scumdog]

Grammar Police? You throwing stones in your glass house?

Yer baitin' me, right? right?

..I can reasonably claim I 'as well' have seen both sides of the fence 'also'.....

I thought 'too' is a replacement for 'as well' and 'also' but hey, I left Nelson Boys College nearly 40 years ago and things may have changed since then.

[doc]

Yer baitin' me, right? right?

but hey, I left Nelson Boys College nearly 40 years ago and things may have changed since then.
That it explains everything I now bow to the site "Kamauta" you must get free internet useage in the resthome and post thru experience because of repressed memory syndrome . You really are an "ole fart"

[Fatjim]

Hmm, I wouldn't say "defend' - more like explaing a rationale for his actions and otherwise adding a little balance to the rapid rantings of a raucous rabble..........


Yes rather interesting to see his story changin in such a short conversation. Will watch the outcome with interest as this could happen to anyone and without cctv most of us would be stuffed.

I'm sure Scumdog wants to add a little balance about that too. I hate how the police will lie to both your face, and the courts. In my book, a copper getting caught in a lie should not be allowed to present evidence in court, but somehow, it just keeps on happening.

But then again, I'm sure there's a balanced reason for this.

[The Pastor]

I'm sure Scumdog wants to add a little balance about that too. I hate how the police will lie to both your face, and the courts. In my book, a copper getting caught in a lie should not be allowed to present evidence in court, but somehow, it just keeps on happening.

But then again, I'm sure there's a balanced reason for this.

Yeah the copper in my court case, lied (said he was out of uniform when he was infact in uniform - not sure why he lied actually) but I didnt catch him out on it as I had already won, prehaps I should of.

[Disco Dan]

BTW After 20+ years in the freezing industry plus tree-planting, textile factory work etc etc I can reasonably claim I too have seen both sides of the fence too.

My overdefensive-follow-the-company-policy-at-all-costs 2 cents worth.
.

this could be interesting.. here goes...


My understanding of numerals in typing is that numbers under 10 should be written as words unless used for a specific purpose ie list etc.




...runs and hides. :innocent:

[spudchucka]

Righto bit of an update. I contacted the officer in question and the conversation went like this.

J600: Hello, received your POL1010 (Not an ION after all) today and would like to clarify a few things.

PC: OK

J600: Was it a *555 call that raised concern about my rego or did you see it.

PC: I saw it. Paraparaumu SGT saw you speeding along SH1 road works and passing on double yellows. I picked you up in Pukerua bay but lost you. You guys are always getting away from us.

J600: Definitely was my rego?

PC: Yes

J600: Well what happens now then?

PC: Well was it you driving?

J600: Well the thing is I have CCTV security at home that clearly shows that I was at home as was my bike at the time of the alleged offending.

PC: Oh really, well could be a case of mistaken identity then. I was just going on the rego that was given to me.

J600: Er hang on you just said you saw my tags and was sure of it.

PC: Well seems like it is mistaken ID. I'm on leave now. Can I came around next week and have a look at the bike?

J600: No problem. Give me a call first.

I didn't mention the letterbox thing as really I couldn't give a shit about that. Thought it weird, but as the cops on the site have said the guy was probably confirming the address. What I am concerned about though is without the CCTV footage it would be my word against his and a SGT at Paraparaumu and I believe I would be in for a fight. I'll let you all know what happens after I speak to the guy next week.

If it goes any further you should consider getting copies of the comms tapes of the radio transmissions between your cop and the Sgt he spoke to.

[Kenny Gun]

Hey man, sounds like you should take this to the very top. Suggest the WLG Dist commander, if no luck then it's open slather to take to Police complaints auth. This sort of crap has to be taken to the very top!

[jimbo600]

If it goes any further you should consider getting copies of the comms tapes of the radio transmissions between your cop and the Sgt he spoke to.

Cheers Spud, didn't think of that.

[scumdog]

If it goes any further you should consider getting copies of the comms tapes of the radio transmissions between your cop and the Sgt he spoke to.

C'mon Spud, the ranters say all the cops on KB stick up for each other - and your comment above is not helping with that image at all!

[scumdog]

Hey man, sounds like you should take this to the very top. Suggest the WLG Dist commander, if no luck then it's open slather to take to Police complaints auth. This sort of crap has to be taken to the very top!

Whose alter-ego is THIS we have trolling here??????

[marty]

Show or not the collective onsite constabulary will defend his actions regardless.

like the collective non-constablulary will defend their (perceived/ill-informed/amended/revoked) rights.....

it's all part of the game, and just one more reason cops don't tend to hang with civvies, as they get into round and round arguments like this

[SixPackBack]

C'mon Spud, the ranters say all the cops on KB stick up for each other - and your comment above is not helping with that image at all!

Ranters?.....thats Sir to you Officer :yes:

[Sparky Bills]

GIVE EM HELL JIMBO!!
Its time to let the Kapiti Coppa's that they cant push us around anymore!
They have been getting away with so much for sooo long:angry:

Its funny really...
I actually wanted to be a cop, UNTILL i started riding on the road.
Ive lost respect for most! There are a couple that are fine to deal with, but they fast get let down!
And am yet to meet any of the KBer cops, so stand by that untill i do.

[Korea]

Yeah the copper in my court case, lied (said he was out of uniform when he was infact in uniform - not sure why he lied actually) but I didnt catch him out on it as I had already won, prehaps I should of.

I've heard of this happening (not necessarily by police) as a technique to make you look stupid, unreliable, out of your head, and/or a liar in court. A couple of minor details get changed, which are backed up by another.
If you are wrong about the clothes, what else could you be wrong about...?

[Clivoris]

Any news Jimbo?

[The_Dover]

BTW After 20+ years in the freezing industry plus tree-planting, textile factory work etc etc I can reasonably claim I too have seen both sides of the fence too.

My overdefensive-follow-the-company-policy-at-all-costs 2 cents worth.


PS It's 'too' vigorously, not 'to' Robin.

A)BTW After 20+ years in the freezing industry plus tree-planting, textile factory work etc etc I can reasonably claim I too have seen both sides of the fence.

My overdefensive-follow-the-company-policy-at-all-costs 2 cents worth.


PS It's 'too' vigorously, not 'to' Robin.

or

B)BTW After 20+ years in the freezing industry plus tree-planting, textile factory work etc etc I can reasonably claim to have seen both sides of the fence.

My overdefensive-follow-the-company-policy-at-all-costs 2 cents worth.


PS It's 'too' vigorously, not 'to' Robin.

Otherwise it reads like shit.

[scumdog]

A)BTW After 20+ years in the freezing industry plus tree-planting, textile factory work etc etc I can reasonably claim I too have seen both sides of the fence.

My overdefensive-follow-the-company-policy-at-all-costs 2 cents worth.


PS It's 'too' vigorously, not 'to' Robin.

or

B)BTW After 20+ years in the freezing industry plus tree-planting, textile factory work etc etc I can reasonably claim to have seen both sides of the fence.

My overdefensive-follow-the-company-policy-at-all-costs 2 cents worth.


PS It's 'too' vigorously, not 'to' Robin.

Otherwise it reads like shit.


What are ya? - the new Hitcher????:nya:

[The_Dover]

I sincerely hope not, otherwise it's infractions all round!

[jimbo600]

Any news Jimbo?

Not yet. The guy was supposed to see me last week but insofar hasn't been in touch. I'll chase him up this week.

[Edbear]

I'll chase him up this week.



Just watch out for speedcameras...

[Swoop]

... and otherwise adding a little balance to the rapid rantings of a raucous rabble..........
Interesting to note that the "rabble" is part of your customer base and your employer... We also do extra work as judges when we are on a jury.

[scumdog]

Interesting to note that the "rabble" is part of your customer base and your employer... We also do extra work as judges when we are on a jury.

I rest my case.....:yes:

[Fatjim]

I sincerely hope not, otherwise it's infractions all round!

He's not all round, he has slim wrists!

[Patrick]

Jeez... he looked at a name on a letter...:whocares: A horrendous crime...

Hang him by his balls I say...

[Patrick]

Interesting to note that the "rabble" is part of your customer base and your employer... We also do extra work as judges when we are on a jury.

Customer base - Yes
Employer? Pffft... I am self employed, that is where my taxes go...
Extra work as judges on a jury? You're sacked... there have been some shit results sometimes...

[SixPackBack]

Jeez... he looked at a name on a letter...:whocares: A horrendous crime...

Hang him by his balls I say...



* A show of hands to hang the copper by his balls?*:shit:

[The_Dover]

two hands from The_Dover

[Swoop]

Employer? Pffft... I am self employed, that is where my taxes go......
Hmmm, a self employed copper! So all the tickets you write go into your pocket.............
Lookout PCA!

Since your wages are drawn from the communal "tax purse", guess what, you are classed as a public servant! (Oh the shame!)...

Extra work as judges on a jury? You're sacked... there have been some shit results sometimes...
Yup, the public do that from time to time. Especially when the ecilops do a sloppy job.

[Patrick]

two hands from The_Dover

you would use your two hands? What will Maurice say?

[Patrick]

Hmmm, a self employed copper! So all the tickets you write go into your pocket.............
Lookout PCA!

Since your wages are drawn from the communal "tax purse", guess what, you are classed as a public servant! (Oh the shame!)...

Yup, the public do that from time to time. Especially when the ecilops do a sloppy job.

Only when they offer to pay cash on the spot.

Wages? Pffftttt.... commission is so much better.

Even when they don't do a sloppy job, the results still vary... a reasonable doubt, even if it is bullshit, is all that is needed. That is much easier to feed to the gullibles...

[madboy]

GIVE EM HELL JIMBO!!
Its time to let the Kapiti Coppa's that they cant push us around anymore!
They have been getting away with so much for sooo long:angry: That's why you don't ride a black sports bike around Kapiti... they got a solid physics lesson from one of those.

Update Jimbo?