Police Officers' expertise sought

[Sanx]

I'm trying to help SkidMark get his bike back after it was impounded following his charge for dangerous driving a couple of weeks back. As far as I can tell, the bike was impounded with no legal grounds to do so, but if there's an officer who can correct me or refer me to at least the correct portions of legislation, I'd appreciate it.

I've had a couple of conversations with him about what he was actually charged with. There was one charge only, dangerous driving. He has no fines outstanding, no warrants outstanding and he was charged with either of the Land Transport Amendment Act 2005 (so-called Boy Racer Act) offences which qualify for an instant 28-day impound. At the time he was stopped, Mark had a valid licence that had not been suspended, he was not disqualified and he had not previously been forbidden to ride by a Police officer.

Although I don't yet have the details, Mark has called the Central Communications centre in Auckland to find the station at which the officer who issued the ticket is based. We're going to try to talk to him or his superior to find out who we might need to speak with to get the bike released. Can any of the officers here point me in the right direction? Is there a specific unit that deals with impounded vehicles, or is it simply handled by the officer who issued the ticket? Do we need to speak to the officer's sergeant in the first instance?

I've never had to attempt to get a vehicle out of impound before, and whilst I'm capable of reading bits of legislation, I'm not clear on Police procedures.

SkidMark's indicated he's going to try to change his ways. Perhaps you guys can help me help him do this.

Cheers,
Dan.

[Constable Plod]

Contact the local station to the offence (New Market from memory) and ask to be put through the impounds officer. That person, usually a Senior Sergeant will be responsible for all appeals regarding impounds. They are likely to be based at Auckland Central. Skid will need to obtain an appeal form from a staion and complete it including having it sworn as true and correct in front of a JP.

What does the impound form state the reason for impound is. My guess is 'unneccessary display of acceleration or speed' if so then the impond is legal.

[FROSTY]

Im happy to stand corrected but I thought dangerous driving meant instant loss of licence and vehicle impound

[Sanx]

Contact the local station to the offence (New Market from memory) and ask to be put through the impounds officer. That person, usually a Senior Sergeant will be responsible for all appeals regarding impounds. They are likely to be based at Auckland Central. Skid will need to obtain an appeal form from a staion and complete it including having it sworn as true and correct in front of a JP.

What does the impound form state the reason for impound is. My guess is 'unneccessary display of acceleration or speed' if so then the impond is legal.

He was not given the impound form, which doesn't help matters much. However, I would have thought a reason for an impound must match any charges laid. He wasn't charged with either of the "Unnecessary display of..." offences. Is this assumption incorrect?

I've got the name of the Impound Sergeant at Auckland Central. But he's not answering his phone right now.

[Indiana_Jones]

I can't seem to find any grounds to impound the bike on dangerous driving:

"The vehicle you're driving will be impounded if you're caught driving when:


-you've been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence
-your driver licence has been suspended or revoked
-you don't hold (or have never held) a driver licence or your licence has expired, and you have been forbidden to drive by a police officer until you have obtained or renewed your licence.

Your vehicle can (and usually will) also be impounded if you're caught racing (eg, drag racing) or performing 'street car stunts' (eg, wheel spins); or if you commit a drink drive offence and have two previous drink drive convictions in the last four years."

http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/factsheets/63.html

And,

"If your car is caught in an illegal street race, an unnecessary exhibition of speed, or a burnout, Police may impound the vehicle for 28 days at your expense - effective immediately."

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/road/boyraceract.html



If they wanna be dicky, they could use the "unnecessary exhibition of speed" clause for impounding the bike?

-Indy

[Sanx]

Im happy to stand corrected but I thought dangerous driving meant instant loss of licence and vehicle impound

I'm happy to stand corrected as well, but I don't think it does. The LTSA list various driving offences and related penalties here (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/about-driver-responsibility/stepping-over-the-line.html). It covers Dangerorous Driving (scroll down about two thirds of the page):



The courts deal very seriously with drivers who drive carelessly, recklessly or dangerously.
Severe penalties can be imposed if you are convicted of one of these offences. The penalties will be especially severe if you hurt or kill someone, whether or not you have taken alcohol or drugs.
Penalties may include:
a maximum fine of $20,000
maximum imprisonment of five years
disqualification of your driver licence.

Nothing about instant suspension or impounding of a vehicle, and these things are covered (and the reasons for them given) a couple of paragraphs later.



Mandatory suspension

Your licence will be suspended on the spot if:
a police officer (but not a speed camera) detects you exceeding a permanently posted speed limit by more than 40 km/h or a temporary speed limit by more than 50 km/h
you commit one of the alcohol-related offences covered by mandatory suspension.
Your licence will be suspended for 28 days and you will also have to face court-imposed penalties for your offence.

Impounding vehicles

A police officer will impound your vehicle on the spot if you are caught:
driving while disqualified
driving while your licence has been suspended
driving without a licence, or with an expired licence, and you have previously been stopped by a police officer and forbidden to drive.
Your vehicle will be impounded for 28 days and you will have to face court-imposed penalties for your offence.

Whilst I understand that the LTSA's statements don't cover all situations, it seems that provided the charge was solely dangerous driving, the vehicle should not have been impounded. Mark also still has his licence (but not for long, probably).

[Sanx]

If they wanna be dicky, they could use the "unnecessary exhibition of speed" clause for impounding the bike?

I think that's possible, but I would have thought Mark would need to be charged with that offence. From http://www.police.govt.nz/service/road/boyracerdetails.html:


If the Police find someone racing or performing wheel spins, what will they do?

An officer may either:
charge the person (i.e. the person has to go to Court); or
charge the person AND impound the vehicle.

Alternatively, the officer may choose simply to issue a warning (Yeah. Right.)

From this - Mark has to be charged with one of the offences under the Boy Racer Act - the impound cannot be applied without it; which seems reasonable and logical.

[Constable Plod]

First things first, there is no such act of legislation as 'The Boy Racer Act' therefore you cannot be charged with an offence under a non existent act.

It seems to me that the Dangerous driving charge may have been laid to cover the 'unneccessary display of speed' etc. There is a specific charge for taking part in a race but you can still be charged with a related offence such as reckless, careless or dangerous.

I have only been involved with one incidence of the 'boy racer legislation' so have not practised its use regularly. For this reason you will need to forgive my knowledge of its finer points.

My first plan of attack would be to get a copy of the impound form and go from there. Without that there are too many unanswered questions to provide any useable advice.

Keep us posted. I am currently on leave but will be dropping by the station frequently so can research any question then.

[Sanx]

First things first, there is no such act of legislation as 'The Boy Racer Act' therefore you cannot be charged with an offence under a non existent act.
I understand there's no act called "The Boy Racer Act". However, when the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Act 2003 (not 2005, as I originally stated) was passed, it was widely refered to as "The Boy Racer Act" because of the introduction of offences specifically designed to target things boy racers habitually get up to.

Keep us posted. I am currently on leave but will be dropping by the station frequently so can research any question then.
Thank you.

[marty]

it would be extremely out of the ordinary for no impound notice to be given, unless the cop had run out, but there would have been plenty at the station anyway.

uneccesary display of speed or acceleration cannot be laid without another offence being committed - it's no offence to accelerate quickly to 50km/h in a 50k zone, or through a green light. if a red light or excess speed (or whatever else) is included, the offence is complete.

are you sure it was impounded? was it just towed as it was considered not roadworthy?

[don rocard]

The police are notorious for ,not even listening,so let them do their thing as you wont win against these churls.

[peasea]

If they wanna be dicky, they could use the "unnecessary exhibition of speed" clause for impounding the bike?

-Indy

Usually (but not always) there is a good reason to impound a vehicle and appeals will most likely fall on deaf ears.

However, if they want to be "dicky" they'll dream something up and impound whatever the hell they feel like impounding.

[Grub]

The police are notorious for ,not even listening,so let them do their thing as you wont win against these churls.

Before you accuse them of having a closed mind, perhaps you should look at your own?

[Sanx]

it would be extremely out of the ordinary for no impound notice to be given, unless the cop had run out, but there would have been plenty at the station anyway.

He claims he was not given a copy, and when he asked the officer who'd ordered the impound, she said she didn't have a copy she could give him. One of them's telling porkies, for certain.


uneccesary display of speed or acceleration cannot be laid without another offence being committed - it's no offence to accelerate quickly to 50km/h in a 50k zone, or through a green light. if a red light or excess speed (or whatever else) is included, the offence is complete.

Well, he was charged with dangerous driving, so there's the other offence. However, Mark maintains that he was charged only with dangerous driving; nothing else.


are you sure it was impounded? was it just towed as it was considered not roadworthy?

Again, as I haven't seen the documentation yet, no. However, Mark says he's received a letter from the impound place stating that he can pick up his vehicle on the 25th September (28 days after the offence) on payment of the storage fee. The fact that the vehicle will only be released after a certain date points to it being impounded rather than simply towed due to it not being roadworthy.

What Mark needs to do is either get hold of the Impound Sergeant (who doesn't answer his phone or return calls) or get hold of the officer who initially impounded the vehicle and get a copy of the impound form. The form must contain a reason the vehicle being impounded (copy of the form here (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=88328&infobase=pal_regs.nfo&jump=r1999-099%2fsch.4&softpage=DOC#JUMPDEST_r1999-099/sch.4)). There are only seven valid reasons ...

What I'd like to know is that if the vehicle was impounded for 'boy racer' offences (unnecessary displays of speed or acceleration, or causing a vehicle to undergo a sustained lack of traction) would Mark have to be charged with those same offences. The LTSA fact sheet I linked to earlier would indicate that the officer can either lay the charge, or lay the charge and impound the vehicle; i.e. they cannot impound the vehicle without laying the appropriate charge.

Incidentally, the grounds for appeal for the impound also includes the officer not complying with the notice requirements set out in section 96(2) of the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999. The officer must give a copy of the impound notice to the driver unless he's fled the scene. As Mark was in custody, it's obvious that he didn't flea and he should have been given one. They must 'as soon as practicable' also post a copy of the impound notice to the registered owner of the vehicle at the address recorded on the Register of Motor Vehicles - which hasn't been done, unless 'as soon as practicable' means it takes two weeks. Mark assures me the vehicle is in his name and is registered at his home address. The officer also needs to give the impound facility a copy of the impound notice. Mark's going to contact them to see if they have their copy, and if he can get a copy of it. The officer must also retain a copy of the notice for twelve months, which makes her statement that she didn't have the notice any more unlikely.

[Sanx]

The police are notorious for ,not even listening,so let them do their thing as you wont win against these churls.

Which is qhy you do your research and make sure that you've got your bases covered before you go in. Which is what I'm doing. If I think it's a hopeless case, I won't bother.

[marty]

the more i hear, the more it sounds like there's a bit more to it. i doubt whether the impound yard would take the car without an impound notice, so one must have been done, if in fact it was impounded, and not just towed for 'safekeeping'

[Sanx]

the more i hear, the more it sounds like there's a bit more to it. i doubt whether the impound yard would take the car without an impound notice, so one must have been done, if in fact it was impounded, and not just towed for 'safekeeping'

An impound notice was done - it's just that a copy of it was not given to Mark or posted to him (as the registered owner) of the vehicle. That in itself is grounds for appeal. However, the impound yard has provided Mark with a copy of the impound notice. According to that, the vehicle was impounded because the officer believed on reasonable grounds that Mark had operated in the vehicle in a race or an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration in contravention of section 22A(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998.

Except he's not been charged with the offence that goes along with it. So - ignoring the officer's failure to comply with the impound notice requirements, can the vehicle be impounded without the appropriate charges being laid?

[terbang]

Reading through a few threads here it sounds like this individual will benefit from a 28 day period of walking. If he rides dangerously, as he boasts to all of us, then he is at risk of killing himself. Fair enough as its his life. But unfortunately he is also in command of a lethal weapon that could kill someone else too, maybe someone we know or a member of our own familys.

[ManDownUnder]

But unfortunately he is also in command of a lethal weapon that could kill someone else too, maybe someone we know or a member of our own familys.

A good point and well made.

blingo.

[Mom]

I'm trying to help SkidMark....
SkidMark's indicated he's going to try to change his ways. Perhaps you guys can help me help him do this.

Cheers,
Dan.

Thank you for taking the time to help.

I cant offer any legal advice, but have been known to dish the odd Mark lecture :spanking: from time to time, whistle out if you need someone to do that wont you.

[Sanx]

Reading through a few threads here it sounds like this individual will benefit from a 28 day period of walking. If he rides dangerously, as he boasts to all of us, then he is at risk of killing himself. Fair enough as its his life. But unfortunately he is also in command of a lethal weapon that could kill someone else too, maybe someone we know or a member of our own familys.

In regards to the title of your post ... Do the crime, do the time. But, as I increasingly suspect in this case, the 'time' is not what's mandated for the crime?

[DougieNZ]

How do you know he didn't leave the notice at the police station or throw it in the rubbish??

In that case, he could be taking YOU for a ride....

[Sanx]

How do you know he didn't leave the notice at the police station or throw it in the rubbish??

In that case, he could be taking YOU for a ride....

I don't know. And I can't know. However, I will take his word for it.

[tommorth]

this hole thing is screwy i have been charged with the boy racer legislation before and had my car impounded had no car for a month had to pay the 300 odd dollars to get it back gone to court pleaded not guilty as it was over the top wrong place wrong time and i got off but had a month with no car and a $300 fee from the towy any way

[Renegade]

According to that, the vehicle was impounded because the officer believed on reasonable grounds that Mark had operated in the vehicle in a race or an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration in contravention of section 22A(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998.

so which one was it speed? or exceleration? cant have both thats "double dipping" and they are both separate charges, and not being charged with either of them surely negates the impound, maybe the said officer realised she cant prove it as they are hard to prove and the exhibition of speed usually attracts a speed ticket.

the officer hasnt lost her copy,its attached to an impound file at the station shes based and thats what the senior will be looking for when you appeal, did mark get his disclosure pack? read his summary of facts to get an idea of what the story is and how the impound is associated with the charge.

[Drunken Monkey]

I'm in no way bad-mouthing police officers, but it seems to me Sanx that you should be directing these questions to a lawyer, not a police officer, if you're really trying to help SkidMark. The police have their training/procedures for enforcement of the law, but many of them aren't required to completely know/understand how/when/where it always applies. I'm sure there are officers here that can impart some wisdom and well-informed opinion, but what you really need here is legal advice.

[peasea]

this hole thing is screwy

I've come across one of those before.
rofl

[peasea]

I'm sure there are officers here that can impart some wisdom and well-informed opinion.

Chuckle...........

[slopster]

Get him to ring Youthlaw its in the phonebook. They will let him talk to a lawer for about 15minutes at no charge for under 25's. They have given me some good advice on my problem (see my thread on unsafe passing manouver).

[Matt_TG]

First things first, there is no such act of legislation as 'The Boy Racer Act' therefore you cannot be charged with an offence under a non existent act.


The Police's own PR website calls it The "Boy Racer" Act so I guess we have no issues with doing the same.

Regardless of who the rider was, the main issue that is raised is Section 6 of this page:
http://www.police.govt.nz/service/road/boyracerdetails.html

It is clear on that basis that in order to impound the rider/driver must be charged, subject to the waiver "intended to provide general information about the Act but is not a substitute for legal advice".

For some reason the type font in that section is different, perhaps it's been altered recently? On the face of it, if the rider is not charged then they cannot impound the vehicle. BUT it doesn't say what they should be charged with ....

In order to determine if this is correct one needs to wade through the Land Transport Act 1998 \ Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act 2003 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=12420500&advquery=%5bField%20LegislationTitle%3a%20%2aland% 20transport%2a%5d%20&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&record={539A9}&softpage=DOC&wordsaroundhits=6).

Ring the Youthlaw helpline mentioned earlier I reckon.

[Sanx]

so which one was it speed? or exceleration? cant have both thats "double dipping" and they are both separate charges, and not being charged with either of them surely negates the impound, maybe the said officer realised she cant prove it as they are hard to prove and the exhibition of speed usually attracts a speed ticket.

The impound form contains tick boxes which give the reason for impounding the car. The unnecessary speed / acceleration reason is one tick box. As he has been charged with neither offence, who knows which of the two the officer intended to use. Either way - the reason given is dubious.


the officer hasnt lost her copy,its attached to an impound file at the station shes based and thats what the senior will be looking for when you appeal, did mark get his disclosure pack? read his summary of facts to get an idea of what the story is and how the impound is associated with the charge.

Not sure what documentation Mark has got. I'll be reviewing it when I meet up with him.

[Sanx]

this hole thing is screwy i have been charged with the boy racer legislation before and had my car impounded had no car for a month had to pay the 300 odd dollars to get it back gone to court pleaded not guilty as it was over the top wrong place wrong time and i got off but had a month with no car and a $300 fee from the towy any way

Unfortunately - you got screwed. You should have been able to claim the towage fees back as you were found not guilty. A decent lawyer could have also asked for compensation for expenses incured by not having a vehicle.

[Sanx]

I'm in no way bad-mouthing police officers, but it seems to me Sanx that you should be directing these questions to a lawyer, not a police officer, if you're really trying to help SkidMark. The police have their training/procedures for enforcement of the law, but many of them aren't required to completely know/understand how/when/where it always applies. I'm sure there are officers here that can impart some wisdom and well-informed opinion, but what you really need here is legal advice.

Understood, DM. What I'm trying to find out is mainly Police procedure and process.


Get him to ring Youthlaw its in the phonebook. They will let him talk to a lawer for about 15minutes at no charge for under 25's. They have given me some good advice on my problem (see my thread on unsafe passing manouver).

Thank you - that's good advice. I didn't know that service existed.

[Patrick]

Contact the local station to the offence (New Market from memory) and ask to be put through the impounds officer. That person, usually a Senior Sergeant will be responsible for all appeals regarding impounds. They are likely to be based at Auckland Central. Skid will need to obtain an appeal form from a staion and complete it including having it sworn as true and correct in front of a JP.

What does the impound form state the reason for impound is. My guess is 'unneccessary display of acceleration or speed' if so then the impond is legal.

Needs to be charged with that offence... he hasn't... Impound is not available for Dangerous Driving.


Im happy to stand corrected but I thought dangerous driving meant instant loss of licence and vehicle impound

Nope...


He was not given the impound form, which doesn't help matters much. However, I would have thought a reason for an impound must match any charges laid. He wasn't charged with either of the "Unnecessary display of..." offences. Is this assumption incorrect?

I've got the name of the Impound Sergeant at Auckland Central. But he's not answering his phone right now.

Leave a message, or ask for his supervisor... If not charged with unnecessary display of speed or participating in a race, no impound.


The police are notorious for ,not even listening,so let them do their thing as you wont win against these churls.

:tugger:


He claims he was not given a copy, and when he asked the officer who'd ordered the impound, she said she didn't have a copy she could give him. One of them's telling porkies, for certain.

It will be on the prosecution file... call Prosecutions Section, AUCKLAND for a copy

Incidentally, the grounds for appeal for the impound also includes the officer not complying with the notice requirements set out in section 96(2) of the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999. The officer must give a copy of the impound notice to the driver unless he's fled the scene. As Mark was in custody, it's obvious that he didn't flea and he should have been given one. They must 'as soon as practicable' also post a copy of the impound notice to the registered owner of the vehicle at the address recorded on the Register of Motor Vehicles - which hasn't been done, unless 'as soon as practicable' means it takes two weeks.

So one is in the post... a bit like the cheque... Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but not a ground for the bike to be released.

The ground for appeal and for the release of the bike is that it was impounded without reason.

[skidMark]

the officer impounded the bike at the scene.

as in i watched the towtruck come take it away talked to the towie etc...

he had the impound form infront of me.....when i got to the station i handed over my bag...helmet etc...

put me in a cell printed me etc...on my way out the female officer (who just does stuff at central i assume) not the arresting officer.... i asked her for a copy ....she said it should be in your bag, i checked my bag and said well thier isnt one.... she said well the courts will have it you will have to get it then...

when i was at court i asked and they said they did not have it either and i would have to go to the cop shop as the impound was not part of the case...

so today i rang the towyard that currently has my bike under impound for 28 days.... i got them to look up the impound form from the cops, she said the boy racer box is ticked i said anything else written there, she said it can mean either unnecessary exhibition of speed , or drag racing,

i was charged with neither, only dangerous driving.

my other question is...if i say hey i wasnt charged with either of these, can they charge me with them and go well there ya go!, or is it too late to do so, or can they lay more charges whenever they like?

Regards: mark

[Karma]

They're the police, and it seems they've been watching too much Judge Dredd.

[Constable Plod]

Patrick, cheers for that clarification. like I said, its been awhile since I have had to use the legislation and my current role doesnt see to many fingerprints racing or doing bunouts.

[Renegade]

my other question is...if i say hey i wasnt charged with either of these, can they charge me with them and go well there ya go!, or is it too late to do so, or can they lay more charges whenever they like?

Regards: mark

yeah they got six months to lay traffic charges but it would be a little on the nose to lay further charges just to keep your bike in the impound but by the shambles this case has been from the start and cops not doing what seems to be the basics with paper work it wouldnt surprise me.

p.s post your summary of facts

[Sanx]

Well, Mark and I both just received phone calls from a Constable in the Police Impound 'department' informing us that they've decided to release the bike immediately without charge as it should not have been impounded in the first place. :2thumbsup
Kinda odd, as we hadn't got around to making a formal appeal at all, so I'm wondering if one of the officers on here had made a call on Mark's behalf. If so, thank you.
Mark still has his licence for a few more days, so is going to pick up the bike either today or tomorrow, provided he can get it home with a broken gear linkage.
Thanks for all the advice and suggestions. Hopefully neither myself or Mark will have to use them in future. You listening, Mark? Good. ;)

[BarBender]

Well, Mark and I both just received phone calls from a Constable in the Police Impound 'department' informing us that they've decided to release the bike immediately without charge as it should not have been impounded in the first place. :2thumbsup
Kinda odd, as we hadn't got around to making a formal appeal at all, so I'm wondering if one of the officers on here had made a call on Mark's behalf. If so, thank you.
Mark still has his licence for a few more days, so is going to pick up the bike either today or tomorrow, provided he can get it home with a broken gear linkage.
Thanks for all the advice and suggestions. Hopefully neither myself or Mark will have to use them in future. You listening, Mark? Good. ;)

Dan - you tha man!:clap:

[peasea]

Well, Mark and I both just received phone calls from a Constable in the Police Impound 'department' informing us that they've decided to release the bike immediately without charge as it should not have been impounded in the first place. :2thumbsup
Kinda odd, as we hadn't got around to making a formal appeal at all, so I'm wondering if one of the officers on here had made a call on Mark's behalf. If so, thank you.
Mark still has his licence for a few more days, so is going to pick up the bike either today or tomorrow, provided he can get it home with a broken gear linkage.
Thanks for all the advice and suggestions. Hopefully neither myself or Mark will have to use them in future. You listening, Mark? Good. ;)

With that in mind, could you not sue the NZ Police for loss of enjoyment while they had your bike? What about wrongful imprisonment of the bike, it would undoubtedly be suffering from stress and in need of some counselling. You could set yourself up as a motorcycle counsellor and comfort the bike in your own home (as well as yourself) then charge the Police by the hour. Did they service or wax it while they had it? Was it covered with a nice woollen blankie? If not you could also go them for failing to supply the basics of life.

You could have some fun with that, surely?

Seriously; if the cop's impoundment of the bike was unlawful then his judgement of what's dangerous and what's not is questionable, right?

Post his name and/or badge number would ya?

[riffer]

You know pesea, if I was Mark, I'd be drinking a big glass of shutthefuckup about the whole thing at the moment. Don't post the cops name and number. It's probably a genuine mistake of judgement in the heat of the moment, a bit like what Mark did to spark the whole thing.

Well done Sanx. Not bad for a first-time bush lawyer.

And Mark. You got lucky - again. Please, please, please think about this now. You've gotta do something about this recurring problem matey. Don't go and get in more trouble.

[Tank]

You know pesea, if I was Mark, I'd be drinking a big glass of shutthefuckup about the whole thing at the moment. Don't post the cops name and number. It's probably a genuine mistake of judgement in the heat of the moment, a bit like what Mark did to spark the whole thing.


Amen! Posting a cops name / number etc is just asking for trouble, and acheives absoultley nothing.

Cops make mistakes as well - and they have owned up to it and have released the bike (well done - BTW - can you help with my possession of crack charge - they confiscated my shit as well).

[delusionz]

Stuff that, not worth going thru any more hassle, congrats on the bike return, have fun riding home in 1st.. maybe you can get it stuck in 2nd gear and start on that

[peasea]

Cops make mistakes as well - .

Quite right.

[Max Preload]

Kind of restores a little faith in the Police hierarchy doesn't it, even if not the front line Police.

That said there's still a lot more restoring to do to get back to the level of confidence they've previously enjoyed (from me in particular). But it's a start.

[peasea]

Kind of restores a little faith in the Police hierarchy doesn't it, even if not the front line Police.

That said there's still a lot more restoring to do to get back to the level of confidence they've previously enjoyed (from me in particular). But it's a start.


You're on the button there. It must be difficult for the powers that be to recruit intelligent people for a job like that. Nuff said.

[Renegade]

You're on the button there. It must be difficult for the powers that be to recruit intelligent people for a job like that. Nuff said.

when i was a kid i wouldnt eevn had dared get lippy to a cop, nowadays these lil punks think its acceptable, bring back the biff to teach some respect, dam this tree huggin PC world!! :argh:

[scumdog]

Nice to see it's sorted - I'd be curious to see how things became unravelled and the bike impounded without (apparent) reason.

[skidMark]

With that in mind, could you not sue the NZ Police for loss of enjoyment while they had your bike? What about wrongful imprisonment of the bike, it would undoubtedly be suffering from stress and in need of some counselling. You could set yourself up as a motorcycle counsellor and comfort the bike in your own home (as well as yourself) then charge the Police by the hour. Did they service or wax it while they had it? Was it covered with a nice woollen blankie? If not you could also go them for failing to supply the basics of life.

You could have some fun with that, surely?

Seriously; if the cop's impoundment of the bike was unlawful then his judgement of what's dangerous and what's not is questionable, right?

Post his name and/or badge number would ya?


won't sue them, but my bike was nice and clean when it got taken.

got in back from impound yard, bloodey thing was filthy.

covered in dust...like muddy /gravel dust...ugh...

ahh well a quick wash and she was pretty :)

[Patrick]

won't sue them, but my bike was nice and clean when it got taken.

got in back from impound yard, bloodey thing was filthy.

covered in dust...like muddy /gravel dust...ugh...

ahh well a quick wash and she was pretty :)

probably panel beater dust... most storage providers are panelbeater/tow firms...

[craigs288]

Seriously; if the cop's impoundment of the bike was unlawful then his judgement of what's dangerous and what's not is questionable, right?

Post his name and/or badge number would ya?


When Mark goes to court he should be placing some serious emphasis on the fact that the officer seemed to be unaware of the correct charges/procedures to be followed, based on the illegal and incorrect impounding of the vehicle which does not relate to the charges laid against Mark.
If the officer couldn't determine the correct procedure in relation to the offence, then there is some doubt as to the officer's ability to determine the original charge in the first place.
Coupled with the inconvenience (and great cost) of a completely unnecessary vehicle impounding, Mark will be unfairly punished if any further fines are imposed.

Maybe

[Patrick]

When Mark goes to court he should be placing some serious emphasis on the fact that the officer seemed to be unaware of the correct charges/procedures to be followed, based on the illegal and incorrect impounding of the vehicle which does not relate to the charges laid against Mark.
If the officer couldn't determine the correct procedure in relation to the offence, then there is some doubt as to the officer's ability to determine the original charge in the first place.
Coupled with the inconvenience (and great cost) of a completely unnecessary vehicle impounding, Mark will be unfairly punished if any further fines are imposed.

Maybe

I don't think so Tim.... charges are correct, just the impound wan't and the impound has nothing to do with the charge. Inconvenience? Yep, probably... cost? Nada... released without fees.

But with the hourly rates the courts give to scumsucking oxygen thieves who owe thousands of $$$ in fines, only for them to be wiped for a little bit of Community Work, since he lost his bike for a week or two the court may give him $$$ instead for his offending...

Bwahahahahahahaha....

[pritch]

I
But with the hourly rates the courts give to scumsucking oxygen thieves who owe thousands of $$$ in fines, only for them to be wiped for a little bit of Community Work,

Ain't that the truth! I wish I was paid at the rate that the courts use to calculate the number of hours community work needed to pay off $10,000 plus worth of fines...

[craigs288]

[QUOTE=Patrick;
But with the hourly rates the courts give to scumsucking oxygen thieves who owe thousands of $$$ in fines, only for them to be wiped for a little bit of Community Work, since he lost his bike for a week or two the court may give him $$$ instead for his offending...

Bwahahahahahahaha....[/QUOTE]

If they were really clever they would have just given Skidmark a big fine and let him ride away to accumulate more fines on another day, over and over, ad infinitum.
Think about it, if they take away the vehicle and/or licence, how can you possibly get back out on the road to help our road safety and law enforcement officers meet their necessary quotas?
Possibly the best idea ever for getting rid of vehicle impounding and licence removal, not to mention the extra generated revenue. Assuming that people will actually pay their fines.

[Renegade]

Think about it, if they take away the vehicle and/or licence, how can you possibly get back out on the road to help our road safety and law enforcement officers meet their necessary quotas?
[/QUOTE]

thats a great idea you should write a letter to howard broad with that gem!!

[Pancakes]

Reading between the lines Mark's bike was in a state to get busted and when he picks it up the shifter is busted and the cops/towie/storage place didn't do it or that woulda been worth a mention. So you binned it Mark? So unless you got hit and it was someone elses fault you lost control of your bike? And you didn't have time to brush yourself off and ride off home after a 2nd gear start before the cops came? So it was public/spectacular enough that at least one person called it in and the cops gave it high priority or you hit someone else? Dude from the short time I've met you you seem like a sweet as, young guy but shit, do you think you might be asking for it just a wee bit? I'm not sure but when the cop was at the scene with you they must have been supplied your other history and may not have been too convinced by the well practiced "shamefull and sorry" face? Dude, I hope things go well for you but reading this I have to admit I was thinking "hope it stays locked up long enough that he learns his lesson". Come on Mark.