Police lose Duff case

[SixPackBack]

'Once were Warriors' author wins court battle against police

7:00PM Friday June 06, 2008


http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/duff230.jpg
Alan Duff. Photo / Supplied

Traffic charges against author Alan Duff were dismissed today in Taupo District Court, with a judge also criticising police for prosecuting him on other charges.
Duff, 57, had pleaded not guilty to failing to remain at a scene after being stopped for speeding, failing to stop for police and two counts of resisting police.
He was charged after an incident on Broadlands Rd, about 20km north of Taupo, on September 13 last year when he was stopped by a policewoman for speeding.
The resisting charges were withdrawn earlier this week and in his written judgment today, Judge Chris McGuire said there seemed no practical reason why those charges were laid on January 4 instead of when the others were laid last September 14.
He said police evidence in support of the resisting charges was "unpersuasive and vague" and police were right to seek leave to withdraw the charges.
"The result, however, is that I am left uneasy over whether police prosecutorial power was used wisely and fairly in this instance," Judge McGuire said.The court had been told that Constable Patricia Foden had pulled the Once Were Warriors author over for speeding and he started "ranting". She later threatened to pepper spray him when he tried to avoid having both arms handcuffed together.
Judge McGuire said Duff became "very fired up" after Ms Foden told him he had been going 112km/h and he saw the locked reading on the radar was 110km/h.
"I have considered the situation of a sole average sized, slim female officer versus a taller and more powerfully built male meeting in these circumstances in a rural district ...," Judge McGuire said.
Although she did not appear fazed by Duff, she would have been startled by his "seizing the initiative" the way he did and his sudden anger.
When she asked for his details, he said he had done nothing wrong and initially refused.
When making a "query person" (QP) request to police communications and writing down his details, he went back to his car and drove off.
She gave pursuit and requested assistance. After 3.5km she stopped him again and told him he was under arrest for failing to remain and failing to stop.
But Duff's lawyer said he had been entitled to drive off when he did because from the moment Ms Foden initiated the QP, she was not exercising any power under the Land Transport Act.
Judge McGuire agreed and said police have no power to detain a citizen except under express statutory power.
"It may well be that a public debate on this issue is timely," he said.
"There may well be very sound practical and pragmatic reason to give carte blanche to QPs in their present form in all cases where drivers are stopped.
"But there are certainly arguments to the contrary that they are an unwarranted and further erosion of human rights. Those arguments are not for me to decide. Ultimately they are matters for Parliament."
Duff had fulfilled his duties under section 114 of the Act to remain stopped to provide personal details required of him. Having given Ms Foden the opportunity to establish his identity, he was entitled to leave when he did, the judge said.
With the charge of failing to remain dismissed, the other charge of failing to stop must also be dismissed.

[Patch]

Cool, something else for them to be pissy about and/or others to exploit

:bash:

[peasea]

'Once were Warriors' author wins court battle against police

7:00PM Friday June 06, 2008


http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/duff230.jpg
Alan Duff. Photo / Supplied

Traffic charges against author Alan Duff were dismissed today in Taupo District Court, with a judge also criticising police for prosecuting him on other charges.
Duff, 57, had pleaded not guilty to failing to remain at a scene after being stopped for speeding, failing to stop for police and two counts of resisting police.
He was charged after an incident on Broadlands Rd, about 20km north of Taupo, on September 13 last year when he was stopped by a policewoman for speeding.
The resisting charges were withdrawn earlier this week and in his written judgment today, Judge Chris McGuire said there seemed no practical reason why those charges were laid on January 4 instead of when the others were laid last September 14.
He said police evidence in support of the resisting charges was "unpersuasive and vague" and police were right to seek leave to withdraw the charges.
"The result, however, is that I am left uneasy over whether police prosecutorial power was used wisely and fairly in this instance," Judge McGuire said.The court had been told that Constable Patricia Foden had pulled the Once Were Warriors author over for speeding and he started "ranting". She later threatened to pepper spray him when he tried to avoid having both arms handcuffed together.
Judge McGuire said Duff became "very fired up" after Ms Foden told him he had been going 112km/h and he saw the locked reading on the radar was 110km/h.
"I have considered the situation of a sole average sized, slim female officer versus a taller and more powerfully built male meeting in these circumstances in a rural district ...," Judge McGuire said.
Although she did not appear fazed by Duff, she would have been startled by his "seizing the initiative" the way he did and his sudden anger.
When she asked for his details, he said he had done nothing wrong and initially refused.
When making a "query person" (QP) request to police communications and writing down his details, he went back to his car and drove off.
She gave pursuit and requested assistance. After 3.5km she stopped him again and told him he was under arrest for failing to remain and failing to stop.
But Duff's lawyer said he had been entitled to drive off when he did because from the moment Ms Foden initiated the QP, she was not exercising any power under the Land Transport Act.
Judge McGuire agreed and said police have no power to detain a citizen except under express statutory power.
"It may well be that a public debate on this issue is timely," he said.
"There may well be very sound practical and pragmatic reason to give carte blanche to QPs in their present form in all cases where drivers are stopped.
"But there are certainly arguments to the contrary that they are an unwarranted and further erosion of human rights. Those arguments are not for me to decide. Ultimately they are matters for Parliament."
Duff had fulfilled his duties under section 114 of the Act to remain stopped to provide personal details required of him. Having given Ms Foden the opportunity to establish his identity, he was entitled to leave when he did, the judge said.
With the charge of failing to remain dismissed, the other charge of failing to stop must also be dismissed.

Bravo!
I'd say more but I'm so boorish and self appointed I might get red rep'd.
Bahahahaha

[scumdog]

'Once were Warriors' author wins court battle against police

.


Oooh, I bet that worked out pretty cheap.:rolleyes:

I guess we can now expect a slew of "My name is Bill Burglar and I'm not hanging around for a QP cos you'll find out I have several Warrants to Arrest and Allan Duffs lawyer says I don't have to wait" type incidents??:lol:

[peasea]

Oooh, I bet that worked out pretty cheap.:rolleyes:

I guess we can now expect a slew of "My name is Bill Burglar and I'm not hanging around for a QP cos you'll find out I have several Warrants to Arrest and Allan Duffs lawyer says I don't have to wait" type incidents??:lol:

We live in hope.

[davereid]

Alan Duff was speeding near Taupo. He was pulled over by a female police officer, and he gave her his licence.

She went to her car to check he wasn't wanted on the police computer.

Mr. Duff drove off.

She pulled him over again, and this time attempted to arrest him. He allegedly swung her to the ground with her handcuffs and resisted arrest, before finally being subdued and taken back to he police station.

Mr. Duff claimed that as he was stopped for a traffic offence, the police only had the authority to check his licence and issue a ticket, and he had complied with that.

Mr. Duff claimed that checking the police computer for other offences was a "fishing trip" and that he had no legal obligation to wait.

Mr. Duff claimed he was therefore not guilty of resisting arrest, because he had already met all his legal obligations.

As the arrest was not legal the policewoman had no powers to make an arrest and was simply assaulting him, and if his action had occured, they were simply self defence.

The Judge took less 15 minutes to agree, on the charges of failing to stop, and failing to remain. The police then withdrew the two charges of resisting arrest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This won't particularly open a "can of worms", as its a repeat of a string of previous cases, which just point out that a police officer can't detain you at a whim - it needs legal process.

But, its the first re-confirmation of the un-necessary detention rule. Years ago, I went to a bike rally. On the road out police herded bikers into a "virtual concentration camp" and then checked rego's,warrants, alcohol etc.

The judges comments in this case, would indicate that detaining you to do this would be illegal.

That is, if you can be pulled over, and checked wthout delay, it is wthin the law. But if you are asked to wait so you can be checked later, it would be illegal.

Time will tell, Mr. Duff is possibly to sue for illegal arrest and assault.


OOPS - THIS THREAD ALREADY STARTED UNDER GINGA COP.. Can Mods Merge or Summat ?

[Steam]

Frankly, Mr Duff should have been pepper-sprayed and then tasered for driving off.
What's the fucking problem with cooperating with the coppers? Most of them are very reasonable people. (apart from the Ginger dick.)

As for not being able to check the computer for outstanding warrants, what the fuck???
What if he had been wanted for multiple murder, or had been an escaped prisoner, or anything like that? How else are the police going to find someone who is at large? Checking the computer after traffic offenses is an important tool for the police.

I already thought Alan Duff was a cock, this merely confirms it.

[Subike]

Not waiting unless charged or arrested.
ROFL
this has been common knowlage to many people for years.
Ignorance of the law is so common here in NZ that when somebody stands up and says
"hey this is not right"
it makes headlines......LOL
So many on here spout about the laws of NZ ,
what is legal, what is not.
How many of you bother to go and buy to read, the transport act, and other relevant acts, which can be bought for pennies at GOVT books shops.
Ignorance is bliss.......but also not an excuse.
Yeap he won the case......but so have many many others in the same situation.
Being a celeb just made it news worthy,
If it was you or I , it would never have reach second page news.

[Indoo]

At least we now know where he got the inspiration for Jake the Muss from.

Quite a ludicrous decision though, how many disqualified drivers or suspended drivers simply hang onto their licenses, great news for them as well as wanted criminals, flash your license and then take off.

[SixPackBack]

At least we now know where he got the inspiration for Jake the Muss from.

Quite a ludicrous decision though, how many disqualified drivers or suspended drivers simply hang onto their licenses, great news for them as well as wanted criminals, flash your license and then take off.

And a refreshing snippet of hope for those stopped often for no good reason. No longer will I have to be hassled 'cos the poleece think I'm 'Ghostrider'
Fucken good job I say.

[jimbo600]

Oooh, I bet that worked out pretty cheap.:rolleyes:

I guess we can now expect a slew of "My name is Bill Burglar and I'm not hanging around for a QP cos you'll find out I have several Warrants to Arrest and Allan Duffs lawyer says I don't have to wait" type incidents??:lol:

Just a query though SD when does waiting for a QP of QV become unlawful detention? I mean what is considered a reasonable time to wait? Some one *555'd a mate in a HSV on the takas one day and was made to wait 30minutes until the *555 caller arrived.

I would imagine though that a QP or QV would only take a couple of minutes.

I can imagine Duff being a "don't you know who I am" type

[jrandom]

What's the fucking problem with cooperating with the coppers? Most of them are very reasonable people. (apart from the Ginger dick.)

Actual twats aside, many coppers seem to suffer from the effects of dealing day-in and day-out with scumbags.

When brought into contact with well-intentioned law-abiding citizens, they tend to lack courtesy and respect.

Personally, I do not enjoy being treated without courtesy and respect.

I had an interesting experience, recently. Long story short, someone made a unsubstantiated complaint against me (not related to a traffic matter). Trying to be helpful, I agreed to travel a 60km round trip on my lunch break to chat to the investigating officer.

Long story, short, the way I was treated opened my eyes to an arrogant, bullying police culture. It was sobering and disturbing.

I have learned that it is never to one's advantage, if one is in fact not a criminal, to cooperate with the Police.

Obviously there are advantages for those who have actually committed crimes - if you're nicked, best front up and get it over and done with. However, I could never in good conscience advise someone not guilty of a crime to assume that the police have their best interests at heart.

[Skyryder]

Frankly, Mr Duff should have been pepper-sprayed and then tasered for driving off.
What's the fucking problem with cooperating with the coppers? Most of them are very reasonable people. (apart from the Ginger dick.)

As for not being able to check the computer for outstanding warrants, what the fuck???
What if he had been wanted for multiple murder, or had been an escaped prisoner, or anything like that? How else are the police going to find someone who is at large? Checking the computer after traffic offenses is an important tool for the police.

I already thought Alan Duff was a cock, this merely confirms it.


I have little time for Duff myself. He's had an attitude problem with authority all his life. The alledged assault on a female police officer is in keeping of all that he supposes to disagree with; Maori violence.

However his actions in driving off after he had handed over his licence and the Judge dismissing this raises some interesting questions. On the surface it would appear that after a ticket has been issued and you have 'correctly identified yourself the police have no powers to detain you any further. That is how it should be.



Skyryder

[Ixion]

That is my understanding. The police , in general, cannot detain you unless they arrest you (there are however a number of specialised exceptions to that statement, so do not universally rely on it). However, they do have the right (can't be arsed looking up the reference) to detain you for a maximum of 15 minutes, for the purpose of establishing your identity. However, once you have produced your licence, identity is established. You are under no obligation to remain, and may drive off (which is doubtless why experienced coppers hang onto your licence while they do a QP thingy).

There is nothing untoward about this. After all, what if said rozzer had then decided she wanted to contact Interpol? "Please remain stopped for the next three days " ?

Exactly the same thing happened to Sir Robert Jones a few years ago, and he also drove off, and was duely arrested. He challenged it, it went to a very high level in the court system (Court of Appeal, I think) and he won. Quite properly. It is a fundamental principle of our justice system that the police do NOT have an arbitrary right of detention , which is of course what the rozzer-chicky was demanding. Nor, likewise, do you have to answer any questions the police may put to you . In the case of a minor motor vehicle offence, you are legally entitled to say "I have established my identity. I deny any wrongdoing. I do not intend to answer any questions. You have no right to detain me. Goodbye". And drive off.

Whether such a response is wise, may be another question. In general , cops do not stop one without reason, and a cooperative and humble approach (sham though it may be, practise your acting skills) willl be more effective at minimising tickets than a hard line stand on your rights.

However, that is "in general". Cuntstable Cunt is still in uniform, and if stopped by him no amount of cooperation or reasonableness will help . He (in in this case she - I wonder if all police binties are attracted to the job because of the opportunities it offers for small people to bully larger people ?) is a natural bully , and acquiesence will simply encourage him (or her) to bully more. As witrness a certain PC Ginga Cunt

Do note however, if you decide to do this

(A) You must not have committed any offence under which you can be detained.
(B) You must cooperate with breathtesting stuff and such like
(C) If you do drive off, and the rozzer chases after you with lights etc, you must stop again. Rinse lather repeat, that could get quite amusing.

[Skyryder]

They can 'instruct' you to remain on the scene for purposes of gathering further evidence etc. I seem to remember seeing something of a time frame in the Land Transport Act. Ix quotes fifteen minutes. I'll have a look but someone may be able to confirm one way or the other. Either way guys I'd treat Duff's dismissal with some caution.


Skyryder

[jrandom]

However, they do have the right...

... but that doesn't matter, cause, get a load of this, all right; if you get stopped by a cop in Amsterdam, it's illegal for them to search you.

I mean, that's a right the cops in Amsterdam don't have.

[spudchucka]

Bravo!
I'd say more but I'm so boorish and self appointed I might get red rep'd.
Bahahahaha

You forgot over opinionated.

[Ixion]

Sigh



114Power to require driver to stop and give name and address, etc
(1)An enforcement officer who is in uniform, or wearing a distinctive cap, hat, or helmet, with a badge of authority affixed to it, may signal or request the driver of a vehicle to stop the vehicle as soon as is practicable.

(2)An enforcement officer in a vehicle following another vehicle may, by displaying flashing blue, or blue and red, lights or sounding a siren, require the driver of the other vehicle to stop.

[(2A)Subject to subsections (4) and (5), the driver of a vehicle that is stopped by an enforcement officer under this Act must remain stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary for the enforcement officer to complete the exercise of any powers conferred, or duties imposed, on an enforcement officer by this Act.]

(3)An enforcement officer may require the driver of a vehicle that is stopped under this Act to—
(a)Remain stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary for an enforcement officer to obtain the particulars referred to in paragraph (b), or to complete the exercise of any other power conferred on an enforcement officer by this Act; and
(b)On demand by an enforcement officer,—
(i)Give his or her name and address and date of birth, or such of those particulars as the enforcement officer may specify; and
(ii)State whether or not he or she is the owner of the vehicle; and
(iii)If the driver is not the owner of the vehicle, give the name and address of the owner or such particulars within the driver's knowledge as may lead to the identification of the owner.

(4)The driver of a vehicle that is stopped under subsection (2) is not obliged to remain stopped if the vehicle with flashing lights and siren does not itself stop in the near vicinity of the place where the driver has stopped.

(5)An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver, but not for longer than 15 minutes if the requirement to remain stopped is made under this subsection only.

(6)An enforcement officer may arrest a person without warrant if the officer has good cause to suspect the person of having—
(a)Failed to comply with this section or a signal or request or requirement under this section; or
(b)Given false or misleading information under this section.

Note however Sect 2A. But doing a QP check is NOT the exercise of any power conferred etc by this act. The act does not require one be done.

The only actual requirement, in a simple traffic stop (ie no arrestable offence etc) is to remain stopped for long enough for the EO to reasonably establish identity, name address , if you are owner of vehicle. Technically, you probably don't even have to wait for him to write out the ticket

There is anecdotal evidence that in some cases cops deliberately detain people by the road side either 'for kicks' or because they know it will cause inconvenience (in the case of Sir Robert Jones , mentioned, Sir Robert was on his way to the airport. It was argued that the officer deliberately held him up so that he would miss his flight. The allegation is not entirely hard to believe .)

Any ability to "instruct" anyone to "remain on the scene for the purposes of gathering evidence" would be very debateable indeed. Unless arrested noone has ANY duty to assist the police in gathering evidence (and if arrested , even less!).

There are some general "reasonableness" powers in the case of emergencies, or major crimes. None would be relevant to a traffic stop. When stopped by the police , in general (unless they cite the Arms Act, Misuse of Drugs etc, in which they had best be VERY sure that they have some grounds), you must provide name address, DoB, and in the case of a motor vehicle, produce satisfactory ID (ie driver's licence) and name the owner of the vehicle. That done you may legally wish the officer a pleasant evening and proceed about your business. Unless, of course, you are arrested. Then you do not have to say anything, you must be cautioned to that effect , and you would be very wise to keep your mouth completely shut until you have consulted a solicitor.

As to the right of search: The 15 minute stop does not confer any right of search. Nor is there any general right of search in NZ. A few acts (Arms Act, Misuse of Drugs mainly) confer a right of search without warrent. If an officer seeks to invoke powers under such an act, ask him his grounds. He is not obliged to tell you, but if he does not , and finds nothing, he could be in big trouble indeed.

[pritch]

Technically, you probably don't even have to wait for him to write out the ticket

Last time I found myself in this unfortunate position I told the cop that I didn't want to stand around all night, and asked him to post me the ticket.

No problem.

[spudchucka]

Sigh


Note however Sect 2A. But doing a QP check is NOT the exercise of any power conferred etc by this act. The act does not require one be done.

No it doesn't but it does require drivers to hold a current licence and simply producing a card does not confirm that the licence is current.

Wait for the appeal decision.

[peasea]

You forgot over opinionated.

OVER opinionated? How do you come to that conclusion, big mouth?

[peasea]

Last time I found myself in this unfortunate position I told the cop that I didn't want to stand around all night, and asked him to post me the ticket.

No problem.

Yup, that's what I've done in the past. Newbie was dicking around, she had my license so I said "when you make up your mind as to what you're going to charge me with...mail it". I departed the scene and my license was mailed back to me with NO ticket! Must have been a bullshit pull in the first place.

[peasea]

Sigh


Note however Sect 2A. But doing a QP check is NOT the exercise of any power conferred etc by this act. The act does not require one be done.

The only actual requirement, in a simple traffic stop (ie no arrestable offence etc) is to remain stopped for long enough for the EO to reasonably establish identity, name address , if you are owner of vehicle. Technically, you probably don't even have to wait for him to write out the ticket

There is anecdotal evidence that in some cases cops deliberately detain people by the road side either 'for kicks' or because they know it will cause inconvenience (in the case of Sir Robert Jones , mentioned, Sir Robert was on his way to the airport. It was argued that the officer deliberately held him up so that he would miss his flight. The allegation is not entirely hard to believe .)

Any ability to "instruct" anyone to "remain on the scene for the purposes of gathering evidence" would be very debateable indeed. Unless arrested noone has ANY duty to assist the police in gathering evidence (and if arrested , even less!).

There are some general "reasonableness" powers in the case of emergencies, or major crimes. None would be relevant to a traffic stop. When stopped by the police , in general (unless they cite the Arms Act, Misuse of Drugs etc, in which they had best be VERY sure that they have some grounds), you must provide name address, DoB, and in the case of a motor vehicle, produce satisfactory ID (ie driver's licence) and name the owner of the vehicle. That done you may legally wish the officer a pleasant evening and proceed about your business. Unless, of course, you are arrested. Then you do not have to say anything, you must be cautioned to that effect , and you would be very wise to keep your mouth completely shut until you have consulted a solicitor.

As to the right of search: The 15 minute stop does not confer any right of search. Nor is there any general right of search in NZ. A few acts (Arms Act, Misuse of Drugs mainly) confer a right of search without warrent. If an officer seeks to invoke powers under such an act, ask him his grounds. He is not obliged to tell you, but if he does not , and finds nothing, he could be in big trouble indeed.

Unless you take it to the PCA (like I did after a search, with a freakin' dog etc that found nothing) then the great whitewashing machine swings into action and 'big trouble' simply evaporates. I have to hand it to the police, they are very, very good at looking after their own.

[davereid]

I must say, I'm surprised that it's not legal to make you wait while the validity of your licence is checked.

It would appear it's an oversight by the lawmakers, and the judge did comment to that effect.

Nonetheless, the ruling is very clear.

I would be surprised if the police appeal.

They already applied for the leave of the court to withdraw the other charges, so they were aware that they going to lose.

It MAY create confusion about other traffic offences though.

Exactly how long are you expected to wait around while police look for evidence (for example) of a vehicle defect ?

Is this covered by other legislation - for example if I am pulled over because a policeman thinks my car MAY be modified.

Do I have to allow him to jack it up to check the suspension travel ? Do I have to pop the bonnet or boot ? Or do we just get bullied into doing it ?

[Skyryder]

Any ability to "instruct" anyone to "remain on the scene for the purposes of gathering evidence" would be very debateable indeed. Unless arrested noone has ANY duty to assist the police in gathering evidence (and if arrested , even less!).


5)An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver, but not for longer than 15 minutes if the requirement to remain stopped is made under this subsection only.


That's the kicker. The fifteen minutes is only to establish identity. They can require you to remain stopped as long as is reasonably necessary for other purposes. That in itself would suggest some kind of involvment by another party. It's not about assisting the police it's just that you can not leave the scene if your prescence is required.


Skyryder

[peasea]

I must say, I'm surprised that it's not legal to make you wait while the validity of your licence is checked.

It would appear it's an oversight by the lawmakers, and the judge did comment to that effect.

Nonetheless, the ruling is very clear.

I would be surprised if the police appeal.

They already applied for the leave of the court to withdraw the other charges, so they were aware that they going to lose.

It MAY create confusion about other traffic offences though.

Exactly how long are you expected to wait around while police look for evidence (for example) of a vehicle defect ?

Is this covered by other legislation - for example if I am pulled over because a policeman thinks my car MAY be modified.

Do I have to allow him to jack it up to check the suspension travel ? Do I have to pop the bonnet or boot ? Or do we just get bullied into doing it ?

The police bully us? Ho ho ho.....

Listen, most cops are doing their job with little (I assume) intention of pissing people off while they do it but the jerkoffs they stick on traffic duties seem to be hell-bent on making some kind of point. When challenged all hell breaks loose and time/money-wasting in the courts comes to the fore.

If we fail to challenge EVEYTHING these brainless morons do then they'll never get it right. There is a set procedure and it starts, IMHO, with basic good manners, never mind legalities. If they don't start with basic good manners then fuck 'em, give them all the shit they deserve. They, not us, need to pass the attitude test in the first instance so as to garner some basic respect. That's the trouble with a lot of cops, NO FUCKING MANNERS!

[marty]

Yup, that's what I've done in the past. Newbie was dicking around, she had my license so I said "when you make up your mind as to what you're going to charge me with...mail it". I departed the scene and my license was mailed back to me with NO ticket! Must have been a bullshit pull in the first place.

i would have stopped you again and demanded to see your licence. then ticketed you for failing to do so.

just cause i could.

then i'd withdraw it 6 months later once you had wrapped yourself into a ball and spent all those $$.

then i'd rofl in the bar on friday night, remembering what a dick you were.

[jrandom]

i would have stopped you again and demanded to see your licence. then ticketed you for failing to do so.

:nono:

A one-paragraph letter to Wellington would surely get such a silly ticket thrown out.

[peasea]

i would have stopped you again and demanded to see your licence. then ticketed you for failing to do so.

just cause i could.

then i'd withdraw it 6 months later once you had wrapped yourself into a ball and spent all those $$.

then i'd rofl in the bar on friday night, remembering what a dick you were.

But that's not how it went, so I won, so go fuck yourself.

[Max Preload]

i would have stopped you again and demanded to see your licence. then ticketed you for failing to do so.

just cause i could.

then i'd withdraw it 6 months later once you had wrapped yourself into a ball and spent all those $$.

then i'd rofl in the bar on friday night, remembering what a dick you were.

No wonder you cunts get beaten.

[marty]

No wonder you cunts get beaten.

no wonder you cunts get locked up/pepper sprayed/tazered.

but, get with the program ladies.

neither your 'cop hating anarchist' attitudes or your bush lawyer law knowledge are my problem any more.

you are all SO easy to wind up though.

[davereid]

5)An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver, but not for longer than 15 minutes if the requirement to remain stopped is made under this subsection only.

Yep.. so what gives them the power to make you remain stopped if it's NOT under this section...

That is.. if they know who you are, you have legal licence, legal rego, legal WOF...what gives them the right to make you hang around for other stuff ?

[Max Preload]

no wonder you cunts get locked up/pepper sprayed/tazered.

When you're operating outside of your powers? That says much more about you and your sort than anyone else.


neither your 'cop hating anarchist' attitudes or your bush lawyer law knowledge are my problem any more.

Sounds like the cops are the bush lawyers.

[Skyryder]

Yep.. so what gives them the power to make you remain stopped if it's NOT under this section...

That is.. if they know who you are, you have legal licence, legal rego, legal WOF...what gives them the right to make you hang around for other stuff ?


They have other powers under other acts. The fifteen minute only applies to establish identity. Duff was stopped under the requirments of the Land Transport Act. The officer established his identity and the Judge dismissed all other charges. But let us suppose that the officer saw a shotgun on the back seat. He / she would be entirely in their rights to hold the driver so that checks could be established the driver held the appropiate licence. That may or may not take fifteen minutes. The key to so many acts is reasonable as againt what is not.
As I said there would need to be a further incident other than say a traffic infringement.

Skyryder

[marty]

have you read your own signature?

i am very happy with who i am. i don't give a toss what you think of me.

and you would have appreciated being dealt with by me when i was in the job.

[blossomsowner]

so how does it apply for heavy vehicles. They are often stopped and gone over with a fine tooth comb looking for problems..........can you just show the copper your license and thank him for his intentions but say I'm off now i do not have to stay for this bullshit......................

[Skyryder]

so how does it apply for heavy vehicles. They are often stopped and gone over with a fine tooth comb looking for problems..........can you just show the copper your license and thank him for his intentions but say I'm off now i do not have to stay for this bullshit......................

No you can not and be gratefull as a biker for that. Every god dam truckin' company would running shoddy vehicles.


Skyryder

[Indoo]

No wonder you cunts get beaten.

Yeh we are all such cunts eh. Heres what I had one day at work last week.

0620hrs arrive and start doing paperwork.
0640hrs get sent to a domestic involving a tresspass
0650hrs arrive and speak to both drunken idiots each claiming that they own the housing N.Z flat and the other needs to be evicted.
0700hrs start getting paid.
0730hrs reach a resolution between the drunken idiots as to who goes where, transport one idiot to a equally shitty South Auckland address.
0900hrs fight way through traffic arrive back in area.
0915hrs get sent to a minor vehicle collision involving two people who refuse to report the matter at a station despite the fact that they have already moved the vehicles, there are no witnesses or physical evidence.
1000hrs after battling traffic arrive at the scene and take report - attempt to complete 8 page crash report but get called away to attend a shoplifter attempting to decamp the scene
1100hrs locate said shoplifter, who turns out to be female who stole makeup and who rants on about how Police can't touch her. Tell female she is under arrest accused of being a rapist.
1200hrs- female transported and processed at central. More stolen property from other stores located on her person.
1230hrs- free from processing the thief, ask if can have meal break, denied as 2 domestics waiting in system.
1245 hrs attend first domestic, obnoxious female opens door and asks' what the fuck took you so long' turns out male party has left after allegedly assaulting female at 8am that morning.
1330hrs- get send to second domestic (other units all tied up). Turns out second domestic is a 13 year old female angry that her mother tried to get her to do some work around the house as she is suspended.
1400hrs- clear from second domestic, ask to have lunch, get an ok on lunch
1415hrs - arrive at lunch bar, purchase lunch.
1416hrs - get sent to a burglars on down the road.
1417hrs - arrive and catch a 14 year old attempting to do a runner.
1417-1530hrs- deal with cyfs and the 14 year old runaway they don't want back.
1540hrs- while returning from runaway get sent to a mentally disordered female handing out suicidal poems to people on a motorway overbridge.
1600hrs- locate female, who becomes aggressive and attempts kick and bite us.
1630hrs - call up local mental health services who state that it has nothing to do with them
1700hrs - stop getting paid
1700-1900hrs - finally get mentally deranged idiot assessed by mental health workers. Can now claim 8 dollars as a meal allowance for the 2 hours unpaid overtime I've done. Have also accumulated 2 hours additional paper work which I will have to do in my own time.
1920hrs arrive home.

I chose to do the job and could quit at anytime, so expect no sympathy but I'm just curious Awful and Paesea what your average day comprises of?

[Ixion]

5)An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver, but not for longer than 15 minutes if the requirement to remain stopped is made under this subsection only.


That's the kicker. The fifteen minutes is only to establish identity. They can require you to remain stopped as long as is reasonably necessary for other purposes. That in itself would suggest some kind of involvment by another party. It's not about assisting the police it's just that you can not leave the scene if your prescence is required.


Skyryder

That would require there to be some reasonable grounds to suppose that an aresstable offence had been committed. (eg , the shotgun on the back seat mentioned by someone else).

NZ law knows nothing of any right of arbitrary detention by the police , which is what your argument would require.

You must stop for flashing lights etc. You must produce your licence, and establish your identity. Having done so, you may depart, and if the officer objects to that he must arrest you, for some arrestable offence.

Which said, I must note , as I have before, that in general cooperation gives a better result than defiance. And if you decide to play hard ball , you can hardly blame to cop for doing so also.

What is rather disturbing however, is the intimation in this thread , by an ex cop , and also in the Gingacop thread by a serving cop, of an attitude which would seem to indicate that issuing offence notices without justification, to be later withdrawn , is a routine practice by the force. The purpose being , of course, to harrass the recipient, and force them to spend time and money
'
That is most certainly a gross abuse of process, and any police officer found to be doing so should IMHO be immediately dismissed. If any KBer can produce evidence of this (we are working toward it in the Gingacop thread of course), then I would be happy to present a case to the PCA. If such a practice is indeed so commonplace that is mentioned thus in casual conversation, then the corruption in the force is much worse than people realise.

[marty]

after being repped for my comment, obviously i need to explain.

i was taking the piss. i was a good bastard. i could make people's lives pretty miserable if i wanted, but reality is, why make your job harder than it needs to be? i never wasted my time with bikers. picked on cars and trucks. and drunken dickheads. there was always someone else coming around the corner who would more than make up for the idiot who had driven off without sticking around for his ticket.

Crimes Act S317A is the power for stopping vehicles for matters other than the initial stop. if a QP is done after the person has driven off, and the driver is shown as disqualified/wanted/warrant etc the power to stop is contained in there.

apologies if i offended anyone.

[davereid]

Yeh we are all such cunts eh. Heres what I had one day at work last week.

0620hrs arrive and start doing paperwork.
0640hrs get sent to a domestic involving a tresspass
0650hrs arrive and speak to both drunken idiots each claiming that they own the housing N.Z flat and the other needs to be evicted.
0700hrs start getting paid.
0730hrs reach a resolution between the drunken idiots as to who goes where, transport one idiot to a equally shitty South Auckland address.
0900hrs fight way through traffic arrive back in area.
0915hrs get sent to a minor vehicle collision involving two people who refuse to report the matter at a station despite the fact that they have already moved the vehicles, there are no witnesses or physical evidence.
1000hrs after battling traffic arrive at the scene and take report - attempt to complete 8 page crash report but get called away to attend a shoplifter attempting to decamp the scene
1100hrs locate said shoplifter, who turns out to be female who stole makeup and who rants on about how Police can't touch her. Tell female she is under arrest accused of being a rapist.
1200hrs- female transported and processed at central. More stolen property from other stores located on her person.
1230hrs- free from processing the thief, ask if can have meal break, denied as 2 domestics waiting in system.
1245 hrs attend first domestic, obnoxious female opens door and asks' what the fuck took you so long' turns out male party has left after allegedly assaulting female at 8am that morning.
1330hrs- get send to second domestic (other units all tied up). Turns out second domestic is a 13 year old female angry that her mother tried to get her to do some work around the house as she is suspended.
1400hrs- clear from second domestic, ask to have lunch, get an ok on lunch
1415hrs - arrive at lunch bar, purchase lunch.
1416hrs - get sent to a burglars on down the road.
1417hrs - arrive and catch a 14 year old attempting to do a runner.
1417-1530hrs- deal with cyfs and the 14 year old runaway they don't want back.
1540hrs- while returning from runaway get sent to a mentally disordered female handing out suicidal poems to people on a motorway overbridge.
1600hrs- locate female, who becomes aggressive and attempts kick and bite us.
1630hrs - call up local mental health services who state that it has nothing to do with them
1700hrs - stop getting paid
1700-1900hrs - finally get mentally deranged idiot assessed by mental health workers. Can now claim 8 dollars as a meal allowance for the 2 hours unpaid overtime I've done. Have also accumulated 2 hours additional paper work which I will have to do in my own time.
1920hrs arrive home.

I chose to do the job and could quit at anytime, so expect no sympathy but I'm just curious Awful and Paesea what your average day comprises of?

I certainly appreciate the good work you, and many other officers do.

But the police are expected to operate within the law too, not just enforce it !

This thread is not about knocking good cops.

But it is about establishing what is legal for a cop to do, what is borderline, and what is abuse.

So far, no one has been able to tell me why I should wait around if requested by a cop.

It seems, that if I am pulled over for an (alledged) traffic offence, that if I have a valid licence, current WOF and Rego that I can leave.

All I want is an explaination of why thats not the case...if its not the case !

[marty]

from S114 LT Act 1998:

An enforcement officer may require the driver of a vehicle that is stopped under this Act to—

(a) Remain stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary for an enforcement officer to obtain the particulars referred to in paragraph (b), or to complete the exercise of any other power conferred on an enforcement officer by this Act (my highlights)

for example:

139 Issue of infringement notice

(1) If an enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe an infringement offence is being or has been committed by a person, an infringement notice in respect of that offence may be issued to that person by an enforcement officer.

[davereid]

from S114 LT Act 1998:

or to complete the exercise of any other power conferred on an enforcement officer by this Act (my highlights)

[/I]

So, it all comes down to whatever the "other power conferred" might be then.

Does that mean they can piss me around for an hour while they get around to checking the rego of every biker who leaves a rally ?

Or jack my car up to check the suspension when its got a vaild WOF - and they arent qualified to have an opinion anyway ?

[marty]

dunno (only cause i don't need to). however, the 'issuing' of the ticket does not actually say 'handing' or 'delivering it forthwith'. delivery/service is in the next section. it certainly looks like duff was within his rights to leave prior to the ticket being issued, as it could be delivered or served at later date/time.


[true story]
i was involved in an incident with a truck (an empty semi) about 8 years ago. i had stopped him 3 times in 3 days, at the same time of the day - for speeds over 120kms each time. on the 3rd time he was pretty unhappy, and refused to accept the ticket. he wound his window up when i stepped up on the step to pass it to him, and started to drive off. we were in a large truck stop car park at the time (it's still a road). i jumped off, however i stumbled (we were doing about 10km/h) and ended up tripping and falling onto the rotating wheels. luckily i bounced off, and didn't go underneath. rather shaken, i allowed him to carry on, but i followed him for a while, trying to decide what to do. no backup for 30 minutes at least, and he was in a 20 tonne truck vs my patrol car, and it was 5am in the morning, pitch black.[/true story]

how about some bush lawyer opinions on what my ideal decision should have been?.

[peasea]

No wonder you cunts get beaten.

Thank you 'at'.

farty's is just the sort of attitude we've been talking about. When, not if, the plonker 'gets his' I'll send the perp some flowers. I just hope I'm there to see it and that farty, oops, marty, lands close to the gutter so that I don't waste too much energy finishing the job.

Is farty a ginga?

[spudchucka]

OVER opinionated? How do you come to that conclusion, big mouth?

Through you not being on more ignore list.......... yet.

[Forest]

Interesting story about Alan Duff in the paper today.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10514981

In general I support the Police and the work that they do. However they are not infallible as this case illustrates.

[peasea]

no wonder you cunts get locked up/pepper sprayed/tazered.

but, get with the program ladies.

neither your 'cop hating anarchist' attitudes or your bush lawyer law knowledge are my problem any more.

you are all SO easy to wind up though.


Just like you pricks, ya meathead.

[scumdog]

Just a query though SD when does waiting for a QP of QV become unlawful detention? I mean what is considered a reasonable time to wait? Some one *555'd a mate in a HSV on the takas one day and was made to wait 30minutes until the *555 caller arrived.

I would imagine though that a QP or QV would only take a couple of minutes.

I can imagine Duff being a "don't you know who I am" type

I believe that some time back a legal-beagle decided 15 minutes was deemed a fair time to conduct such inquiries, any longer would be unreasonable.

(from what I recall)

[marty]

Thank you 'at'.

farty's is just the sort of attitude we've been talking about. When, not if, the plonker 'gets his' I'll send the perp some flowers. I just hope I'm there to see it and that farty, oops, marty, lands close to the gutter so that I don't waste too much energy finishing the job.

Is farty a ginga?

nope. i'm not a cop either.

:second:

[scumdog]

Or jack my car up to check the suspension when its got a vaild WOF - and they arent qualified to have an opinion anyway ?

A valid WOF is a 50-50 thing - last 50 seconds or 50 metres, whichever comes first.

Shitloads of people 'unmodify' their cars for a WOF -and then remodify it when they get it.

[brendonjw]

admitidly i only read the first page, but last time i was pulled over and the cop asked to see my licence she took it back to the car with her to do the QV check, so did he drive off with no licence or something? either way id probably still wait there until i was given the all clear

[jimbo600]

Yeh we are all such cunts eh. Heres what I had one day at work last week.

0620hrs arrive and start doing paperwork.
0640hrs get sent to a domestic involving a tresspass
0650hrs arrive and speak to both drunken idiots each claiming that they own the housing N.Z flat and the other needs to be evicted.
0700hrs start getting paid.
0730hrs reach a resolution between the drunken idiots as to who goes where, transport one idiot to a equally shitty South Auckland address.
0900hrs fight way through traffic arrive back in area.
0915hrs get sent to a minor vehicle collision involving two people who refuse to report the matter at a station despite the fact that they have already moved the vehicles, there are no witnesses or physical evidence.
1000hrs after battling traffic arrive at the scene and take report - attempt to complete 8 page crash report but get called away to attend a shoplifter attempting to decamp the scene
1100hrs locate said shoplifter, who turns out to be female who stole makeup and who rants on about how Police can't touch her. Tell female she is under arrest accused of being a rapist.
1200hrs- female transported and processed at central. More stolen property from other stores located on her person.
1230hrs- free from processing the thief, ask if can have meal break, denied as 2 domestics waiting in system.
1245 hrs attend first domestic, obnoxious female opens door and asks' what the fuck took you so long' turns out male party has left after allegedly assaulting female at 8am that morning.
1330hrs- get send to second domestic (other units all tied up). Turns out second domestic is a 13 year old female angry that her mother tried to get her to do some work around the house as she is suspended.
1400hrs- clear from second domestic, ask to have lunch, get an ok on lunch
1415hrs - arrive at lunch bar, purchase lunch.
1416hrs - get sent to a burglars on down the road.
1417hrs - arrive and catch a 14 year old attempting to do a runner.
1417-1530hrs- deal with cyfs and the 14 year old runaway they don't want back.
1540hrs- while returning from runaway get sent to a mentally disordered female handing out suicidal poems to people on a motorway overbridge.
1600hrs- locate female, who becomes aggressive and attempts kick and bite us.
1630hrs - call up local mental health services who state that it has nothing to do with them
1700hrs - stop getting paid
1700-1900hrs - finally get mentally deranged idiot assessed by mental health workers. Can now claim 8 dollars as a meal allowance for the 2 hours unpaid overtime I've done. Have also accumulated 2 hours additional paper work which I will have to do in my own time.
1920hrs arrive home.

I chose to do the job and could quit at anytime, so expect no sympathy but I'm just curious Awful and Paesea what your average day comprises of?

You forgot 1930hrs take a blasting from the Inspector for racking up TOIL

[peasea]

admitidly i only read the first page, but last time i was pulled over and the cop asked to see my licence she took it back to the car with her to do the QV check, so did he drive off with no licence or something? either way id probably still wait there until i was given the all clear


Always best to co-operate, they're only doing their job after all. The police are our friends.

[scumdog]

Always best to co-operate, they're only doing their job after all. The police are our friends.

And I'm a 25 year old ginga dwarf.....

[tri boy]

Yeh we are all such cunts eh. Heres what I had one day at work last week.

0620hrs arrive and start doing paperwork.
0640hrs get sent to a domestic involving a tresspass
0650hrs arrive and speak to both drunken idiots each claiming that they own the housing N.Z flat and the other needs to be evicted.
0700hrs start getting paid.
0730hrs reach a resolution between the drunken idiots as to who goes where, transport one idiot to a equally shitty South Auckland address.
0900hrs fight way through traffic arrive back in area.
0915hrs get sent to a minor vehicle collision involving two people who refuse to report the matter at a station despite the fact that they have already moved the vehicles, there are no witnesses or physical evidence.
1000hrs after battling traffic arrive at the scene and take report - attempt to complete 8 page crash report but get called away to attend a shoplifter attempting to decamp the scene
1100hrs locate said shoplifter, who turns out to be female who stole makeup and who rants on about how Police can't touch her. Tell female she is under arrest accused of being a rapist.
1200hrs- female transported and processed at central. More stolen property from other stores located on her person.
1230hrs- free from processing the thief, ask if can have meal break, denied as 2 domestics waiting in system.
1245 hrs attend first domestic, obnoxious female opens door and asks' what the fuck took you so long' turns out male party has left after allegedly assaulting female at 8am that morning.
1330hrs- get send to second domestic (other units all tied up). Turns out second domestic is a 13 year old female angry that her mother tried to get her to do some work around the house as she is suspended.
1400hrs- clear from second domestic, ask to have lunch, get an ok on lunch
1415hrs - arrive at lunch bar, purchase lunch.
1416hrs - get sent to a burglars on down the road.
1417hrs - arrive and catch a 14 year old attempting to do a runner.
1417-1530hrs- deal with cyfs and the 14 year old runaway they don't want back.
1540hrs- while returning from runaway get sent to a mentally disordered female handing out suicidal poems to people on a motorway overbridge.
1600hrs- locate female, who becomes aggressive and attempts kick and bite us.
1630hrs - call up local mental health services who state that it has nothing to do with them
1700hrs - stop getting paid
1700-1900hrs - finally get mentally deranged idiot assessed by mental health workers. Can now claim 8 dollars as a meal allowance for the 2 hours unpaid overtime I've done. Have also accumulated 2 hours additional paper work which I will have to do in my own time.
1920hrs arrive home.

I chose to do the job and could quit at anytime, so expect no sympathy but I'm just curious Awful and Paesea what your average day comprises of?

So, you shovel shit for a living. Big deal. Should of studied harder at school.;)

[scumdog]

So, you shovel shit for a living. Big deal. Should of studied harder at school.;)

The shame is it's so many other peoples shit.

So many people out there never grew up and learned how to get their OWN shit together...

[Swoop]

And I'm a 25 year old ginga dwarf.....
So it is really you in Finn's profile piccie?:blip:

[sinfull]

I got told to come and spend time here by marty ! To feel the love he said !
Fuck him i say lol !
Ok you shit heads i work hard for my 15 k a year, yeah it aint easy being a sickness beneficiary !
Do you see me out there doing it hard ? No ! Do you see me out there doing it hard ? oh ok ya read that twice, don't worry it will pass !!! You don't see me out ther doing it damb it ! I might start writing !!! but don't worry i wont get upset when my time is done ! i will say just one thing !! Fuck you beth, you'll be back ! awww unless i go to court for being da muss then i'll say Lick tounge suck ......................

Aww damb repost !

[scumdog]

I got told to come and spend time here by marty ! To feel the love he said !
Fuck him i say lol !
Ok you shit heads i work hard for my 15 k a year, yeah it aint easy being a sickness beneficiary !
Do you see me out there doing it hard ? No ! Do you see me out there doing it hard ? oh ok ya read that twice, don't worry it will pass !!! You don't see me out ther doing it damb it ! I might start writing !!! but don't worry i wont get upset when my time is done ! i will say just one thing !! Fuck you beth, you'll be back ! awww unless i go to court for being da muss then i'll say Lick tounge suck ......................

Aww damb repost !

Keep taking them pills - especially the big blue ones...

[Richard Mc F]

Fuck fuck fuck the police.............most, but not all my encounters have proven them to be narrow minded and predjudiced.........they need to be called to account at every chance, many of my encounters have been in my favour when I am polite, insist on them giving their full official idendtity and carefully recording all details and conversations in my notebook, if they think they can intimidate they will, fuck, fuck, fuck the police

[sinfull]

Keep taking them pills - especially the big blue ones...

You like them big blue ones do ya ?? I don't ! Filth thats all they are, left over chem crap when p goes wrong as you well know scumdog ! i'm an alcoholic and proud of the fact i can function 24/7 ! choose not to ride 24/7 so i can entertain my 2nd habit ! What spins your wheels when them on ya bikes aint spinning mate ?

[scumdog]

You like them big blue ones do ya ?? I don't ! Filth thats all they are, left over chem crap when p goes wrong as you well know scumdog ! i'm an alcoholic and proud of the fact i can function 24/7 ! choose not to ride 24/7 so i can entertain my 2nd habit ! What spins your wheels when them on ya bikes aint spinning mate ?

Winding up wackos like you mainly.....

[scumdog]

Fuck fuck fuck the police.............most, but not all my encounters have proven them to be narrow minded and predjudiced.........they need to be called to account at every chance, many of my encounters have been in my favour when I am polite, insist on them giving their full official idendtity and carefully recording all details and conversations in my notebook, if they think they can intimidate they will, fuck, fuck, fuck the police

Ah harden up ya wierd paranoid ding-bat, life is too short for worries like that.

"Called into account at every chance" - d'ya even know how to? are you really Howie Broad or something - or are you just another drunken/bonged out KBer????

[Richard Mc F]

Ah harden up ya wierd paranoid ding-bat, life is too short for worries like that.

"Called into account at every chance" - d'ya even know how to? are you really Howie Broad or something - or are you just another drunken/bonged out KBer????


Whatever, if you do not challenge their version of authority they will treat with arrogance for the most part, not that your little tirade does any thing to dispell the current thinking.

Make your judgments, I care not.

[scumdog]

Whatever, if you do not challenge their version of authority they will treat with arrogance for the most part, not that your little tirade does any thing to dispell the current thinking.

Make your judgments, I care not.

Yes you do,,,yes you do!

Or otherwise you wouldn't have posted YOUR 'tirade'!!

[sinfull]

Winding up wackos like you mainly.....
Aha Do i have your attention or do you have mine ?

Just done a quick read through of this thread (haven't bothered prior to martys invite) On ya mate !
Apon reading (well not really but skimmed it) Some here talk of police bullies pfffft harden up scumbags ya get what ya reap !
90% of you would be screaming help and the other 10% i would shoot if there were no police to police what needs policing !

You wouldn't get me workin that shift no way not for 80 k a yr

Scum ! You interpreted my saying 15 k a yr as me being a lowlife correct ?haha scum you are and fuck off, if not read on ! I have, have had, will have and always will have more happiness in life than you will ever achieve !
Scary aye ? But then i am no better off, no higher, no lower, no worse off, no better off than you, or you have ever been, will ever be !
Its just timing bro ! I have never nor will i ever have a problem with the police !~
If ever we come into contact it will be because of bikes ! I have and always will have a problem with speeding !
So be it !!! I'm not hard done by ! Fair cop is a fair cop ! If i speed i run the risk of being caught !

I say again i should become a writer !! But you wont see me swinging a lady by the cuff if things go bad ! Though you might still find me correcting kids thoughts at a young age, even if i have a back that wont carry the load of that which i know, no more !

Sinfullbastard !!!!!

[sinfull]

50 ways to lose ya lover !!!
Awww shut up !!!

[peasea]

Yeah, shut up all of ya.
I'm outta here for another few months, it's the same shit different day.

[tri boy]

it's the same shit different day.

"Officer Indoo, Shovel to aisle 3 please, aisle 3 please for clean up. Thank you"
(nice day outside, might go for a ride)

[denill]

Yeh we are all such cunts eh. Heres what I had one day at work last week.

0620hrs arrive and start doing paperwork.
0640hrs get sent to a domestic involving a tresspass
0650hrs arrive and speak to both drunken idiots each claiming that they own the housing N.Z flat and the other needs to be evicted.
0700hrs start getting paid.
0730hrs reach a resolution between the drunken idiots as to who goes where, transport one idiot to a equally shitty South Auckland address.
0900hrs fight way through traffic arrive back in area.
0915hrs get sent to a minor vehicle collision involving two people who refuse to report the matter at a station despite the fact that they have already moved the vehicles, there are no witnesses or physical evidence.
1000hrs after battling traffic arrive at the scene and take report - attempt to complete 8 page crash report but get called away to attend a shoplifter attempting to decamp the scene
1100hrs locate said shoplifter, who turns out to be female who stole makeup and who rants on about how Police can't touch her. Tell female she is under arrest accused of being a rapist.
1200hrs- female transported and processed at central. More stolen property from other stores located on her person.
1230hrs- free from processing the thief, ask if can have meal break, denied as 2 domestics waiting in system.
1245 hrs attend first domestic, obnoxious female opens door and asks' what the fuck took you so long' turns out male party has left after allegedly assaulting female at 8am that morning.
1330hrs- get send to second domestic (other units all tied up). Turns out second domestic is a 13 year old female angry that her mother tried to get her to do some work around the house as she is suspended.
1400hrs- clear from second domestic, ask to have lunch, get an ok on lunch
1415hrs - arrive at lunch bar, purchase lunch.
1416hrs - get sent to a burglars on down the road.
1417hrs - arrive and catch a 14 year old attempting to do a runner.
1417-1530hrs- deal with cyfs and the 14 year old runaway they don't want back.
1540hrs- while returning from runaway get sent to a mentally disordered female handing out suicidal poems to people on a motorway overbridge.
1600hrs- locate female, who becomes aggressive and attempts kick and bite us.
1630hrs - call up local mental health services who state that it has nothing to do with them
1700hrs - stop getting paid
1700-1900hrs - finally get mentally deranged idiot assessed by mental health workers. Can now claim 8 dollars as a meal allowance for the 2 hours unpaid overtime I've done. Have also accumulated 2 hours additional paper work which I will have to do in my own time.
1920hrs arrive home.

I chose to do the job and could quit at anytime, so expect no sympathy but I'm just curious Awful and Paesea what your average day comprises of?


Mate, I admire you and your like. :yes: :yes:

The HPs - I dislike with a vengence. :2guns: :2guns: ALL OF THEM.

[Indoo]

So, you shovel shit for a living. Big deal. Should of studied harder at school.;)

So then why on earth are you complaining, surely its only natural that when we deal with shit such as yourself you get dealt with accordingly?

Normal law abiding productive members of society get treated with respect, in the unlikely case you ever become one you can expect the same.

[Jantar]

...Normal law abiding productive members of society get treated with respect, in the unlikely case you ever become one you can expect the same.
I had respect for you Indoo, and thought you were one of the good cops. That was until you made that comment about Triboy. He is a normal law abiding productive members of society, yet your immediate assumption is that he isn't. If you treat other members of the public with the same attitude then expect it to be returned to yourself and other cops as well.

That is the unfortunate part because we all know there are many bloody good cops out there, who don't assume that all members of the public are shit. Its just getting harder and harder to recognise them.

[icekiwi]

WTF...
Thought this might be an interesting read on a sunday morn..
(logged on to check lotto actually...lost that sucker too..)
Soon dawned on me what a load of shit i've been reading.
Reminds me off when my kids in the sandpit having a spat...
Can't be botherd completing the post going to get a life and get on da bike for the day.....Suggest some others should do the same...
Laters....

[Indoo]

yet your immediate assumption is that he isn't. If you treat other members of the public with the same attitude then expect it to be returned to yourself and other cops as well.

My assumptions were based on his posts on here, which are a pretty good indicator of his personality and attitude. And if he has the same attitude on here whenever he interacts with Police then he shouldn't act surprised and complain when he gets treated accordingly.

As cliche as it sounds I always treat members of the public with alot of respect, its always a two way street though. When you are dealing with 'shit' all day its nice to actually run into normal people, unfortunately its usually because they are the victims of forementioned 'shit'.

[Pedrostt500]

Yup nobody said life would be easy, I like the idea of karma, what you get back is what you put out.
I've done a number of different jobs over the years, all of them have had parts to the job that have been dificult or unpleasant, some worse than others.
But I think it comes back to Karma, you make some one elses life misserable for kicks, then some where down the track some one else will make your life misserable, for their kicks.
There seems to have been a change in attitude by the police back when the police and the MOT merged, I would like to see the two departments seperated again, though I geuss this will not happen.
My attitude to being pulled over is, treat the officer with some respect, if ya act like a dickhead then so will they, some times the most disarming thing you can do is smile.
always keep ya WOF and REG up to date, and keep on top of the obvious stuff like blowen bulbs, and bald tyres, a vechicle that looks like a bucket of shit has more chances of being repeatedly pulled over at random than one that doesnt.
Cops have their fishing grounds, normaly in areas of high traffic flows, more chances of filling their quotas, and you either know or will get to know where most of these places will be in your local area, so dont drive / ride like a Dick Head through these areas.

[davereid]

Can we get this back on topic before it gets shoved into "pointless drivel" ?

I'm seriously interested in finding out what CAN and what CAN'T be legally done during a traffic stop.

To refresh...

1. Can a cop make you wait in a queue for WOF or Rego checks for as long as it takes ?

2. If you have current rego/licence/WOF can a cop make you wait while he jacks the car up to check stuff he isn't qualified to ave an opinion on anyway ?

3. Can a cop open boot/bonnet etc without your permission ?

If so under what section of the law ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Max Preload]

Yeh we are all such cunts eh. Heres what I had one day at work last week.

BLAH BLAH etc.

I chose to do the job and could quit at anytime, so expect no sympathy but I'm just curious Awful and Paesea what your average day comprises of?

Well, let's see. For a work day that would be:

1000 - Wake naturally without being startled out of my skin by a shrill alarm.
1030 - Consider the benefits of getting out of bed, conclude they're insufficient to warrant such drastic action.
1100 - Finally emerge from the scratcher and brunch on bacon, eggs & hash browns.
1115 - Consider doing some work - decide against it.
1130 - Feeling guilty, I reconsider doing some work - fortunately common sense prevails and I redismiss the idea.
1145 - Go back to bed for a power nap.
1300 - Re-awaken.
1400 - Leave the sanctuary of a nice warm duvet to indulge in a rigourous process of invoicing customers.
1500 - Ponder the rich tapestry of life and what to have for dinner.
1615 - Thank my lucky stars I paid attention at school and had choices beyond becoming a Policeman.
1630 - Catch burglar breaking into neighbours house. Call the Police who say "We'd like to help you, we really would but we're very busy down here. *click* *click* *click* King me!"
1730 - Release burglar and prepare and consume dinner, planning to start with the consumption of caviar from the bum cheek of a supermodel.
1735 - Police knock on my front door with the same burglar in tow, complaining about my detention of him being unlawful.
2000 - Released from custody on Police bail to appear in the district court.
2030 - Feel guilty about not having done any work today.
2031 - Send out some more invoices and feel much better.
2145 - Wonder if I'll do any work tomorrow and then shower and go to bed.

[Ixion]

Can we get this back on topic before it gets shoved into "pointless drivel" ?

I'm seriously interested in finding out what CAN and what CAN'T be legally done during a traffic stop.

To refresh...

1. Can a cop make you wait in a queue for WOF or Rego checks for as long as it takes ?

2. If you have current rego/licence/WOF can a cop make you wait while he jacks the car up to check stuff he isn't qualified to ave an opinion on anyway ?

3. Can a cop open boot/bonnet etc without your permission ?

If so under what section of the law ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On my understanding (IANAL, but even they are not of a common mind)

1. Yes, they can stop you, and if there is a queue you may need to wait. But only for a "reasonable time" . What "reasonable" is is not defined, but I imagine one could point to the 15 minutes allowed for identity checking and say "the law says that's reasonable". But, IMHO, there is nothing to stop you doing a U turn and going the other way if you are tired of waiting (the cops may of course wonder about that and come after you and stop you, but at least it sort of gets you to the front of the queue). They have not actually stopped YOU, you have just stopped because there is a traffic stoppage. So the "remaining stopped" stuff, in my submission, is not relevant

2. Yes, if they have reasonable grounds for thinking the vehicle may be modified or unsafe. Note the rules is different for trucks and buses and such.

3. No, not unless there is something to invoke a more serious act (eg the shotgun on the back seat).

A lot of this stuff is not in statute law, it is the common law. Common law says noone may be detained whilst proceeding about his lawful occassions except as explicitly allowed by law. So you can only be detained against your will (or searched etc) when a statute expressly allows it.

Land Transport Act 1998 and its associated regs and Rules is the mian legislation relating to traffic matters.

[Skyryder]

That would require there to be some reasonable grounds to suppose that an aresstable offence had been committed. (eg , the shotgun on the back seat mentioned by someone else).

NZ law knows nothing of any right of arbitrary detention by the police , which is what your argument would require.

Yes that is correct. My wording of 'involvement by another party' was perhaps not as clear as it could be. I've had a quick gander at some other acts and there is no requirment that I can find where the public are obliged to remain, after correctly identifying themselves. It would appear that Duff knew this and may have been the reason the police dropped the charge of assault in as much that the officer pursing Duff while he was about his (1)lawfull buisness and (2) the less publicity that the public know on this the better.
Seems like Duff is going make that hard.





Skyryder

[Indoo]

1. . But, IMHO, there is nothing to stop you doing a U turn and going the other way if you are tired of waiting (the cops may of course wonder about that and come after you and stop you, but at least it sort of gets you to the front of the queue).

I think thats pretty much spot on, your not required to stop until you are signaled to do so, ie when you reach the front of the queue and the cop puts his hand up for you to stop. If there is a large queue its fairly unreasonable to expect people to stop and wait at inconvenience to them on the random chance that they might have an expired wof or rego, not exactly a public relations plus story.


3. No, not unless there is something to invoke a more serious act (eg the shotgun on the back seat).
.

Bonnet is a bit of a different story to boot, given that its necessary to open it to check the vin etc and any certs. Boot can only be checked though under a stat search or pursuant to arrest in some cases.

[tzrmike]

Maybe next we get pulled over by Mr Plod, we should take out OUR notepad, and take down everything HE says...I wonder how he'd enjoy that?

[theblacksmith]

Good idea tzrmike! Notepad in car and truck ready.

[scumdog]

Maybe next we get pulled over by Mr Plod, we should take out OUR notepad, and take down everything HE says...I wonder how he'd enjoy that?


Knock your socks off sunshine - they wouldn't give a fat rats arse.

Of course it would be a tad harsh on those that get pulled over and can't write!!!

[SPman]

A lot of people seem to forget that most cops are dealing with the "less savoury" sectors of the populace, day in, day out. Even to the most well balanced, that is going to have a deletorious affect,to the extent that, if having an off day, they are going to bite some innocent persons head off for the most trivial of reasons, or even, no reason at all! Shouldn't happen, of course, but it does. Human nature, and, having seen some of the crap that goes on on the roads, at times, I can't blame them! You could probably lump 80% of all police in that category.
When it happens to us, we get, understandably, rather pissed off! Suddenly, all police are tarred with the same brush - the one that should be used to tar and feather the other section of arrogant, egomaniacal,arseholes, who seem to use the police as their own little power trip over the public, one which seems to often extend right to the top. - eg - the Ombudsmans report into the police attempted procurement of tasers...which concluded that - "
Given that the decision on whether to equip Police with Tasers is an executive one, with no provision for Parliamentary oversight, Cabinet approval, or Ministerial sign off, I consider that there is a particularly strong public interest in the accountability and transparency of the Commissioner’s decision-making on this issue. In my view the best way to ensure this, is for the process to be as open and transparent as possible. The Police have argued that the proactive release of the Taser summaries on the Police website has already met this public interest consideration. I disagree.
The trial has been run by the Police, the summaries have been written by Police, and the refusal to release any of the “raw data” from the pilot to outside parties has meant that there does not appear to have been any external review of how the Police have conducted the pilot. The production of these reports therefore seems inadequate to address the principle of accountability.
Secondly, I have read the summaries and compared them with the tactical options report accounts. In my view, many of the summaries are extremely brief, and have the effect of “sanitising” the original reports.
These are strong words for an Ombudsman, ie, - she is essentially accusing the police of lying to the public and feeding us shit in order to push through a decision without any public oversight.

People and groups in positions of power, have a duty to act in a responsible manner towards those their actions affect and if it seems that they are not, should be called to task - and that includes the police.

and the government, multi nationals, ginga cops,etc, etc,etc........

[scumdog]

Secondly, I have read the summaries and compared them with the tactical options report accounts. In my view, many of the summaries are extremely brief, and have the effect of “sanitising” the original reports.
[/INDENT]These are strong words for an Ombudsman, ie, - she is essentially accusing the police of lying to the public and feeding us shit in order to push through a decision without any public oversight.

People and groups in positions of power, have a duty to act in a responsible manner towards those their actions affect and if it seems that they are not, should be called to task - and that includes the police.

and the government, multi nationals, ginga cops,etc, etc,etc........

Ah well, back to just pepper-spray or a Glock eh?

Bad luck for the next golfclub wielding fruit-loop eh!

[davereid]

Don't waste your time on the fruit-loops.

Get that Bushmaster out, and go looking for the cunts who blew away a 30 year-old father of three who was just trying to run his shop.

Given that just down the road there was another armed hold up about the same time, shop keepers should be ENCOURAGED not BANNED from having their own bushmaster behind the counter.

Especially if the cops take 45 minutes to get to the scene, and won't let the ambo in till they clear the scene.

I'm not blaming the cops.

Joe Average cop is not armed or trained to deal with this, and he deserves to go home to his family too. And so does the Ambo crew !

It takes time to organise the AOS. But in the gap, its about time we allowed the good guys to shoot back.

[Renegade]

Can we get this back on topic before it gets shoved into "pointless drivel" ?

I'm seriously interested in finding out what CAN and what CAN'T be legally done during a traffic stop.

To refresh...

1. Can a cop make you wait in a queue for WOF or Rego checks for as long as it takes ?

2. If you have current rego/licence/WOF can a cop make you wait while he jacks the car up to check stuff he isn't qualified to ave an opinion on anyway ?

3. Can a cop open boot/bonnet etc without your permission ?

If so under what section of the law ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I beleive its section 113 of the land transport act, to inspect, test and examine the vehicle, i.e brakes and vehicle equipment such as exhuasts and suspension, documents i.e wof/reg/road users etc.

so to answer your question, yip you gotta stay, as for being qualified its think its pretty obvious to most when a car has cut springs or a poorly mounted after market exhaust draggin down the road.

I have had a run in with said female officer in the duff case and confirm she got what was coming to her and it was well over due.

[marty]

I'm sure I posted this last night, but it's not here, so I'll do it again.

A few years ago I had some dealings with a truckie, namely 3 speeding tickets in 3 days (0500am, SH1 Cambridge). Over 120km/h each time. (fastest 135k on 3rd day).

On this 3rd occasion, he stopped in the Mobil @ Karapiro, which has a large truck-stopping area. He wasn't very happy funnily enough, and when I stepped up onto the step to give him his ticket, he wound his window up, then started to drive off, while I was standing on the step.

I jumped off - we were doing about 10km/h. I stumbled, and as the truck was turning reasonably sharp, the 40' container trailer that was following the unit, was tracking across towards me. I fell into the back wheels of the truck, bounced off, landed on my arse, then scrambled away on all fours to avoid being run over. The truck drove off south, I got into my patrol car and began following him.

I was by myself, nearest back-up in Tokoroa or Tauranga.

What should my next action be?

(I made some on-the-spot decisions that in hindsight may or may not have been the best, would be interested to know what other people would do.)

[SixPackBack]

I'm sure I posted this last night, but it's not here, so I'll do it again.

A few years ago I had some dealings with a truckie, namely 3 speeding tickets in 3 days (0500am, SH1 Cambridge). Over 120km/h each time. (fastest 135k on 3rd day).

On this 3rd occasion, he stopped in the Mobil @ Karapiro, which has a large truck-stopping area. He wasn't very happy funnily enough, and when I stepped up onto the step to give him his ticket, he wound his window up, then started to drive off, while I was standing on the step.

I jumped off - we were doing about 10km/h. I stumbled, and as the truck was turning reasonably sharp, the 40' container trailer that was following the unit, was tracking across towards me. I fell into the back wheels of the truck, bounced off, landed on my arse, then scrambled away on all fours to avoid being run over. The truck drove off south, I got into my patrol car and began following him.

I was by myself, nearest back-up in Tokoroa or Tauranga.

What should my next action be?

(I made some on-the-spot decisions that in hindsight may or may not have been the best, would be interested to know what other people would do.)

Pop a cap in has ass:2guns:

[marty]

come on spb - if what i have said previously is a 'shocker', what should i have done in this case?

i didn't have a gun or a tazer. pepper spray and baton only.

[MIXONE]

marty what I would have done would be radio ahead to the next base he was heading for and called up assistance then followed at a reasonable distance until arrival of the calvary.It probable would have added a bit of excitement and a change from the normal domestics etc.

[SixPackBack]

come on spb - if what i have said previously is a 'shocker', what should i have done in this case?

i didn't have a gun or a tazer. pepper spray and baton only.

Dunno marty. Call for back-up, stop the cunt and beat him senseless.:blink:

What did you do?

[Ixion]

Well, you knew his name, and the vehicle rego. Wouldn't have been hard to locate the next day. And even his daily route. No real need for heroics chasing him. He'd not likely be any danger to anyone else, and obviously no longer any danger to you. So, follow up at leisure. Charge? Careless driving? Seems pretty careless taking off when someone's standing on the vehicle. And a word with his employer maybe?

,

[scumdog]

No real need for heroics chasing him. He'd not likely be any danger to anyone else, and obviously no longer any danger to you.
,

The bigie is: You KNOW this how?

After all, it may be he was on something, he was mentally unstable or whatever, look at the Jap guy in tonights news.

[Ixion]

Well given that
(a) Mr Marty had stopped him three days in a row, same time same place, so he was clearly driving a regular route
(b) Drivers of rigs like that are hardly going to fade in the night. Either he's employed by a trucking firm , or he's a contract owner driver. Either way the business name will be plastered over the truck.
(c) Mr Marty had just given him a ticket and presumably spent about 10 minutes talking to him, without any concerns about "being on something"
(d) Mr Marty had observed him three days running and stopped him, for speeding. Nothing else.

Somehow, don't think he'd be hard to track down. This wasn't boi-racer in the 20 year old Celica registered ot a non existent address.

[marty]

ixion's got it. i charged him with reckless, i posted him the speeding ticket (it was paid no complaints)

he defended it, i got hammered for half a day by his lawyer - 'so you're saying my client was reckless and could have killed you and you just let him go?'

no i wasn't saying that - i said that he was reckless as to whether i was injured or not. the offence finished there. i didn't re-stop him as he was obviously not very happy with me, and i didn't want to have to pepper spray him just to show who had the biggest dick. not to mention he had already intimated that if i tried to stop him again, that he would simply reverse over my patrol car, even if i was in it.

he was arrested by tauranga police on arrival at his base. i had already talked to his boss (who had contacted me the day before in relation to the 2nd stop and asked me to advise him if any of his trucks was stopped again).

anyway, he got off the reckless - judge basically told me to htfu, and that it was a hazard of the job.

oh well, win some lose some. i was getting paid the whole time. quota was down a bit for that day, but i made up for the next day writing out 40 tickets to drivers of cars doing 111-120km/h (not really, but it would be nice if this had a happy ending...... :) )

i think i went and celebrated with a latte and donuts at the Big Cow

[davereid]

...when I stepped up onto the step to give him his ticket, he wound his window up, then started to drive off, while I was standing on the step....

I jumped off - we were doing about 10km/h. I stumbled, and as the truck was turning reasonably sharp, the 40' container trailer that was following the unit, was tracking across towards me. I fell into the back wheels of the truck, bounced off, landed on my arse, then scrambled away on all fours to avoid being run over....

Sounds like attempted murder to me.

If a trucky or car driver deliberately tries to kill you, its attempted murder.

IMHO Buggar all difference between driving your car deliberately into a crowd of teenagers, or a group of cyclists to killing them with a knife or firearm.

[swbarnett]

Sounds like attempted murder to me.

If a trucky or car driver deliberately tries to kill you, its attempted murder.

IMHO Buggar all difference between driving your car deliberately into a crowd of teenagers, or a group of cyclists to killing them with a knife or firearm.
If I understand it correctly murder requires intent? From the description of the incident it doesn't sound like the trucky intended to kill marty, he just put him into a dangerous situation and didn't care what happened to him.

[spudchucka]

If I understand it correctly murder requires intent? From the description of the incident it doesn't sound like the trucky intended to kill marty, he just put him into a dangerous situation and didn't care what happened to him.

slightly more complex than just having intent but here's the definition FYI.


Murder defined

Culpable homicide is murder in each of the following cases:

(a) If the offender means to cause the death of the person killed:

(b) If the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily injury that is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not:

(c) If the offender means to cause death, or, being so reckless as aforesaid, means to cause such bodily injury as aforesaid to one person, and by accident or mistake kills another person, though he does not mean to hurt the person killed:

(d) If the offender for any unlawful object does an act that he knows to be likely to cause death, and thereby kills any person, though he may have desired that his object should be effected without hurting any one.

[spudchucka]

Especially if the cops take 45 minutes to get to the scene, and won't let the ambo in till they clear the scene.

I think you'll find that it is Ambo policy and not a case of the cops not letting them in. Until the NZ public and politicians accept that our police need to be routinely armed there will always be delays in patrols arriving to scenes like that one.

[davereid]

Until the NZ public and politicians accept that our police need to be routinely armed there will always be delays in patrols arriving to scenes like that one.

It's not just about arming the police.

Normal New Zealanders need to be able to defend themselves too.

I watched the article on the TV last night, filmed in front of the store. A very large, and very unhappy looking security guard was standing there, hopping from foot to foot.

So he should be ! What is he ? A sacrifice to the gods ? Someone to hide a skinny indian behind when the bad guys start shooting ?

There is no reason why given proper training, that guard could not be armed, and no reason why the shopkeeper couldn't either.

I agree its a good idea to arm the police.

But they are always the last to the scene.
The shop owner, the security guard coming to the alarm response, the lone woman in the car park or her own bedroom is always there first.

[imdying]

Until the NZ public and politicians accept that our police need to be routinely armed there will always be delays in patrols arriving to scenes like that one.It's not a forgone conclusion at this stage. I'd rather see the killing done at the other end of the business, where there's a little more time to apply it with the correct considerations. Electric chair, hanging, hunt them like animals through national parks, whatever. There's always going to be offenders, no reason we need repeat offenders though.

[Fatjim]

I think you'll find that it is Ambo policy and not a case of the cops not letting them in. Until the NZ public and politicians accept that our police need to be routinely armed there will always be delays in patrols arriving to scenes like that one.

I'm for the police being armed, as long as it doesn't see a corresponding softening in the arms laws.

[swbarnett]

I'm for the police being armed, as long as it doesn't see a corresponding softening in the arms laws.
The only problem with arming the police is that this will be matched with a corresponding increase in the number of armed crims.

Or has this already happened and it's the police that are in catch up mode?

[davereid]

I'm for the police being armed, as long as it doesn't see a corresponding softening in the arms laws.

Huh ?

In case you hadn't noticed the crims are ALREADY armed. Doing about 1.5 armed robberies a day on average.

The pat them on the head, put their benefit up a bit approach has failed.

Time to allow the good guys to be armed surely !

[scumdog]

I'm for the police being armed.

Nah, I couldn't be trusted not to shoot those I thought needed shooting.:angry2:

Would even bring my own bullets.

[davereid]

Nah, I couldn't be trusted not to shoot those I thought needed shooting.:angry2:Would even bring my own bullets.

I'll mail you some if you run out.

[The Pastor]

So to clairfy.

You speed (lets say under 140 so no instant loss of licence)

You get caught.

You give the cop the licnce

He dose his QP

You are now legally allowed to drive away (before ticket has been issued ) leaving the coppa with ur licence.

[Patrick]

What a thread... some say ALL cops are wankers, a cop replies that someone is a dickhead and someone else gets uppity about that... farken funny.

DUFF shook a woman around. Tough prick.

Bad mistake on her part laying the restisting charge months later, which is why it got pulled. It looked like sour grapes. Charge him at the time.

Judge seemd to forget about the fact that his licence may be invalid, he might be disqualified from driving, suspended, wanted for demerit suspension whatever.... all necessary checks by QP to be made to show he is actually permitted to drive on the roads, a core business requirement that Police need to do....

Watch for the appeal by the Police....

[Fatjim]

Huh ?

In case you hadn't noticed the crims are ALREADY armed. Doing about 1.5 armed robberies a day on average.

The pat them on the head, put their benefit up a bit approach has failed.

Time to allow the good guys to be armed surely !

I'm really trying to figure out what your statement has to do with mine?

[imdying]

How can you drive off without your license anyway? Isn't it a legal requirement these days to carry a license when driving? Like to see the uppity nigger try that in the states :lol:

[Jantar]

....Judge seemd to forget about the fact that his licence may be invalid, he might be disqualified from driving, suspended, wanted for demerit suspension whatever.... all necessary checks by QP to be made to show he is actually permitted to drive on the roads, a core business requirement that Police need to do....

Watch for the appeal by the Police....

My understanding is that "the fact that his licence may be invalid, he might be disqualified from driving, suspended, wanted for demerit suspension whatever" is the part that constituted the fishing. He was only required to remain long enough to establish his identity, and he did that by producing a drivers licence with his photo on it. The fact the licence may not have been valid was irrellevant as to his identity. A QP could have been carried out after he had left, and if anything else was found, then he could have been stopped again if he was arrestable, or for any other irregularity a new ticket could have been posted out.

Remember the furore when photo lincences were introduced? They were sold on the basis that they would enable police to establish identity quickly and accurately with having to go through a QP.

[scumdog]

My understanding is that "the fact that his licence may be invalid, he might be disqualified from driving, suspended, wanted for demerit suspension whatever" is the part that constituted the fishing. He was only required to remain long enough to establish his identity, and he did that by producing a drivers licence with his photo on it. The fact the licence may not have been valid was irrellevant as to his identity. A QP could have been carried out after he had left, and if anything else was found, then he could have been stopped again if he was arrestable, or for any other irregularity a new ticket could have been posted out.

Remember the furore when photo lincences were introduced? They were sold on the basis that they would enable police to establish identity quickly and accurately with having to go through a QP.

I'll wait to see what the appeal turns up
If the judgement sticks it will make my job easier.

"OK, I've seen your licence, now piss-off real quick before I find out you're suspended/disqualified/have a WTA/recalled to prison/wanted for service of suspension letter as I don't need the agro and paperwork" etc.

[Ixion]

What a thread... some say ALL cops are wankers, a cop replies that someone is a dickhead and someone else gets uppity about that... farken funny.

DUFF shook a woman around. Tough prick.

Bad mistake on her part laying the restisting charge months later, which is why it got pulled. It looked like sour grapes. Charge him at the time.

Judge seemd to forget about the fact that his licence may be invalid, he might be disqualified from driving, suspended, wanted for demerit suspension whatever.... all necessary checks by QP to be made to show he is actually permitted to drive on the roads, a core business requirement that Police need to do....

Watch for the appeal by the Police....

Judge did not forget. Judge in fact made a specific poin tof mentioning it. But also mentioned a fundamental principle of our law, one which dates back well over 1000 years.

That , in short, we are a free people. We are at liberty to go about our lawful business. We cannot be arbitrarily stopped or detained, just because someone does not like the look of us.

That liberty is no small matter. It was not just handed down on a plate : it was won, and preserved at a terrible cost in blood, on the battlefield and the scaffold. And it should not be lightly surrendered, no matter how convenient such a surrender might be to the police. Indeed, the principle that the Crown (ie the Police) do NOT possess an arbitrary right of detention is the whole point.

As the judge carefully noted, so fundamental to our law is this principle, that it can only be overridden by an explicit statement by parliament.

And Parliament has made no such statement. they have said "You, oh Officer Bumblebee, may require a person driving a vehicle to prove their identity, and you may detain them for up to 15 minutes while you check that out". That's it. Parliament has never said that the Police may detain people for an arbitrary time (as long as they like) while they do what ever they like. No matter how convenient the polcie might find it.

If the present ability to detain motorists until their identity is proven, up until a maximum of 15 minutes is not sufficient for you, how long do you want the right to lock people up who are stopped at the roadside (who may, bear in mind, have committed no offence whatsoever)? An hour? A day ? a week? Indefinately? Perhaps the Yanks could sublease us partt of Guatamala Bay to lock them up in ?

Take the matter out of the context of motoring. Your argument would necessarily also justify putting up blockades , say at sports events, and detaining every person leaving (on foot) until they could prove they were not wanted for something. And anyone who could not prove their identity could be locked up for as long as you chose.

The requirement to carry the driver's licence at all times was resisted strongly by those who valued liberty on the grounds that it would become a de-facto identity card system. This case (and others) clearly show that those fears were justified.

What you demand MUST be resisted, because that way lies tyranny.

[98tls]

Judge did not forget. Judge in fact made a specific poin tof mentioning it. But also mentioned a fundamental principle of our law, one which dates back well over 1000 years.

That , in short, we are a free people. We are at liberty to go about our lawful business. We cannot be arbitrarily stopped or detained, just because someone does not like the look of us.

That liberty is no small matter. It was not just handed down on a plate : it was won, and preserved at a terrible cost in blood, on the battlefield and the scaffold. And it should not be lightly surrendered, no matter how convenient such a surrender might be to the police. Indeed, the principle that the Crown (ie the Police) do NOT possess an arbitrary right of detention is the whole point.

As the judge carefully noted, so fundamental to our law is this principle, that it can only be overridden by an explicit statement by parliament.

And Parliament has made no such statement. they have said "You, oh Officer Bumblebee, may require a person driving a vehicle to prove their identity, and you may detain them for up to 15 minutes while you check that out". That's it. Parliament has never said that the Police may detain people for an arbitrary time (as long as they like) while they do what ever they like. No matter how convenient the polcie might find it.

If the present ability to detain motorists until their identity is proven, up until a maximum of 15 minutes is not sufficient for you, how long do you want the right to lock people up who are stopped at the roadside (who may, bear in mind, have committed no offence whatsoever)? An hour? A day ? a week? Indefinately? Perhaps the Yanks could sublease us partt of Guatamala Bay to lock them up in ?

Take the matter out of the context of motoring. Your argument would necessarily also justify putting up blockades , say at sports events, and detaining every person leaving (on foot) until they could prove they were not wanted for something. And anyone who could not prove their identity could be locked up for as long as you chose.

The requirement to carry the driver's licence at all times was resisted strongly by those who valued liberty on the grounds that it would become a de-facto identity card system. This case (and others) clearly show that those fears were justified.

What you demand MUST be resisted, because that way lies tyranny. :laugh:Tree hugging shite.If the people that spilt the blood you talk of could read such rubbish and see the NZ of today they would condone much more than detaining people for as long as they like.Parliament:mellow::niceone:

[Horse]

Judge did not forget. Judge in fact made a specific poin tof mentioning it. But also mentioned a fundamental principle of our law, one which dates back well over 1000 years.

That , in short, we are a free people. We are at liberty to go about our lawful business. We cannot be arbitrarily stopped or detained, just because someone does not like the look of us.

That liberty is no small matter. It was not just handed down on a plate : it was won, and preserved at a terrible cost in blood, on the battlefield and the scaffold. And it should not be lightly surrendered, no matter how convenient such a surrender might be to the police. Indeed, the principle that the Crown (ie the Police) do NOT possess an arbitrary right of detention is the whole point.

As the judge carefully noted, so fundamental to our law is this principle, that it can only be overridden by an explicit statement by parliament.

And Parliament has made no such statement. they have said "You, oh Officer Bumblebee, may require a person driving a vehicle to prove their identity, and you may detain them for up to 15 minutes while you check that out". That's it. Parliament has never said that the Police may detain people for an arbitrary time (as long as they like) while they do what ever they like. No matter how convenient the polcie might find it.

If the present ability to detain motorists until their identity is proven, up until a maximum of 15 minutes is not sufficient for you, how long do you want the right to lock people up who are stopped at the roadside (who may, bear in mind, have committed no offence whatsoever)? An hour? A day ? a week? Indefinately? Perhaps the Yanks could sublease us partt of Guatamala Bay to lock them up in ?

Take the matter out of the context of motoring. Your argument would necessarily also justify putting up blockades , say at sports events, and detaining every person leaving (on foot) until they could prove they were not wanted for something. And anyone who could not prove their identity could be locked up for as long as you chose.

The requirement to carry the driver's licence at all times was resisted strongly by those who valued liberty on the grounds that it would become a de-facto identity card system. This case (and others) clearly show that those fears were justified.

What you demand MUST be resisted, because that way lies tyranny.

QFT: Quoted For Truth.

Thunderous applause from this end.

[Patch]

Question for our resident law upholders:

Upon being asked for our license, what part of the law states that we (the public) must handover the license??
I was under the assumption (my bad, for assuming) that we only had to produce it, to prove identity etc.

Just a question.

[jrandom]

Tree hugging shite.If the people that spilt the blood you talk of could read such rubbish and see the NZ of today...

You really have no idea, do you?

[Grahameeboy]

This is disturbing...why should a cop not check someone out...if you watch the UK cop documentaries, this is common practice so a simple motoring stop can establish whether the offender has any o/s warrants etc...you know protecting the free people etc

If you have nothing to hide, why run and hide.

Maybe the cop messed up under the Law, however, I don't really see what she did wrong...it takes 2 to tango

[jrandom]

If you have nothing to hide...

Eeep!

Don't say those words. The path to fascism begins with "if you have nothing to hide..."

Believe it or not, some people do set store by principles of civil liberty and personal privacy.

[Jantar]

This is disturbing...why should a cop not check someone out......
There is nothing in law preventing the police from checking someone out. Its simply that the police may not detain someone purely for that purpose.

[Grahameeboy]

Eeep!

Don't say those words. The path to fascism begins with "if you have nothing to hide..."

Believe it or not, some people do set store by principles of civil liberty and personal privacy.

I guess criminals don't consider those issues...we allow Banks to know about us, credit card companies, internet sites...like KB...so I am not sure we can complain if the Police are allowed to do a few simple checks when they stop someone for a traffic offence...just in case that person has the potential to disturb our civil liberty and personal privacy potential which we want to protect....if the person is clean etc, they drive away with little impact on these principles

[spudchucka]

Question for our resident law upholders:

Upon being asked for our license, what part of the law states that we (the public) must handover the license??
I was under the assumption (my bad, for assuming) that we only had to produce it, to prove identity etc.

Just a question.

Its a matter of practicality, if you take your licence out and show it to the cop from a metre or so away the cop is hardly going to be able to inspect the details from that distance. You need to hand it over for it to be properly inspected.

[Ixion]

I guess criminals don't consider those issues...we allow Banks to know about us, credit card companies, internet sites...like KB...so I am not sure we can complain if the Police are allowed to do a few simple checks when they stop someone for a traffic offence...just in case that person has the potential to disturb our civil liberty and personal privacy potential which we want to protect....if the person is clean etc, they drive away with little impact on these principles

Your analogys are flawed. Banks, Internet sites, credit card companies have to have our agreement to check us out. They can't demand to do it as a matter of right.

And they don't normally keep us waiting on the reoadside while they do it.

If, after my producing my licence , a cop were to say "OK, I'm just going to call through to check our records, will take just a couple of minutes, that OK ?", I'd say (normally) "Sure".

And if I were a cop and someone objected, I'd think maybe he wasn't who the licence said.,So I'd reply something like "Well, Sir, your answer makes me uncertain whether this is indeed your licence or not. So I'm going to have to check the question of your identity a bit further". Which would keep it all within the fifteen minutes.

But, if a cop wanted me to stay at the roadside for an hour while he buggered around trying to prove a point, then I'd be a mite pissed off too, and invoke my right to clear off.

In practice, a reasonable cop is never going to have a problem. And it shouldn't take more than five minutes at most.

[Ixion]

Its a matter of practicality, if you take your licence out and show it to the cop from a metre or so away the cop is hardly going to be able to inspect the details from that distance. You need to hand it over for it to be properly inspected.

Even so - does the cop then have the right to bugger off with it?

And, I remember more than once asking to see a constable's warrant card (plain cloths cops). They would never allow me to touch it. They'd hold it out, close enough to read, but far enough away to prevent a grab. Sauce for goose, etc.

If a cop can't read a licence held out to him at a distance of a few inches (he's standing right by the car window - where does "a metre away" come into it), then he needs his eyes checked.

In practice of course it's easier for everybody to just hand it over. But I'm not convinced the cop has a right to demand that. Nor does the law give him any right to "inspect" the licence. It must be "produced". Where would "inspection" end ? "OK, I'm taking your licence away for a few weeks for it to be inspected by a forensic lab " ?

[Ixion]

This is disturbing...why should a cop not check someone out...if you watch the UK cop documentaries, this is common practice so a simple motoring stop can establish whether the offender has any o/s warrants etc...you know protecting the free people etc

..

:rofl: :killingme:

UK. Free people. Oh, good one. The most fascist state in Europe, and "free people" in the same sentence. That's irony for you.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I guess criminals don't consider those issues...we allow Banks to know about us, credit card companies, internet sites...like KB...so I am not sure we can complain if the Police are allowed to do a few simple checks when they stop someone for a traffic offence...just in case that person has the potential to disturb our civil liberty and personal privacy potential which we want to protect....if the person is clean etc, they drive away with little impact on these principles

the key word in that sentence is "allow"

[HenryDorsetCase]

Eeep!

Don't say those words. The path to fascism begins with "if you have nothing to hide..."

Believe it or not, some people do set store by principles of civil liberty and personal privacy.

concur!!!!

[Coldrider]

Judge did not forget. Judge in fact made a specific poin tof mentioning it. But also mentioned a fundamental principle of our law, one which dates back well over 1000 years.

That , in short, we are a free people. We are at liberty to go about our lawful business. We cannot be arbitrarily stopped or detained, just because someone does not like the look of us.

That liberty is no small matter. It was not just handed down on a plate : it was won, and preserved at a terrible cost in blood, on the battlefield and the scaffold. And it should not be lightly surrendered, no matter how convenient such a surrender might be to the police. Indeed, the principle that the Crown (ie the Police) do NOT possess an arbitrary right of detention is the whole point.

As the judge carefully noted, so fundamental to our law is this principle, that it can only be overridden by an explicit statement by parliament.

And Parliament has made no such statement. they have said "You, oh Officer Bumblebee, may require a person driving a vehicle to prove their identity, and you may detain them for up to 15 minutes while you check that out". That's it. Parliament has never said that the Police may detain people for an arbitrary time (as long as they like) while they do what ever they like. No matter how convenient the polcie might find it.

If the present ability to detain motorists until their identity is proven, up until a maximum of 15 minutes is not sufficient for you, how long do you want the right to lock people up who are stopped at the roadside (who may, bear in mind, have committed no offence whatsoever)? An hour? A day ? a week? Indefinately? Perhaps the Yanks could sublease us partt of Guatamala Bay to lock them up in ?

Take the matter out of the context of motoring. Your argument would necessarily also justify putting up blockades , say at sports events, and detaining every person leaving (on foot) until they could prove they were not wanted for something. And anyone who could not prove their identity could be locked up for as long as you chose.

The requirement to carry the driver's licence at all times was resisted strongly by those who valued liberty on the grounds that it would become a de-facto identity card system. This case (and others) clearly show that those fears were justified.

What you demand MUST be resisted, because that way lies tyranny.
Codified by the magna carter about 13th century, right to roam and the right to 'live'.
The Police swear their oath to the Queen, not the government, part of the separation of powers.
It is a pity that forein citizens taking up residency in new zealand know more of our history, laws and rights than natural citizens.

[Grahameeboy]

Your analogys are flawed. Banks, Internet sites, credit card companies have to have our agreement to check us out. They can't demand to do it as a matter of right.

And they don't normally keep us waiting on the reoadside while they do it.

If, after my producing my licence , a cop were to say "OK, I'm just going to call through to check our records, will take just a couple of minutes, that OK ?", I'd say (normally) "Sure".

And if I were a cop and someone objected, I'd think maybe he wasn't who the licence said.,So I'd reply something like "Well, Sir, your answer makes me uncertain whether this is indeed your licence or not. So I'm going to have to check the question of your identity a bit further". Which would keep it all within the fifteen minutes.

But, if a cop wanted me to stay at the roadside for an hour while he buggered around trying to prove a point, then I'd be a mite pissed off too, and invoke my right to clear off.

In practice, a reasonable cop is never going to have a problem. And it shouldn't take more than five minutes at most.

In a pedantic way I agree flawed, however, in reality I don't think so and as Citizens we agree to abide by the law which is upheld (yes I know what you are thinking) by the Police.

If they fail to do their duty properly then you have the right to complain, however, I would guess that in most cases it only takes 5/10 minutes so there should be no complaints for the reasons I raised.

[Grahameeboy]

the key word in that sentence is "allow"

And I think we should "allow" and co-operate with the Police...like I said if you have nothing to worry about then you are sweet

[jrandom]

And I think we should "allow" and co-operate...

There are two issues, though:

1. Boundary cases, such as the actions of our ginger friend in the northwest, and the apparently-rather-unreasonable lady who pulled over Mr Duff - such individuals should not be allowed to get away with excesses or abuse of their authority.

2. Frog in the Pot Syndrome; gradual erosion of standards over the years can make what you and I would both clearly define as 'fascism' something that our grandchildren would excuse with mealy-mouthed weasel words.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, etc...

[Littleman]

And I think we should "allow" and co-operate with the Police...like I said if you have nothing to worry about then you are sweet

Just be comfortable with the fact that anytime you disagree with the Kahui family it has to be a good thing.

[spudchucka]

Even so - does the cop then have the right to bugger off with it?

And, I remember more than once asking to see a constable's warrant card (plain cloths cops). They would never allow me to touch it. They'd hold it out, close enough to read, but far enough away to prevent a grab. Sauce for goose, etc.

If a cop can't read a licence held out to him at a distance of a few inches (he's standing right by the car window - where does "a metre away" come into it), then he needs his eyes checked.

In practice of course it's easier for everybody to just hand it over. But I'm not convinced the cop has a right to demand that. Nor does the law give him any right to "inspect" the licence. It must be "produced". Where would "inspection" end ? "OK, I'm taking your licence away for a few weeks for it to be inspected by a forensic lab " ?

What about any special conditions that might be detailed on the back of the licence? I have this mental image of a motorist holding their licence up to a closed window while the cop bends at the waist and peers into the window in an attempt to read the details on the licence and then uses sign language to get the motorist to flip the licence over so he can use his magnifying glass to read the conditions printed on the back of the card.

[Grahameeboy]

There are two issues, though:

1. Boundary cases, such as the actions of our ginger friend in the northwest, and the apparently-rather-unreasonable lady who pulled over Mr Duff - such individuals should not be allowed to get away with excesses or abuse of their authority.

2. Frog in the Pot Syndrome; gradual erosion of standards over the years can make what you and I would both clearly define as 'fascism' something that our grandchildren would excuse with mealy-mouthed weasel words.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, etc...

Peace be with you..............

[SixPackBack]

What about any special conditions that might be detailed on the back of the licence? I have this mental image of a motorist holding their licence up to a closed window while the cop bends at the waist and peers into the window in an attempt to read the details on the licence and then uses sign language to get the motorist to flip the licence over so he can use his magnifying glass to read the conditions printed on the back of the card.

Seems reasonable:mellow:

[avgas]

Nope my post was moved to PD as i expressed an opinion. Or mabey it was due to the fact that i used a bad word.
So let me retype it to KB standards.
When i cop pulls you over you sit and bloomin wait for the cop to finish with you before you leave.
Man that is such a diet coke version of what i wrote originally. Sounds GAY

[marty]

i don't think there'll be an appeal.

what there will be, is an application for an amendment to the Act.

mr duff has just done what 100's of drink drivers have done over the years - found a loophole, that will now be closed. check out the drink driving legislation - it has closed so tight now that there is no room for anyone to move. roadside stops will go the same way.

[swbarnett]

i don't think there'll be an appeal.

what there will be, is an application for an amendment to the Act.

mr duff has just done what 100's of drink drivers have done over the years - found a loophole, that will now be closed. check out the drink driving legislation - it has closed so tight now that there is no room for anyone to move. roadside stops will go the same way.
Unfortunately you can't close this kind of "loophole" without another erosion of personal liberties.

The police see loophole, I see basic human right.

[marty]

i can just see it happening. the 15 minutes is already in - it will extend to force motorists stopped, to wait for the process to be complete.

do yo really think the govt cares about the erosion of personal liberty?

[swbarnett]

i can just see it happening. the 15 minutes is already in - it will extend to force motorists stopped, to wait for the process to be complete.

do yo really think the govt cares about the erosion of personal liberty?
No, it's not a vote winner.

Boiling frog syndrome.

[Ixion]

Actually the already amended it , after the Sir Robert case.

They added Sect 2A


[(2A)Subject to subsections (4) and (5), the driver of a vehicle that is stopped by an enforcement officer under this Act must remain stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary for the enforcement officer to complete the exercise of any powers conferred, or duties imposed, on an enforcement officer by this Act.]


Which still does not give unlimited or arbitrary detention. But, to amend past that would bring them smack up against the Bill of Rights.

[Max Preload]

i don't think there'll be an appeal.

what there will be, is an application for an amendment to the Act.

mr duff has just done what 100's of drink drivers have done over the years - found a loophole, that will now be closed. check out the drink driving legislation - it has closed so tight now that there is no room for anyone to move. roadside stops will go the same way.

The 'loophole' has also been used by Bob Jones many years ago - I doubt an ammendment will be made any time soon.

[Max Preload]

Actually the already amended it , after the Sir Robert case.

They added Sect 2A

Which still does not give unlimited or arbitrary detention. But, to amend past that would bring them smack up against the Bill of Rights.

Doh! Got to learn to read all the new posts before posting. :nono:

[Patrick]

If you have nothing to hide, why run and hide.

Sums it all up really - but apparently that is facist. Pfffttt.....


In practice, a reasonable cop is never going to have a problem. And it shouldn't take more than five minutes at most.

In reality, that is what it is...


i don't think there'll be an appeal. what there will be, is an application for an amendment to the Act.

I don't think there will be an appeal either... just got bored reading the lawyer speak... but quite right about the amendment/new law...


The 'loophole' has also been used by Bob Jones many years ago - I doubt an ammendment will be made any time soon.

JONES was different - he was stopped because of who he was and he was driving a nice car, nothing more. He got about $15000 from memory for that... Naughty Policeman - no donut!

[Speedracer]

What about any special conditions that might be detailed on the back of the licence? I have this mental image of a motorist holding their licence up to a closed window while the cop bends at the waist and peers into the window in an attempt to read the details on the licence and then uses sign language to get the motorist to flip the licence over so he can use his magnifying glass to read the conditions printed on the back of the card.

This is how I read it so far:

Imagine this scenario
"I left my license at home"
Name
Address
Date Of Birth
I own this bike
see ya

As soon as you let them touch it they'll make a grab for it so what other option is there to stop them wasting your time. And I still haven't seen a quote from law that says you have to hand over your license. You have to carry it, so in theory you have to produce it to avoid a ticket. If you don't have one how can you show it so you will be waiting forever. The requirement to carry must be simply for identity in the first place.

So if you have a license

"An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver,"

"See this officer," - point to picture, name, date of birth
"I am XXX born on XXX. I own this vehicle. I live at XXX. Have a nice day"
drive off.

Cop can look up the rest of the information on their system if it comes to it, this includes driving restrictions otherwise not carrying your license would be a bonus if you only had a learners car and drove a 1L bike.

Of course if you were doing license losing speeds or dangerous driving or theres a shotgun in the back seat there will be additional reasons for you to stay stopped.

[Skyryder]

The Police are appealing the decision. Anyone got an update??


Skyryder

[scumdog]

This is how I read it so far:

Imagine this scenario
"I left my license at home"
Name
Address
Date Of Birth
I own this bike
see ya

As soon as you let them touch it they'll make a grab for it so what other option is there to stop them wasting your time. And I still haven't seen a quote from law that says you have to hand over your license. You have to carry it, so in theory you have to produce it to avoid a ticket. If you don't have one how can you show it so you will be waiting forever. The requirement to carry must be simply for identity in the first place.

So if you have a license

"An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver,"

"See this officer," - point to picture, name, date of birth
"I am XXX born on XXX. I own this vehicle. I live at XXX. Have a nice day"
drive off.

Cop can look up the rest of the information on their system if it comes to it, this includes driving restrictions otherwise not carrying your license would be a bonus if you only had a learners car and drove a 1L bike.

Of course if you were doing license losing speeds or dangerous driving or theres a shotgun in the back seat there will be additional reasons for you to stay stopped.

Whooee, another bush lawyer goona get some poor sod into trouble if he believes all the above.

Producing a licence does not guarantee you're meant to have one for a start and I could go on but I'll not spoil the fun,.. carry on.:wari:

Mwahahahahah.......:woohoo:

[Max Preload]

Whooee, another bush lawyer goona get some poor sod into trouble if he believes all the above.

I, for one, fail to see how this is bush-lawyer-esk since a Judge has ruled that it is lawful, and that the arbitrary arrest of Duff was not. Are you a bush cop?

[scumdog]

I, for one, fail to see how this is bush-lawyer-esk since a Judge has ruled that it is lawful, and that the arbitrary arrest of Duff was not. Are you a bush cop?

Holding up an item purporting to be a licence and spouting off a name, address and date of birth and then driving off does not constitute 'remaing stopped as long as reasonably necessary" to allow an officer to check many things i.e. "Wanted for Service of Suspension Notice" for one.

Still you do as you believe you need to, who knows, you may just get away with it.

But not very likely with me.

And if you take it to Court? Good luck, I don't/won't care.

[Patrick]

A licence must be produced and avaiable for inspection for erroneous material, additional information or conditions, or alteration... You "holding it up" will count for nothing.

Had one who stuck a Maori Sovereignty Flag symbol over the NZ Flag... Can't do that, either.

[peasea]

This is how I read it so far:

Imagine this scenario
"I left my license at home"
Name
Address
Date Of Birth
I own this bike
see ya

As soon as you let them touch it they'll make a grab for it so what other option is there to stop them wasting your time. And I still haven't seen a quote from law that says you have to hand over your license. You have to carry it, so in theory you have to produce it to avoid a ticket. If you don't have one how can you show it so you will be waiting forever. The requirement to carry must be simply for identity in the first place.

So if you have a license

"An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver,"

"See this officer," - point to picture, name, date of birth
"I am XXX born on XXX. I own this vehicle. I live at XXX. Have a nice day"
drive off.

Cop can look up the rest of the information on their system if it comes to it, this includes driving restrictions otherwise not carrying your license would be a bonus if you only had a learners car and drove a 1L bike.

Of course if you were doing license losing speeds or dangerous driving or theres a shotgun in the back seat there will be additional reasons for you to stay stopped.


Seriously? Why antagonise them?

Teehee, here are some reasons;

If you've been stopped for nothing (oops, I meant to say; 'a routine check') then it's likely once the paperwork is checked out you'll be on your way. If they've stopped you for a REAL (read cash-grabbing) reason then you're fucked whether you ride off or not. Riding off just winds them up even more and the power trip kicks in, believe me, I've tried it.

Funny watching it all unfold though, coz it's sooo predictable.

Then you plead not guilty, run it through the hoops and pay the fine anyway but making them shuffle paper adds a certain 'honesty' to the cash grab by making you feel they 'worked' for it.

Next time you head out onto the asphalt take some flowers, grease up the copper that stops you and ask them out for dinner. It's possible they'll be a girl next week. (Eh, Patricia?)

[Speedracer]

Seriously? Why antagonise them?

Teehee, here are some reasons;

If you've been stopped for nothing (oops, I meant to say; 'a routine check') then it's likely once the paperwork is checked out you'll be on your way. If they've stopped you for a REAL (read cash-grabbing) reason then you're fucked whether you ride off or not. Riding off just winds them up even more and the power trip kicks in, believe me, I've tried it.


Alan Duff tried it too, and it was for a REAL reason..... that's the point of this thread. Yes it wound the cop up as well to the point where he was arrested but it appears that the subsequent actions taken by the cop weren't legal. So yes it wasn't worth it but that doesn't mean it was illegal.
Someone else has said earlier in this thread that they left their license with the cop, drove off and didn't even get a ticket in the mail.


Holding up an item purporting to be a licence and spouting off a name, address and date of birth and then driving off does not constitute 'remaing stopped as long as reasonably necessary" to allow an officer to check many things i.e. "Wanted for Service of Suspension Notice" for one.

Isn't that stuff under the QP which isn't allowed to keep you stopped according to Alan Duff's lawyer?
Besides wouldn't the cop be checking that out when they run your plate? Hence why suspended drivers cars get pulled over when they lend them to friends. Plate will give you wof and rego, is this car stolen etc status.

I mean if you can be stopped to check "many things" i.e. fishing that leaves an almost unlimited scope. However if there is something obviously wrong it can be checked, such as a shotgun in the back seat. The identity gives the police enough infrormation to mail you a ticket if an impersonal follow up is required.

Ixons reply on page 2 is worth a read

[scumdog]

Isn't that stuff under the QP which isn't allowed to keep you stopped according to Alan Duff's lawyer?
Besides wouldn't the cop be checking that out when they run your plate? Hence why suspended drivers cars get pulled over when they lend them to friends. Plate will give you wof and rego, is this car stolen etc status.

A plate won't tell you if the driver is disqualified, if he has Warrant to Arrest and a whole multitude of things.

When the cop 'runs the plate' it will tell him who the registered owner of the car is (NOT who the driver is or if freshly stolen it won't tell him that) and it will tell him if the cars rego is current/lapsed/on hold etc and if it has a WOF.
It will also say if it has been pink/green stickered.

As you can see the plate tells the cop almost nothing about the driver or his licence status.

[peasea]

Alan Duff tried it too, and it was for a REAL reason..... that's the point of this thread. Yes it wound the cop up as well to the point where he was arrested but it appears that the subsequent actions taken by the cop weren't legal. So yes it wasn't worth it but that doesn't mean it was illegal.
Someone else has said earlier in this thread that they left their license with the cop, drove off and didn't even get a ticket in the mail.



Isn't that stuff under the QP which isn't allowed to keep you stopped according to Alan Duff's lawyer?
Besides wouldn't the cop be checking that out when they run your plate? Hence why suspended drivers cars get pulled over when they lend them to friends. Plate will give you wof and rego, is this car stolen etc status.

I mean if you can be stopped to check "many things" i.e. fishing that leaves an almost unlimited scope. However if there is something obviously wrong it can be checked, such as a shotgun in the back seat. The identity gives the police enough infrormation to mail you a ticket if an impersonal follow up is required.

Ixons reply on page 2 is worth a read

Were you referring to me? (Can't be arsed going back through the threads.) But if you are then that was 1980, I'd have trouble getting away with the same thing now. (Cripes, they send the chopper out for overdue library books these days!)

I'd say, if you have the machine, have a go; they (generally speaking) can't drive/ride for shit but if you get the wrong guy/girl (not a lot of difference in the blue gang these days, Derek Erasmus will vouch for that; don't forget the flowers) you're going to come unstuck fairly seriously. Hence my advice to not atangonise them. It makes life so much easier.

The flip side might be fun but it's momentary. If you win you're a legend in your own bourbon glass, if you lose you have big bills, not so much big balls.

I love all aspects of life, cop baiting is a very small part of it and when they haven't got their stracts faight it's so entertaining. If they're on the ball though, just give up and suck butt. They like that, regardless of the gender they are on the day.

[peasea]

A plate won't tell you if the driver is disqualified, if he has Warrant to Arrest and a whole multitude of things.

When the cop 'runs the plate' it will tell him who the registered owner of the car is (NOT who the driver is or if freshly stolen it won't tell him that) and it will tell him if the cars rego is current/lapsed/on hold etc and if it has a WOF.
It will also say if it has been pink/green stickered.

As you can see the plate tells the cop almost nothing about the driver or his licence status.

Too true;

I used to run a trailer plate on my bike here and there, back when copper's radios were bigger than the average pannier and I have no idea how I got away with it. Rego? What's that?

However, even today you can't get info on what a perp had for brekkie from a plate but it's a starting point re stolen etc. Nowadays I have no prob's being legal and having my plate checked, it shows how much the police care about motorcycle and automobile theft.

[Ixion]

I asked a question of the police members earlier (or maybe in another thread , i can't be arsed checking back).

Which has not been answered. And was

The law presently allows you 15 minutes to check out a driver, which seems reasonable. But you, and the Police bosses say that it is not sufficient. So, what then do you demand? How long DO you want be able to detain (and, by correlation, imprison) someone, who has very possibly committed no offense.

An hour? a day? a week? a month? indefinitely (which is the impression I'm receiving)

And what, if your wish is granted and you are permitted to detain motorists up indefinitely without charge , do you intend to do about the necessities of life? For 15 minutes things like toilet provisions, food, shelter sleep etc don't really figure.

But, if your wish were granted and the time limit was made "as long as I want to", then they would start to figure. So how do you propose to feed these motorists you have detained for the last few hours? what about sleeping arrangements once it gets into days?

Parliament reckoned that 15 minutes was a reasonable time. You, Mssrs Scumdog, Indoo, Patrick Spudchuka et all, and your bosses, disagree. You demand longer. tell us then , how long?

[scumdog]

I asked a question of the police members earlier (or maybe in another thread , i can't be arsed checking back).

Which has not been answered. And was

The law presently allows you 15 minutes to check out a driver, which seems reasonable. But you, and the Police bosses say that it is not sufficient. So, what then do you demand? How long DO you want be able to detain (and, by correlation, imprison) someone, who has very possibly committed no offense.

An hour? a day? a week? a month? indefinitely (which is the impression I'm receiving)

And what, if your wish is granted and you are permitted to detain motorists up indefinitely without charge , do you intend to do about the necessities of life? For 15 minutes things like toilet provisions, food, shelter sleep etc don't really figure.

But, if your wish were granted and the time limit was made "as long as I want to", then they would start to figure. So how do you propose to feed these motorists you have detained for the last few hours? what about sleeping arrangements once it gets into days?

Parliament reckoned that 15 minutes was a reasonable time. You, Mssrs Scumdog, Indoo, Patrick Spudchuka et all, and your bosses, disagree. You demand longer. tell us then , how long?

Well, on a good day without much radio chatter 15 minutes is plenty most of the time.

But on a bad day and a bad crash nearby and the fire service using the radio too (we share the same channel) you may have to wait almost 15 minutes just to get on the air.

So yes, at times we disagree 15 minutes is enough as a 'blanket' time for EVERY occasion.

[Ixion]

Well, on a good day without much radio chatter 15 minutes is plenty most of the time.

But on a bad day and a bad crash nearby and the fire service using the radio too (we share the same channel) you may have to wait almost 15 minutes just to get on the air.

So yes, at times we disagree 15 minutes is enough as a 'blanket' time for EVERY occasion.


So, how long then?

[scumdog]

So, how long then?
Same as a piece of string.


I've held up motorsist for longer, I've always explained why the delay and ya know what?
None have got abusive, none have driven off.

[Ixion]

So , your demand is indeed for detention at pleasure?

If your radio was broken, you would expect to be permitted to lock the driver up until it was fixed?

And what about the other issues that are implicit in detaining someone for hours or days? Presumably, you will take the driver (who, bear in mind may have committed NO OFFENCE - you just want to detain him because your radio isn't working !), back to the station, where he will at least be fed . Or do you expect him to camp out overnight by the roadside?

It has been one of the most fundamental principles of British justice for over 1000 years that none can be arbitrarily detained. No one can be locked up simply because "I say so, and that's enough". You want to overturn this.

And that without even the imprimatur of Parliament.

Do you also want this power of indefinite imprisonment without charge extended to people on foot. "Lock this guy up for a few weeks, I don't like his attitude". If not, the why do you think that motorists should be deprived of the most fundamental of civil liberties, but not non-motorists?

[peasea]

Same as a piece of string.


I've held up motorsist for longer, I've always explained why the delay and ya know what?
None have got abusive, none have driven off.


Which means: Peasea wasn't there.

[scumdog]

So , your demand is indeed for detention at pleasure?

If your radio was broken, you would expect to be permitted to lock the driver up until it was fixed?

And what about the other issues that are implicit in detaining someone for hours or days? Presumably, you will take the driver (who, bear in mind may have committed NO OFFENCE - you just want to detain him because your radio isn't working !), back to the station, where he will at least be fed . Or do you expect him to camp out overnight by the roadside?

It has been one of the most fundamental principles of British justice for over 1000 years that none can be arbitrarily detained. No one can be locked up simply because "I say so, and that's enough". You want to overturn this.

And that without even the imprimatur of Parliament.

Do you also want this power of indefinite imprisonment without charge extended to people on foot. "Lock this guy up for a few weeks, I don't like his attitude". If not, the why do you think that motorists should be deprived of the most fundamental of civil liberties, but not non-motorists?

You are bordering on rdiculous - obviously nobody would would stetch it THAT far:crazy:

But in the good 'ol UK they arrest on 'suspicion' - unlike here.

Lucky 'here' eh?

[scumdog]

Which means: Peasea wasn't there.

More impatient than the average guy huh?

[Ixion]

You are bordering on rdiculous - obviously nobody would would stetch it THAT far:crazy:

But in the good 'ol UK they arrest on 'suspicion' - unlike here.

Lucky 'here' eh?

So, repeating yet again, how far DO you think a cop should be entitled to "stretch it".

Bearing in mind that laws have to be written for all situations. You may well be a reasonable bloke who wouldn't abuse an undefined power. But not all cops would be so reasonable. Take our friend Gingacunt ACD868 , f'instance. Anyone want to reckon that, if cops had a right to detain people "as long as they think necessary" he wouldn't abuse that? And treat it as a licence to lock motorcyclists up indefinitely?

And, given that the UK is now the most fascist state in the Western world, comparisons with them are on dangerous ground.

[peasea]

More impatient than the average guy huh?

Hell yes. My incontinence waits for no clock.

[98tls]

So , your demand is indeed for detention at pleasure?

If your radio was broken, you would expect to be permitted to lock the driver up until it was fixed?

And what about the other issues that are implicit in detaining someone for hours or days? Presumably, you will take the driver (who, bear in mind may have committed NO OFFENCE - you just want to detain him because your radio isn't working !), back to the station, where he will at least be fed . Or do you expect him to camp out overnight by the roadside?

It has been one of the most fundamental principles of British justice for over 1000 years that none can be arbitrarily detained. No one can be locked up simply because "I say so, and that's enough". You want to overturn this.

And that without even the imprimatur of Parliament.

Do you also want this power of indefinite imprisonment without charge extended to people on foot. "Lock this guy up for a few weeks, I don't like his attitude". If not, the why do you think that motorists should be deprived of the most fundamental of civil liberties, but not non-motorists? :killingmeYour like a dog with a bone here,any chance you had an over militant 3rd form teacher?Let it go.

[peasea]

:killingmeYour like a dog with a bone here,any chance you had an over militant 3rd form teacher?Let it go.

I had heaps of them, it was fun baiting them too. Ixion has a few valid points though, starting with; "how far DO you think a cop should be entitled to "stretch it".

They have more cards than most on the side of the road and when they are questioned they usually get aggro. Then YOU'RE in the bin and their word against yours is the bottom line.

Even when cops are video-taped beating on someone there's usually a court wandering off in their favour......

As you get older you get better at not making (visible) waves. They do their thing, I do mine.

[Patrick]

... making them shuffle paper adds a certain 'honesty' to the cash grab by making you feel they 'worked' for it.

Funny... ya don't have any idea how it works, do ya...

We've got a D/S here who is the file briefer... he does all the paperwok for me.


I asked a question of the police members earlier (or maybe in another thread , i can't be arsed checking back).

Which has not been answered. And was

The law presently allows you 15 minutes to check out a driver, which seems reasonable. But you, and the Police bosses say that it is not sufficient. So, what then do you demand? How long DO you want be able to detain (and, by correlation, imprison) someone, who has very possibly committed no offense.

An hour? a day? a week? a month? indefinitely (which is the impression I'm receiving)

And what, if your wish is granted and you are permitted to detain motorists up indefinitely without charge , do you intend to do about the necessities of life? For 15 minutes things like toilet provisions, food, shelter sleep etc don't really figure.

But, if your wish were granted and the time limit was made "as long as I want to", then they would start to figure. So how do you propose to feed these motorists you have detained for the last few hours? what about sleeping arrangements once it gets into days?

Parliament reckoned that 15 minutes was a reasonable time. You, Mssrs Scumdog, Indoo, Patrick Spudchuka et all, and your bosses, disagree. You demand longer. tell us then , how long?

Lay off the "P"... Total delusion here.... Your "impressions" of up to a month of delay is just plain bizarre.

It was answered... "Up to" 15 minutes is normally way more than enough. The radio analogy is not uncommon in smaller places who share the radio with the fireys etc, but is rare everywhere else. Smaller rural townfolk don't get all upity than their big smoke cousins. When explained, people are more than happy that they are being kept in the loop.

Dunno where the call came from that 15mins isn't enough.... As for people who haven't committed any offence, I don't delay at all. Why would ya?

[Patrick]

Take our friend Ginga , f'instance. Anyone want to reckon that, if cops had a right to detain people "as long as they think necessary" he wouldn't abuse that? And treat it as a licence to lock motorcyclists up indefinitely?

And if I read it right, he has only been "detaining" people who have actually been doing some lawbreaking in one way or another? (Speed, licence breaches, arguments over the legality of how a number late is displayed perhaps?)

[peasea]

Funny... ya don't have any idea how it works, do ya...

We've got a D/S here who is the file briefer... he does all the paperwok for me.



HA! Further proof you don't work for it!

Thank you. (Ka-ching, mind your fingers Mr Arkwright!)

PS: What's a D/S? A Dirty Sluuuu....oops, you said "he", hard to tell these days in the Blue Gang, isn't it?

[scumdog]

HA! Further proof you don't work for it!

Just gives him more time to write out more tickets.

"Kachiiiiing":devil2::lol:

[Skyryder]

Ixion raises a point that has no one has been willing to address and that if 15 minutes is not a reasonable time to ‘arbitrarily’ delay a member of the public, what is a reasonable time? Given the fact that his question has not been addressed then one can assume that some would see no time frame as being the ideal solution. On that score his arguments of days or month do not appear to be an exaggeration but an obvious conclusion. Fortunately Parliament has addressed this issue with the 15 minute as being a reasonable amount of time for any officer to perform his/her duty within the framework of the law. Communication or lack of it is not a good enough reason to arbitrarily detain a member of the public at the officers discretion. The fact that most members of the public adhere to the officers instructions does not make the instruction lawful or for that matter reasonable either.
As the law now stands it is perfectly lawful for any member of the public that is not subject to arrest to remove themselves from the officers presence after they have satisfactorily identified themselves. That is all that is required of us. The police want the powers of arbitrary detention and should we thepublic attempt to remove ourselves from the officers presence then arrest. This is the purpose of the appeal of the Duff verdict.

Skyryder

[scumdog]

To raise a few of the points mentioned by Skyryder:

I have no knowledge of "police want powers of arbitrary detention" - that is just the opinion of Skyryder. (and maybe some others)

15 minutes IS more than enough time for 90%+ of the time, when it is not then it is a combination of the motorists patience and the officers reasonableness whether it goes over 15 minutes.

It is up to the motorist there at the time whether the extension of the 15 minutes is 'reasonable' (and nobody tried to claim it was a 'lawful instruction'.) - they don't need some embers(s) of a internet site to instruct them that anything over 15 minutes is unreasonable. (how much longer? 1 second, 30 seconds, 2 minutes??)

There have been numerous times when cops have said to the motorist "Carry on, I can't get on the air at the moment so I won't hold you up anymore"
And then done a check later to find out there was a WTA, the guy was wanted for suspending his licence for demerits, he was disqualified but produced an old/duplicate licence etc etc.

Unlike what some preach here the cops do not 'win' every time.:no:

[swbarnett]

I think Scumdog has hit on the crux of the matter. The law is only there to protect us, the public, from things getting totally out of hand. As long as both the cop and the motorist conduct themselves in a friendly manner and the motorist is kept informed of any technical delays then I have no problem with how ever long it takes for the cop to do their job - within reason.

The problem comes when the motorist is obviously getting impatient and the cop continues to detain them unreasonably.

This assumes, however that the motorist has been stopped because the cop reasonably suspects or has observed wrong-doing.

I take umbrage at being asked to provide proof of identity where no reasonable suspicion exists and the cop is just on a fishing trip. My identity is no-one's business but my own unless I'm being accused of committing a crime.

[SixPackBack]

I think Scumdog has hit on the crux of the matter. The law is only there to protect us, the public, from things getting totally out of hand. As long as both the cop and the motorist conduct themselves in a friendly manner and the motorist is kept informed of any technical delays then I have no problem with how ever long it takes for the cop to do their job - within reason.

The problem comes when the motorist is obviously getting impatient and the cop continues to detain them unreasonably.

This assumes, however that the motorist has been stopped because the cop reasonably suspects or has observed wrong-doing.

I take umbrage at being asked to provide proof of identity where no reasonable suspicion exists and the cop is just on a fishing trip. My identity is no-one's business but my own unless I'm being accused of committing a crime.

I see increasingly the 'them against us' mentality creeping in.......interesting article here that makes me wonder if this is what the unzud police are turning into.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/161602-No-Taser-Deaths-In-USA-

[peasea]

To raise a few of the points mentioned by Skyryder:

I have no knowledge of "police want powers of arbitrary detention" - that is just the opinion of Skyryder. (and maybe some others)

15 minutes IS more than enough time for 90%+ of the time, when it is not then it is a combination of the motorists patience and the officers reasonableness whether it goes over 15 minutes.

It is up to the motorist there at the time whether the extension of the 15 minutes is 'reasonable' (and nobody tried to claim it was a 'lawful instruction'.) - they don't need some embers(s) of a internet site to instruct them that anything over 15 minutes is unreasonable. (how much longer? 1 second, 30 seconds, 2 minutes??)

There have been numerous times when cops have said to the motorist "Carry on, I can't get on the air at the moment so I won't hold you up anymore"
And then done a check later to find out there was a WTA, the guy was wanted for suspending his licence for demerits, he was disqualified but produced an old/duplicate licence etc etc.

Unlike what some preach here the cops do not 'win' every time.:no:

I'll vouch for that!! :innocent:

However I have been stopped more than once in my lifetime and NEVER has a copper said "Carry on I can't get on air ...." I do recall one occasion where I was told to WAIT until he could get a check done on me but I doubt it took fifteen minutes, between five and ten I'd say.

Most coppers can write fairly fast (it sure looks that way in the end result too, what scrawlers!) and it is in their best interests to get ticket-writing over and done with expediently so that they can move onto the next fiscally advantageous encounter.

As for the "us and them mentality" (post 177) it will always be there, so get over it.

[Patrick]

Ixion raises a point that has no one has been willing to address and that if 15 minutes is not a reasonable time to ‘arbitrarily’ delay a member of the public, what is a reasonable time? Given the fact that his question has not been addressed then one can assume that some would see no time frame as being the ideal solution.

The two of you seem to want to read only what you want to read..... I can repeat it for ya..... as below...



It was answered... "Up to" 15 minutes is normally way more than enough. The radio analogy is not uncommon in smaller places who share the radio with the fireys etc, but is rare everywhere else. Smaller rural townfolk don't get all upity than their big smoke cousins. When explained, people are more than happy that they are being kept in the loop.

Dunno where the call came from that 15mins isn't enough.... As for people who haven't committed any offence, I don't delay at all. Why would ya?


Well, on a good day without much radio chatter 15 minutes is plenty most of the time.

But on a bad day and a bad crash nearby and the fire service using the radio too (we share the same channel) you may have to wait almost 15 minutes just to get on the air.

So yes, at times we disagree 15 minutes is enough as a 'blanket' time for EVERY occasion.

15mins is enough. Usually... And when those unusual situations arise, we let ya know, and on every single occasion, the motorist has been fine with it, being polite and courteous. Be as unpleasant as you want to be - suit yourself, but those results are usually going to go against you. (Interpreted - no warning for you fella - quota achieved, donut time!!).

[Patrick]

Yay... A Post dredge....!!!

Thought SixPackBack would have been dying to post this result up!!!!

The Police won their appeal against DUFF.

The cops were right. He was wrong. :bleh:

One has to remain while checks are being done.

Due to the time passed, the charges won't be relaid and the result remains the same, ie: he got off... so fair enough :2thumbsup

But the next one won't.

Guess there will be a new thread moan soon......

[Coldrider]

Yay... A Post dredge....!!!

Thought SixPackBack would have been dying to post this result up!!!!

The Police won their appeal against DUFF.

The cops were right. He was wrong. :bleh:

One has to remain while checks are being done.

Due to the time passed, the charges won't be relaid and the result remains the same, ie: he got off... so fair enough :2thumbsup

But the next one won't.

Guess there will be a new thread moan soon......No, we can just moan on this one, (sorry debate).

[R6_kid]

One has to remain while checks are being done.

Interesting.

So if a single officer has detained a group of say 4-5 riders, and wishes to check all of them, does that then mean that they all must stay and 'wait in line' while the officer runs checks on all of them, or is it fair to say that the officer has over-tasked themselves and should deal with the 'more severe' of the offences they believe to have been committed while letting the others get on their way?

[Patrick]

Interesting.

So if a single officer has detained a group of say 4-5 riders, and wishes to check all of them, does that then mean that they all must stay and 'wait in line' while the officer runs checks on all of them, or is it fair to say that the officer has over-tasked themselves and should deal with the 'more severe' of the offences they believe to have been committed while letting the others get on their way?

They are entitled to check license status, WOF, Reg, amongst some things, so yeah, wait yer turn. The same is done on booze bus checkpoints, having to wait yer turn, so checking up 5 riders or so won't take too long, as all will be carrying their licenses too, ay?

[Hinny]

And, given that the UK is now the most fascist state in the Western world, comparisons with them are on dangerous ground.

Even more so than United States of America or Australia?
Feck... I'm not going there.

[Hinny]

Nah, I couldn't be trusted not to shoot those I thought needed shooting.:angry2:

Would even bring my own bullets.

Many a true word spoken in jest eh?

[p.dath]

You have to remember, only people who can afford to dump a tonne of cash in a situtation like this can afford technical justice.

However, he could have easily avoided this situation if he had kept his temper under control, and just waited another minute or two. Would probably have saved him many many hours in court.

[Coldrider]

You have to remember, only people who can afford to dump a tonne of cash in a situtation like this can afford technical justice.

However, he could have easily avoided this situation if he had kept his temper under control, and just waited another minute or two. Would probably have saved him many many hours in court.

A tonne of cash, he'll have to write a book about it, and get someone to buy it.

[Patrick]

Joe Karam is available... now.... Perhaps he can help?:zzzz:

[peasea]

They are entitled to check license status, WOF, Reg, amongst some things, so yeah, wait yer turn. The same is done on booze bus checkpoints, having to wait yer turn, so checking up 5 riders or so won't take too long, as all will be carrying their licenses too, ay?

Been there done that.
Everyone does a runner, you might get one or two but ultimately you lose.

The money-grab is not all-encompassing.

I don't care what you're "entitled to", you can suck my dick.

[Patrick]

Been there done that.
Everyone does a runner, you might get one or two but ultimately you lose.

The money-grab is not all-encompassing.

I don't care what you're "entitled to", you can suck my dick.

Haven't lost one yet. Maybe at the "time," but not "later on..."

Money Grab? You give change for those $2 blow jobs!

[Hinny]

They are entitled to check license status, WOF, Reg, amongst some things, so yeah, wait yer turn. The same is done on booze bus checkpoints, having to wait yer turn, so checking up 5 riders or so won't take too long, as all will be carrying their licenses too, ay?

At 15mins a time, I would not be happy being the fifth in line.
At 15mins a time I would not be happy being the first rider.
That is an extraordinarily long time to check Licence, W.O.F and Reg.

Oh! wait... they are civil servants.
Govt. paid road workers. :whistle:

[Coldrider]

He won for 15 months, lost for 2 days, whoop whoop, he has already moved to France has he not?

[peasea]

At 15mins a time, I would not be happy being the fifth in line.
At 15mins a time I would not be happy being the first rider.
That is an extraordinarily long time to check Licence, W.O.F and Reg.

Oh! wait... they are civil servants.
Govt. paid road workers. :whistle:

Inland Revenue puppets ya mean...

[Patrick]

At 15mins a time, I would not be happy being the fifth in line.
At 15mins a time I would not be happy being the first rider.
That is an extraordinarily long time to check Licence, W.O.F and Reg.

Oh! wait... they are civil servants.
Govt. paid road workers. :whistle:

yeah... right. Gotta get that shovel out of the boot to lean on, ya know.

If they can't check 5 riders in 15 mins, something wrong there.... since they all will have their licenses on them too.......

Free to go once you've been checked. Hang around if you like.


He won for 15 months, lost for 2 days, whoop whoop, he has already moved to France has he not?

Yeah. Another reason to flag the prosecution.

Extradition would be a little costly, and since he is such a tough guy up against a chick, a bloke would have to go to escort him back....:whistle: