So, a rozza enters my home...

[tri boy]

Well they did it not once, but three times.
Heres the skinny on it:
Hamilton h/way patrol are "blooding" their new recruits on a random breath test on Te Kowhai Rd where I live. (a road out of town that links with nth/sth bound highways).
They always set up the test about 200mtrs past our driveway due to stopping distances etc.
So i turn into my drive, after work, go down the back where i park, I'm patting the dog, while entering my house, and a rozza pulls up.
"Excuse me sir, do you live here, blah, blah blah"
"Yes, I says. This is Rosa the collie, what do you want?"
"I need you to undertake a evidential breath test, as I believe you were driving that car"..
WTF!
I walked back into the house, logged on to my emails, and got comfy, while the newbie stood behind me (in my bed room), going on about giving a breath test. Double what the fuck! Leave my bed room, I've given my name and address, and unless your willing to argue in court, that I had committed a crime, best you leave now.:argue:
He left.:devil2:

So i see my niece about ten minutes later, and she tells me that she was followed into the property by a female newbie, with the same approach, and her dad went through their road block, turned onto the property, and was breathalyzed again. Tripple WHAT THE FUCK!

They have just alienated an entire family.
Their senior officers need to look closely at themselves, and reassess their approach. We live within a kilometer of their base, and up till now have had a good relationship with them. (even helping out with situations on the road).

My Q is. Do i make a complaint, or let it ride. (remembering that the rozza stood over me pushing his limits on a situation that need not of happened).
And no, i wasn't pissed, was just pissed off with his approach.
Get me on the road arsehole.:mad:

[wbks]

Boohoo. You're pissed they were a little pushy about it? Either tell them you're not going to cooperate right off the batt, or give them 30 secs of your time to conform you're not drunk. Wheres the problem again?

[Alice69]

Oh my god! Maybe someone has it in for use

[tri boy]

Not pissy at all. Even wished him " aveagoodweekend".
Just surprised how far they push the boundaries now.
If i was doing something out of the ordinary, or giving them a reason to drive 150mtrs onto the property, follow me into my room, and argue the toss, then fair call.
Maybe i remember when the force had a bit more style and nouse about how to handle situations. he was out of line, but kept pushing. (probably grew up with playstation Terminator games):D

[Squiggles]

Not pissy at all. Even wished him " aveagoodweekend".

Just wish it into his box next time, you dragged the first encounter out

[Alice69]

Yep some arseholes out their.Maybe the uniform goes to their head.

[wbks]

Well there wasn't such a large portion of people drink driving once apon a time either. If you're not pissy than maybe don't lodge a comment that could screw something up for a new officer. Do what you want though, I don't care

[McJim]

Well there wasn't such a large portion of people drink driving once apon a time either. If you're not pissy than maybe don't lodge a comment that could screw something up for a new officer. Do what you want though, I don't care
No - actual drink driving is waaaaay down on previous decades (there used to be a real laisez faire attitude on this suject - no-one batted an eyelid when you drove home drunk from the pub). So is actual speeding believe it or not. However there is far less tolerance of either by the Police these days since despite the level of drink driving and speeding dropping fatalities are still about the same.....

[Madness]

Well there wasn't such a large portion of people drink driving once apon a time either.

When was that?, before the internal combustion engine or summin?.

Complaining would be pointless imho. No point in yelling at the deaf.

[FJRider]

To impede an officer of the Law, in the execution of his duties, still is.... I believe, against the law....

[tri boy]

Didn't realise that I had impeded him. (only rosa did that, she's an old collie that don't move to quick now):lol:

He wasn't a bad bully boy, just learning the ropes so to speak. Will leave it at that with regards to hassling the boys about it.
At least he knew he was out of order. (couldn't prove it was me in the car, as he was at least 100mtrs away). Least he has gumption and a "can do" attitude.
He will need it dealing with some folk in the waikato.

[wbks]

Then it seems there are just as many if not less drink drivers, but either way it isn't exactly a bad thing to minimize the amount in any way. Roadblocks breath testing for instance

[JimO]

lots of people try the old turn into the nearest driveway at the sight of a checkpoint trick, they are trying to make the road a safe place for you and yours how hard would it have been to say...shure was me driving orificer let me blow on your thing, then he would have fucked off back to catching murderers, rapists and p crazed dropkicks

[Skyryder]

Well they did it not once, but three times.
Heres the skinny on it:
Hamilton h/way patrol are "blooding" their new recruits on a random breath test on Te Kowhai Rd where I live. (a road out of town that links with nth/sth bound highways).
They always set up the test about 200mtrs past our driveway due to stopping distances etc.
So i turn into my drive, after work, go down the back where i park, I'm patting the dog, while entering my house, and a rozza pulls up.
"Excuse me sir, do you live here, blah, blah blah"
"Yes, I says. This is Rosa the collie, what do you want?"
"I need you to undertake a evidential breath test, as I believe you were driving that car"..
WTF!
I walked back into the house, logged on to my emails, and got comfy, while the newbie stood behind me (in my bed room), going on about giving a breath test. Double what the fuck! Leave my bed room, I've given my name and address, and unless your willing to argue in court, that I had committed a crime, best you leave now.:argue:
He left.:devil2:

So i see my niece about ten minutes later, and she tells me that she was followed into the property by a female newbie, with the same approach, and her dad went through their road block, turned onto the property, and was breathalyzed again. Tripple WHAT THE FUCK!

They have just alienated an entire family.
Their senior officers need to look closely at themselves, and reassess their approach. We live within a kilometer of their base, and up till now have had a good relationship with them. (even helping out with situations on the road).

My Q is. Do i make a complaint, or let it ride. (remembering that the rozza stood over me pushing his limits on a situation that need not of happened).
And no, i wasn't pissed, was just pissed off with his approach.
Get me on the road arsehole.:mad:


I generaly have a pretty healthy respect for the boys in blue as a whole but there seems to be an arrogant attitude developing amongst some members of the police in that now they just blatently lie and refuse to respect the wishes of the landowners.

This

About ten minutes before Mr Key's arrival this morning two undercover police officers were busted by Marae security staff for posing as tourists.

The officers went on to claim they were media, before eventually confessing to their true identities when Mare staff threatened to confiscate a camera being carried by one of the officers.

A debate, witnessed by Stuff.co.nz, then began between the two police officers concerned, an additional three officers and Marae staff.

The situation was eventually resolved when police put their camera away.

It's understood the Marae had earlier requested that police did not to come onto the grounds.from http://www.stuff.co.nz/4838870a11.html




Skyryder

[tri boy]

No problem with with the test. Just the fact that he "thought" it was me. (there are a few people around, and he was about three minutes astern of me), never saw me in the car, or get out of it.
Then pushed it further by entering the house, still pushing it, stood over me using every angle he could think to flog a dead, disinterested old horse.
He will learn, actually, I gave him a free lesson in the legalities of random breath testing. i'm such a kind sole.:lol:

[marty]

what are the legalities of RBT?

[twotyred]

No problem with with the test. Just the fact that he "thought" it was me. (there are a few people around, and he was about three minutes astern of me), never saw me in the car, or get out of it.
Then pushed it further by entering the house, still pushing it, stood over me using every angle he could think to flog a dead, disinterested old horse.
He will learn, actually, I gave him a free lesson in the legalities of random breath testing. i'm such a kind sole.:lol:

I'd push it on the entering your house without a warrant or invitation,just to expedite the new patch members education about what is actually acceptable.

[tri boy]

what are the legalities of RBT?
The legal approach/argument would be "that Rosa had every right to lick the rozza into submission due to negligent use of his newby powers".;)

[Dave Lobster]

To impede an officer of the Law, in the execution of his duties, still is.... I believe, against the law....

What about impeding an officer whilst he wastes police time??




About ten minutes before Mr Key's arrival this morning two undercover police officers were busted by Marae security staff for posing as tourists.




Shouldn't the police have busted a few fat people for posing as 'security'??

[vifferman]

However there is far less tolerance of either by the Police these days since despite the level of drink driving and speeding dropping fatalities are still about the same.....
What?
:confused:
I think you'll find that the number of fatalities has dropped, whether as a percentage of the total population, or per number of vehicles, or the number of vehicle kilometres traveled. And the road toll is lower than the number of deaths from prostrate cancer, smoking related diseases, etc etc etc blah blah blah...

[meteor]

...the level of drink driving and speeding dropping fatalities are still about the same.....
Interesting since this last year saw about 360 fatalities against nearly 1000 15 yrs ago. They are dropping, and it's not by accident (pardon the pun) it's by the coppers hammering the drunks and speeders which changes the behaviour. And no, not for revenue but to keep me safe... I thank them for that.

Now back on topic... I wonder if those cops on that alcohol checkpoint had a dollar for every drunk that turned into the nearest driveway to avoid the checkpoint and claimed it was their house, just how rich they'd be? Can't see the problem really, maybe that checkpoint did stop a drunk that was just about to kill your daughter or your dad as they turned into your driveway. Have I missed something? Maybe it's you who should be thanking them.

[jafar]

Make the complaint !
The Police have no right to come onto your property with such a piss poor excuse.
The Officer has no right to follow you into your house either.:gob:
It is not ok for them to do that.

Don't bother with the local idjits , go straight to the police complaints authority

[tri boy]

what are the legalities of RBT?




Now back on topic... I wonder if those cops on that alcohol checkpoint had a dollar for every drunk that turned into the nearest driveway to avoid the checkpoint and claimed it was their house, just how rich they'd be?

The young fulla stood over me as i logged onto my email server.
If I was illegally entering a house, then I must be one hell of a computer hacker.
Should of emailed his superiors there n then.
Layed down his version of resisting an enquiry(or something like that. I had switched off by then).
The turning point of the stalemate was when I asked him if he could honestly prove that it was me in the car.
Rosa wagged her tail as he drove out the gate.:sunny:

A friendly email to Leo Tooman may be sent tomorrow.

[Pedrostt500]

No - actual drink driving is waaaaay down on previous decades (there used to be a real laisez faire attitude on this suject - no-one batted an eyelid when you drove home drunk from the pub). So is actual speeding believe it or not. However there is far less tolerance of either by the Police these days since despite the level of drink driving and speeding dropping fatalities are still about the same.....

If ya didnt drive home absolutly legless you were a ferken wowser.

[MaxB]

Interesting since this last year saw about 360 fatalities against nearly 1000 15 yrs ago. They are dropping, and it's not by accident (pardon the pun) it's by the coppers hammering the drunks and speeders which changes the behaviour. And no, not for revenue but to keep me safe... I thank them for that.


Ah, the old 'valiant police waging war against the acohol-crazed speeding spawn of Satan' approach.

There are heaps of posts and data elsewhere on this list but to sum it up. Speed over the posted limit is the listed as the cause of very few fatalities these days. In the UK the figure is 6%. So issuing a record number of tickets for offences just over the limit isn't going to do much.

Extreme speeding and excessive drunk driving account for very few road deaths. The LTSA won't tell you that. Most fatalities happen in urban areas and are for mundane causes eg crossing the centre line, corners, intersections, red lights, leaving the roadway, no seat belt, u-turns etc etc.

If you look at the ACC stats you will find that we are having more crashes than ever before. Its just that they are more survivable.

Cars have better passive safety features then ever before. Driver training is also much improved over the last 20 years (although we are behind other places) and these 2 factors are the 2 most commonly credited improvement factors over this period. Better trained drivers are driving safer cars (side impact airbags anyone?).

If we followed some European countries and were trained to the same level our fatality rate would halve and we would have higher open road speed limits and lower blood alcohol limits.

[piston broke]

Well there wasn't such a large portion of people drink driving once apon a time either. If you're not pissy than maybe don't lodge a comment that could screw something up for a new officer. Do what you want though, I don't care

mate it's only the last 20 years they started worrying about drink driving.
screw the new orificer,wtf was he doin in someones bedroom without a warrant.
he deserves a broken jaw and the dole

[Brian d marge]

Make the complaint !
The Police have no right to come onto your property with such a piss poor excuse.
The Officer has no right to follow you into your house either.:gob:
It is not ok for them to do that.

Don't bother with the local idjits , go straight to the police complaints authority

+1 , sure help them out if u feel inclined ,,, but unless u asked them in ..( sorta like Vampires ) they stay outside on the legally provided access way to your house ... the front door ...

show me the money ... for distress caused to the dog .....

Stephen
I reckon anyway

[sinfull]

What about impeding an officer whilst he wastes police time??



Shouldn\'t the police have busted a few fat people for posing as \'security\'??

Posing ? Nah they were there to sniff out the cops ! Some say there noses are better than the average mutt !

[Dave Lobster]

Posing ? Nah they were there to sniff out the cops ! Some say there noses are BIGGER than the average mutt !

You can't get air on WINZ.

[davereid]

a rozza pulls up...I need you to undertake a evidential breath test, as I believe you were driving that car"..


Its for the good of society. Only a criminal, or someone with something to hide would be offended by this.

You should have given him the breath test, just in case you were the driver of the car, and just in case you had been drinking.

You should also have invited him to search you, just in case you had some drugs, or an illegal weapon.

You should have asked him to search your home, just in case you had some stolen property.

And before he left, you should have given him a DNA sample, just in case the police find it handy in the future.

[Tank]

I generaly have a pretty healthy respect for the boys in blue as a whole but there seems to be an arrogant attitude developing amongst some members of the police in that now they just blatently lie and refuse to respect the wishes of the landowners.

This

About ten minutes before Mr Key's arrival this morning two undercover police officers were busted by Marae security staff for posing as tourists.

The officers went on to claim they were media, before eventually confessing to their true identities when Mare staff threatened to confiscate a camera being carried by one of the officers.

A debate, witnessed by Stuff.co.nz, then began between the two police officers concerned, an additional three officers and Marae staff.

The situation was eventually resolved when police put their camera away.

It's understood the Marae had earlier requested that police did not to come onto the grounds.from http://www.stuff.co.nz/4838870a11.html


Skyryder

Yeah because it would be smarter to leave JK there without any security. FFS - he was grabbed within seconds of getting out of the car.

Other politicians have been assaulted on the lower Marae on several occasions.

And you think its bad to have police there in a low profile - just because they dont want cops there.

Wake up and get into the real world.

Next Hells Angles will put up a sign saying no Cops allowed and you would be against them being raided because its against their wishes also.

[tri boy]

I will contact a family friend who is a very experienced criminal lawyer for his opinion on whether a complaint is worth while.
I'm not interested in hurting the young rozza record, as I think he just didn't realise when to back off. (some local waikato bros will educate him on that I'm sure).
I ever memorised his ID#, so it would be a dead call anyway.
Tis a fine line between being keen and thorough, and offending joe public.
Good luck to him.

[Oscar]

To impede an officer of the Law, in the execution of his duties, still is.... I believe, against the law....

Jesus Christ, you'd make a good German, wouldn't you?
A policeman has no right to walk into your house unless invited, has a warrant or if he thinks a serious crime has been committed. The fact that this learner dickhead walked away means he had no legal justification for what is in fact trespass.

[jrandom]

prostrate cancer

Good lord, that sounds fearsome. I shall make a note to myself to remain upright at all times.

[tri boy]

Well, more of a request for clarification on police entering private residences.
I will wait and see what responce I get from the complaints authority.
The young officer need not be concerned about being ID'ed, as I didn't recall his #, but hopefully clarification on entry to private homes can be sorted out for him, and myself.;)

[ynot slow]

We had a booze bus park part way over our drive way a few years ago,they were getting the locals from the club after the weekly draw,we walked home and thought cool just as well we didn't drive(100mts)to the club.Stoopid thing was they were setting up at 8.00pm,the draw was 6.00ish and those who didn't win had gone straight away,they were the ones arriving say 4.30 and having 3-5 pints and be over.Those who were still there were getting taxis or wife to pick up.

Head orificer was a tad peeved when I asked can you shift please the drive is partly blocked,his reply was are you going out,nope I said had a few beers and not that dumb to drive.But said we have friends coming around who need to get up our drive as they were bringing takeaways and donuts,cop then asked will they be drinking,nope I told them you guys were parked OVER my drive.He didn't see the humour in my comments,and the guy didn't drink when oncall,his wife was pretty pissed though.

[Skyryder]

Yeah because it would be smarter to leave JK there without any security. FFS - he was grabbed within seconds of getting out of the car.

Other politicians have been assaulted on the lower Marae on several occasions.

And you think its bad to have police there in a low profile - just because they dont want cops there.

Wake up and get into the real world.

Next Hells Angles will put up a sign saying no Cops allowed and you would be against them being raided because its against their wishes also.

The PM will always have his Police escort wherever he goes that is a fact of life if you ever invite him to a function but these guys with the camera's not only lied to their hosts but displayed an appalling lack of manners by taking no notice of their hosts request. They were there in a spying capacity. That in my book is gross act of respect as a guest.

As for your Hells Angels comments.............just plain ol' crass and has no bearing on this.
Skyryder

[pritch]

The PM will always have his Police escort wherever he goes

My understanding is that they aren't all Police either. Some are rather more ummm dangerous(?).

[DougB]

It was a stupid piece of legislation that disbanded the traffic cop force and gave their work to the police. I feel most of the disrespect the police earn is through pointless money earning traffic enforcement.

In the 'good old days' we could hate the traffic cops and still have respect for the police.

[Skyryder]

My understanding is that they aren't all Police either. Some are rather more ummm dangerous(?).

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/diplomatic/


Skyryder

[pritch]

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/diplomatic/


Interesting, but possibly incomplete?

[DEATH_INC.]

Lodge the complaint. The police are NOT the law, they enforce it. They must stick to the rules like the rest of us.

[Tank]

The PM will always have his Police escort wherever he goes that is a fact of life if you ever invite him to a function but these guys with the camera's not only lied to their hosts but displayed an appalling lack of manners by taking no notice of their hosts request. They were there in a spying capacity. That in my book is gross act of respect as a guest.

As for your Hells Angels comments.............just plain ol' crass and has no bearing on this.
Skyryder

Perhaps when the Maori at Waitangi can put on a day when the Politicians can attend without any fear of being attached then the nations PM can attend without police in attendance.

BUT as it stands - they cannot - and to suggest otherwise is naivety in the extreme.

Perhaps they need to look at themselves and their own people before having a go at the PM and his protection squad.

At least they attempted to blend in.

If they dont like the rules of having the PM there - then dont invite him.

edit - and the Hells Angles comments are perfectly valid - Just because its a Marae dosn't mean that they is nobody there who isn't of a criminal persuasion.

[Ixion]

..

edit - and the Hells Angles comments are perfectly valid - Just because its a Marae dosn't mean that they is nobody there who isn't of a criminal persuasion.

Non angli, sed Angeli.

Sorry. Couldn't resist it.

[Swoop]

The PM will always have his Police escort wherever he goes that is a fact of life if you ever invite him to a function but these guys with the camera's not only lied to their hosts but displayed an appalling lack of manners by taking no notice of their hosts request. They were there in a spying capacity. That in my book is gross act of respect as a guest.
I guess that never happened when the "bitch from hell" was in the PM's chair?

[Forest]

I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. Having said that:

The cop was within his rights to follow you in and ask for a breath test. He actually would have been in his rights to compel you to take a breath test. I'm surprised that he backed down without calling for backup.

I encourage you to make a complaint. If only so I can laugh when you get knocked back.

[tri boy]

If an officer can not identify if a person was even in a car, let alone driving it, how can he request a evidential breath test. (remember, he was at least 100mtrs away when he saw a car pull into our gate, and when he turned up, no one was in a car, but i was the closest human, patting a dog), I think the judge would laugh at the copper.
If he had grounds to charge for anything, he would not of walked out of the house.
He was way out of line, and in the end he realised it.

[fredie]

get on the bed . give him a dna sample:shit:

[tri boy]

Would prefer a tasty female rozza.<_<

[Katman]

Allowing the officer to follow you into the house while you casually went and logged onto your email server doesn't sound like the actions of a particularly sober individual to me.

You sure it wasn't more a case of - a few beers at work on the Thursday afternoon before a long weekend and then coming home to a situation that had you sweating blood trying to talk your way out of?

:whistle:

[Skyryder]

If the police can positively identify the driver they can ask for a breath test anywhere. I think the cop was pushing the boundries in the expectation that he would comply. When he did not said cop made the right decision that any half decent lawyer could have demolished his evidence without even trying.

However on this note can anyone remember the thread on the cop searching the letter box. What was the outcome of that. Anyone recall.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

edit - and the Hells Angles comments are perfectly valid - Just because its a Marae dosn't mean that they is nobody there who isn't of a criminal persuasion.

Well let's put it this way. Suppose the police requested a meeting with the Hells Angels or for some strange reason that none of us could comprehend and they were invited onto the property I doubt that the police would enter with camera's.

Or another sceniaro you were holding a party and some of your guests were posing as bikers and started taking photo's of your guests but later you found out that they were the police. That is acceptable to yourself as the host??

Bottomline is that the police were posing as tourists and there for the specific purpose of spying.

Nothing wrong with your opinion on this providing you use the same rules for your self as you do for others.


Skyryder

[tri boy]

Allowing the officer to follow you into the house while you casually went and logged onto your email server doesn't sound like the actions of a particularly sober individual to me.

You sure it wasn't more a case of - a few beers at work on the Thursday afternoon before a long weekend and then coming home to a situation that had you sweating blood trying to talk your way out of?

:whistle:

As usual, you seem to miss points in the original posts of others, and make up your own stories.
I was sober. Just annoyed that the young fulla instantly tried to stick a plastic rozza toy in my face.
99% of the time they are decent boys n girls, but this bloke was full of beans, and taking liberties.
Demanding (in a polite way) to prove I lived there. Once I had, he still pushed for a breath test, even though others around me (except the dog) could of been in the car. So I got miffed, and proved to him he was wasting every bodies time. But hey, believe your version if you wish, and let the rozza's walk all over you.:cool:

[Katman]

I was sober.

Or perhaps you just hoped you were when you got in your car to drive home?

So why didn't just blow in the bag to put him in his place?

My bullshit meter is going haywire.

[pritch]

There was a case many moons ago now, like before some KBers were born.

The Police chased a car and eventually caught it. The driver, however, had done it on his toes and was no longer present when the constabulary got themselves sorted.

The Police then asked one of the passengers to blow in the bag. He refused and the Police prosecuted.
He was found guilty of refusing a breath test, despite the guilty party coming forward and owning up prior to the court appearance.

The judge said that according to the law if you refuse a breath test you must go to jail. The law did not require that you actually be the driver. So off to jail the poor bastard went.

The law may have changed since then. Or not. I suggest seeking professional advice before refusing a breath test...

[tri boy]

My bullshit meter is going haywire.

Troll somewhere else knob cheese.


Interesting story pritch.
It will be interesting to see what the complaints authority comes back with.

[Katman]

It will be interesting to see what the complaints authority comes back with.

Especially now you've had two days to sleep it off.

:msn-wink:

[Kickaha]

There was a case many moons ago now, like before some KBers were born.

The Police chased a car and eventually caught it. The driver, however, had done it on his toes and was no longer present when the constabulary got themselves sorted.

The Police then asked one of the passengers to blow in the bag. He refused and the Police prosecuted.
He was found guilty of refusing a breath test, despite the guilty party coming forward and owning up prior to the court appearance.

The judge said that according to the law if you refuse a breath test you must go to jail. The law did not require that you actually be the driver. So off to jail the poor bastard went.

The law may have changed since then. Or not. I suggest seeking professional advice before refusing a breath test...

I saw a similar thing in court in 1989, they did a runner with 4 people in the car and then bailed out ,so when the cops caught them they wanted to breath test all of them,one guy refused saying he wasn't the driver and they were trying to pull his licence and if I remember correctly they did

[Lias]

Seems a weird place to have a checkpoint.. Who they trying to catch people leaving the cock and bull and heading down tasman rd?

[tri boy]

Not sure. But it is only about 1-2km from the Avalon Dr h/way base, so logistically it's good for them.
Plus Te Kowhai Rd has gotten extremely busy since The Base shopping cntr opened, and Harvey Norman etc set up on the Boulevard.
The check point is usually past Tasman Rd turn off, further towards Ruffel Rd on the straights.

[Skytwr]

The right to enter property and carry out the Breath tests is covered under the Land Transport Act 1998.

The entry to the property is covered under Section 119, Power to enter when following a vehicle / person to carry out the Breath / alcohol testing.

Section 68 covers the right to request a breath screening test. Given that the officer saw the car enter the driveway prior to the check point and upon arriving saw you close by to the car is good cause to suspect you are the driver. And if you are not, but you are the owner of the car then have to supply details of the driver, but he can still request a breath test.

As the case of the car that had the driver and passengers leave the scene. The Act allows us to breath test all persons located and treat them all as the driver until some one owns up. All persons in the car are charged and most times some one will give up the driver when they realise that they will end up going to court for a drink drive charge.


A lot of drivers try to avoid a check point for amny reasons and pull into a driveway. Some times it is the owner of the property other times it is a driver trying to get away but in all cases a Breath test is carried out.

[Ixion]

Which makes a total arse of the sober driver idea.

If I have had too much to drink, what is the point of getting a lift with a sober driver, since I may still be breathtested and charged with driving the car that I am not driving.

I may as well just do the simple thing and drive myself

And the police wonder why the public do not respect them. Whoever was responsible for that piece of raving idiocy is unqualified to be part of the human race. Or indeed any species with a greater claim to sapience than a slug.

I live down a long right of way. At the end are four houses. There are no fences between them If a neighbour comes down the drive and parks his car and disappears inside, it is quite possible that I, going about my own business, may be quite close to his parked car (which is not mine and which I have nothing to do with). If a cop follows him down the drive and tries to do me for DIC (having not even been out that day), on no more substantial evidence than that I happen to be nearby, he will get VERY short shrift indeed.

Why not extend that breathtaking (pun intnded) logic to all crime? Someone been shot? Just grab the nearest bystander and charge him. Saves so much time hunting for the actual criminal.

[Katman]

Silly rules aye.........

Who would ever possibly think that they might be so unreasonable as to indiscriminately project some similar silly rules specifically onto motorcyclists.

[KiwiRat]

Someone been shot? Just grab the nearest bystander and charge him. Saves so much time hunting for the actual criminal.

Been done before........................Arthur Allan Thomas etc, etc, etc..................

[Owl]

The judge said that according to the law if you refuse a breath test you must go to jail. The law did not require that you actually be the driver. So off to jail the poor bastard went.

That sounds a tad suspect to me dude? I know a guy that got pulled up and refused a breath test (asthma Yeah right) and was charged with refusing a breath test. He lost his licence for 6 months and yet a passenger must go to jail?

[davereid]

As the case of the car that had the driver and passengers leave the scene. The Act allows us to breath test all persons located and treat them all as the driver until some one owns up. All persons in the car are charged and most times some one will give up the driver when they realise that they will end up going to court for a drink drive charge.

This is the kind of bully-boy tactics that has destroyed the image of the police for most kiwis.

No one approves of drunks on the road, yet shit like this just shows how easily the power to search and seize without due cause has been bastardised by the police.

The police should ask themselves that most basic of questions - what have they done to create a relationship with the public that is so negative that middle aged whitemen, with no criminal history at all, hate them just as much as P dealers.

Next time I am sober, riding my warranted and fully legal motorcycle, if I see a check point, I shall change my mind about my intended route and choose another. The police of course can chase me if they wish. But if only 1 in 20 drivers just did a U turn, the check point would collapse.

[tri boy]

Skytwr gave me the info I was after. Cheers dude.
I don't toally agree with all the rights given to the police, and hope at times, a court can make informed choices as to whether a police person over stepped the mark.
In hindsight, I think the invasion of my personal surroundings was the triggar point to ignore him.
Think I would approach it differently in future, but having demands laid on me, and rozza toys shoved under my face, without being given the usual courteousness expected from property visitors annoyed the hell out of me.
Not to many years ago, such actions were deemed to be highly insulting.
Thanks for all the input. Yes, even yours katman.

[The Pastor]

Interesting since this last year saw about 360 fatalities against nearly 1000 15 yrs ago. They are dropping, and it's not by accident (pardon the pun) it's by the coppers hammering the drunks and speeders which changes the behaviour. And no, not for revenue but to keep me safe... I thank them for that.

Now back on topic... I wonder if those cops on that alcohol checkpoint had a dollar for every drunk that turned into the nearest driveway to avoid the checkpoint and claimed it was their house, just how rich they'd be? Can't see the problem really, maybe that checkpoint did stop a drunk that was just about to kill your daughter or your dad as they turned into your driveway. Have I missed something? Maybe it's you who should be thanking them.
get stuffed, its down because its now socially unaceptable (or at the very least frowned upon).

Law & enforcement dont change behaviours, attitudes, social pressure and cultures do.

[pritch]

That sounds a tad suspect to me dude?

Well, that was as reported in the press at the time. When exactly the time was I would be hard pressed to say. Probably relatively soon after the breath testing legislation came into effect?

I don't read the court reports anymore, endless stupidity tends to be depressing after a few years.

[Finn]

Last time I had a Rozza enter my house, she took her clothes off. She had an interesting way of breath testing me too.

[peasea]

Interesting since this last year saw about 360 fatalities against nearly 1000 15 yrs ago. They are dropping, and it's not by accident (pardon the pun) it's by the coppers hammering the drunks and speeders which changes the behaviour. And no, not for revenue but to keep me safe... I thank them for that.

Now back on topic... I wonder if those cops on that alcohol checkpoint had a dollar for every drunk that turned into the nearest driveway to avoid the checkpoint and claimed it was their house, just how rich they'd be? Can't see the problem really, maybe that checkpoint did stop a drunk that was just about to kill your daughter or your dad as they turned into your driveway. Have I missed something? Maybe it's you who should be thanking them.

I'm not saying 'don't stop drunk drivers' but the cops take the credit for a whole bunch of factors that have sfa to do with them. Fatalaties on the road are down thanks in part to increased (read compulsory) wearing of seat belts, crumple zones, intrusion bars, ABS and air bags. Furthermore, it isn't as easy as it used to be to get a driver's license (although still TOO easy) and many drinking establishments offer courtesy vehicles. Society is now frowning on drinking and driving, which is a good thing, and I can't wait for the results of society frowning on driving like a loopy in the rain and failing to indicate.

The cops hammer on about the road toll (which is sad, don't get me wrong) but per 100,000 people and per 10,000 vehicles the ratio is WAY down on what it used to be. (Check the stats..) Much of that is down the technology we now have incorporated into motor cars.

[peasea]

Last time I had a Rozza enter my house, she took her clothes off. She had an interesting way of breath testing me too.

I'll bet the word "blow" was in there somewhere though.

[tri boy]

I'll bet the word "blow" was in there somewhere though.

Yeah, she blew .08 of an inch.:rofl:

[Max Preload]

Yeah, she blew .08 of an inch.:rofl:

So, twice? :done:

[scumdog]

Fuck, you lot have pissed me off (again!) with your inane whinging and half-arsed knowledge of law.:argh:
Ya sorta seem to think real life is like an overflow from the school-yard.....


Well done!!!;)

[jrandom]

Fuck, you lot have pissed me off (again!) with your inane whinging and half-arsed knowledge of law.:argh:

So it's all good for a cop to barge into my house and follow me to my bedroom waving a breath tester after seeing a car drive into my garage, but not being able to identify the driver?

[scumdog]

So it's all good for a cop to barge into my house and follow me to my bedroom waving a breath tester after seeing a car drive into my garage, but not being able to identify the driver?

In a word: Yes.

The law says they can.



Next.

[jrandom]

The law says they can.

Interesting. Where?

[tri boy]

How many nth shore coppa's have barged into the bedrooms of young scrumpet's using that excuse? Or are they more brazen, and get the AOS to shoot out the bedroom windows?
Something seems seriously wrong with this power.

Got a follow up call from the complaints authority today, just checking on contact details:pinch: Am I to be the next SIS victim for making an enquiry.

[Jantar]

The aspect of who must give a breath sample is covered in section 68 of the act:


Who must undergo breath screening test
(1) An enforcement officer may require any of the following persons to undergo a breath screening test without delay:

(a) A driver of, or a person attempting to drive, a motor vehicle on a road:

(b) A person whom the officer has good cause to suspect has recently committed an offence against this Act that involves the driving of a motor vehicle:

(c) If an accident has occurred involving a motor vehicle,—

(i) The driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident; or

(ii) If the enforcement officer is unable to ascertain who the driver of the motor vehicle was at the time of the accident, a person whom the officer has good cause to suspect was in the motor vehicle at the time of the accident.

(2) An enforcement officer may not require a person who is in a hospital or doctor's surgery as a result of an accident involving a motor vehicle to undergo a breath screening test.

(3) A person who has undergone a breath screening test under this section must remain at the place where the person underwent the test until after the result of the test is ascertained, and an enforcement officer may arrest the person without warrant if the person refuses or fails to remain at that place.

(4) If an enforcement officer is entitled to require a person to undergo a breath screening test, the officer may also require that person to undergo a test using a passive breath-testing device, which test is one where the officer holds a passive breath-testing device near the person's mouth for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is any alcohol in the person's breath.

(5) The use or non-use of a passive breath-testing device does not of itself affect the validity of a breath screening test.

So according to the strict wording, the officer must identify the driver, or at the very least suspect a person of having commited an offence. It would be up to the court to decide if simply being in the proximity of a parked car that a person is or was the driver.

The right to follow that person onto private property is covered in section 119:


Powers of entry
(1) An enforcement officer may exercise the powers conferred by subsection (2) if the enforcement officer—

(a) Has good cause to suspect that a person—

(i) Has contravened a request or requirement or demand made under section 114 (other than subsection (1)); and

(ii) Has also committed or is committing an offence against section 35(1)(a) or section 35(1)(b) (which relate to reckless or dangerous driving offences), or is, or has recently been, driving under the influence of drink or a drug, or both; and

(b) Is freshly pursuing that person.

The enforcement officer may, without warrant, in the course of the pursuit enter, by force if necessary, any premises which the person has entered, for either or both of the following purposes:

(a) Determining whether or not a power conferred on an enforcement officer by section 68 or section 69 should be exercised in respect of that person:

(b) Exercising or completing the exercise of any such power in respect of that person (as if the person were in a motor vehicle on a road).



Again, it would up to the court to decide if a person entering their own property, but not having broken any law at that stage gives the officer "good cause to suspect" I would think not, but a judge may think otherwise.

There is also the question of whether observing someone enter their own driveway from a distance legally constitutes "fresh pursuit"? Again, it is a question for the court to decide.

[tri boy]

"Holy Moist Police Batons Batman"!
Those Rozza's sure can do some cleaver stuff.
Sounds like I could of had my scrawny white arse dragged out of my own dwelling, and focibly made to wrap my lips around something authoritative.:shit:

Best, next time I just roll over like Rosa the collie, and let the nice coppa tickle, (or kick ) my tummy.
Cheers Jantar.:yes:

[ajturbo]

he loves ya...

[Horse]

(b) Is freshly pursuing that person.

Vimes was right.

[Dave Lobster]

Those Rozzas sure can do some clever stuff.


Only if someone shows them how to do it.

[scumdog]

"Holy Moist Police Batons Batman"!
Those Rozza's sure can do some cleaver stuff.

Cheers Jantar.:yes:

And sadly the KB half-arsed legal team that spout so much on here seem unaware of this (or of what they're talking about).

And yeah, thanks Jantar, well done, couldn't be arsed posting it myself.

[twotyred]

"Holy Moist Police Batons Batman"!
Those Rozza's sure can do some cleaver stuff.
Sounds like I could of had my scrawny white arse dragged out of my own dwelling, and focibly made to wrap my lips around something authoritative.:shit:

Best, next time I just roll over like Rosa the collie, and let the nice coppa tickle, (or kick ) my tummy.
Cheers Jantar.:yes:

welcome to the globalist police state of New Zealand

[Patrick]

"Holy Moist Police Batons Batman"!
Those Rozza's sure can do some cleaver stuff.
Sounds like I could of had my scrawny white arse dragged out of my own dwelling, and focibly made to wrap my lips around something authoritative.:shit:

Best, next time I just roll over like Rosa the collie, and let the nice coppa tickle, (or kick ) my tummy.
Cheers Jantar.:yes:

Pretty sure they just wanted you to do a passive breath test and nothing more.

If ya want extras, bring donuts.

[spudchucka]

I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. Having said that:

The cop was within his rights to follow you in and ask for a breath test. He actually would have been in his rights to compel you to take a breath test. I'm surprised that he backed down without calling for backup.

I encourage you to make a complaint. If only so I can laugh when you get knocked back.

Powers of entry as per section 119 of the Land Transport Act 1998:


Powers of entry

*

(1) An enforcement officer may exercise the powers conferred by subsection (2) if the enforcement officer—
o

(a) Has good cause to suspect that a person—
+

(i) Has contravened a request or requirement or demand made under section 114 (other than subsection (1)); and
+

(ii) Has also committed or is committing an offence against section 35(1)(a) or section 35(1)(b) (which relate to reckless or dangerous driving offences), or is, or has recently been, driving under the influence of drink or a drug, or both; and
o

(b) Is freshly pursuing that person.

(2) The enforcement officer may, without warrant, in the course of the pursuit enter, by force if necessary, any premises which the person has entered, for either or both of the following purposes:
o

(a) Determining whether or not a power conferred on an enforcement officer by section 68 or section 69 should be exercised in respect of that person:
o

(b) Exercising or completing the exercise of any such power in respect of that person (as if the person were in a motor vehicle on a road).

(3) An enforcement officer may without warrant enter, by force if necessary, a building or place where a vehicle to which section 96 or section 96A or section 123 applies is being stored or kept, and seize and impound the vehicle, if—
o

(a) An enforcement officer has been freshly pursuing the vehicle; or
o

(b) It is likely that a person was about to remove, conceal, destroy, or dispose of the vehicle; or
o

(c) An enforcement officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the vehicle was about to be used in the commission of a crime; or
o

(d) Because of the time of the day or the locality, it was impracticable to obtain a warrant without creating an opportunity for the person to do any thing referred to in paragraph (b) or subparagraph (c).

(4) For the purposes of seizing and impounding a vehicle under section 96 or section 96A or section 123 in any case where subsection (3) does not apply, an enforcement officer may enter a building or place where a vehicle to which that section applies is being stored or kept only with the consent of the occupier or under a warrant issued under subsection (5) of this section.

(5) An enforcement officer may apply on oath to a District Court Judge for a warrant to enter a place referred to in subsection (4) and, if satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that a vehicle to which section 96 or section 96A or section 123 applies is being stored or kept in the building or place, the Judge may issue a warrant authorising an enforcement officer to enter, by force if necessary, any part of the building or place, and seize and impound the vehicle.

(6) It is the duty of every enforcement officer exercising a power conferred by subsection (2) or subsection (3) or under subsection (5)—
o

(a) To identify himself or herself as an enforcement officer to the pursued person and to the occupant of the premises entered; and
o

(b) To tell the pursued person and the occupant of the premises entered that the power of entry is being exercised under this section; and
o

(c) If the enforcement officer is not in uniform, to produce to the pursued person and the occupant of the premises entered on initial entry, and, if requested, at any subsequent time, evidence that he or she is an enforcement officer.

(7) An enforcement officer who enters any premises under this section may not exercise on those premises any power of arrest conferred by this Act other than a power of arrest conferred by any of sections 68(3), 69(6), and 120.

It didn't sound as if there was any fresh pursuit involved here, not sure though, care to clarify?

[Max Preload]

It didn't sound as if there was any fresh pursuit involved here, not sure though, care to clarify?

Depends on the definition of fresh pursuit, like you say. I would argue it's not a pursuit until such time as a reasonable person would have noticed that the officer was signalling them to stop - the opportunity for that in this scenario certainly never arose - he was most likely in his driveway before the officer even reacted to his turn.

I gather he was basically observed, from a distance, turning into a driveway and the officer naturally had good cause to suspect it was to avoid the checkpoint. However, the fact that he was clearly the occupant of the dwelling (opening the front door with a key sort of establishes that) at the driveway pretty much kills that good cause, IMHO. I'm sure that a decent defense lawyer could argue that successfully in court if the need arose.

[Patrick]

Depends on the definition of fresh pursuit, like you say. I would argue it's not a pursuit until such time as a reasonable person would have noticed that the officer was signalling them to stop - the opportunity for that in this scenario certainly never arose - he was most likely in his driveway before the officer even reacted to his turn.

I gather he was basically observed, from a distance, turning into a driveway and the officer naturally had good cause to suspect it was to avoid the checkpoint. However, the fact that he was clearly the occupant of the dwelling (opening the front door with a key sort of establishes that) at the driveway pretty much kills that good cause, IMHO. I'm sure that a decent defense lawyer could argue that successfully in court if the need arose.

So the fact that he was clearly the occupant meant he obviously hadn't been drinking?

[Max Preload]

So the fact that he was clearly the occupant meant he obviously hadn't been drinking?

Not at all. The fact he was clearly the occupant means the good cause doesn't have the foundation required - there is no longer good cause, hardly even a hunch - he was just turning into his own driveway, not simply attempting to avoid the checkpoint.

[tri boy]

Thanks for the input guys.:yes:
Without seeming too cheeky, it seems that in most situations like mine, the weight on the law is in the police officer's favour.
Right or wrong, this sort of makes joe citizen fairly neutered to any form of rights. (police can push a situation, get the desired results, and then if need be beg for forgiveness because they stepped over the mark).
The percentages of such cases are probably alot lower than actual bad Joe citizens infringing in a similar manner (and with the possibility of maiming/killing a third party whether it is domestic violence, armed robbery etc).

So I will admit that my approach towards the young coppa was a bit out of line, but in the pit of my stomach it still feels a bit surreal that such powers are available to someone in uniform that isn't in a high pressure situation. Lucky our police force is maned by a high percentage of decent folk


for now.

[SixPackBack]

I must be missing summat??

Blow in the bag-not guilty-rozza smiles sweetly, sez 'thank you Sir' and fucks off. Unless of course you had been hitting the turps tri boy??

Yeah a bit dodgy him coming into the house an all, but lets face it the chance of him doing anything other than the breath test is zero?........a mongrel mob member and I would be calling for the dog and figuring where the nearest stashed knife is!..........a copper?........hell you could have had a laugh and offered the bugger a donut!

[tri boy]

I must be missing summat??

Blow in the bag-not guilty-rozza smiles sweetly, sez 'thank you Sir' and fucks off. Unless of course you had been hitting the turps tri boy??

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Yeah a bit dodgy him coming into the house an all, but lets face it the chance of him doing anything other than the breath test is zero?

Yeah, I know now that I misread the situation. bad day, demanding customers, then a rozza in my face firing Q's and statements at me).
It wouldn't be the first time. (once on Waiheke, once in Ngawawahia).
i guess the site of coppa's approaching at more than a leisurely pace while I'm at such a pace sort of sets me off.
Damn, I'm starting to feel quilty about making his working shift a bit more awkward. Lesson (sorta) learnt. Next time I'll set Rosa on them, that will give me at least a minute to staighten my thought/opinion process, while they wipe dog slobber off themselves.

[Ixion]

So then - I drive a distinctive car.

Driving home, completely sober . Along road A. Down the side road off Road A , on Road B is a checkpoint. I don't go through it, maybe don't even see it. A kilometre up the road I turn in my drive .

Whew. Home after a long day. Time for an unwinding drink.

But a copper at the checkpoint saw me go past in the distance when he looked up the road.

And hour or two later he's driving along and sees my car parked in the drive. " Ahah. Oi saw dat car before, he didn't go frew da checkpoint, must be avoiding it". And smashes his way into the house. And demands I take a breath test.

Now, I've been home for several hours, had a few drinks since I got home (none before). Lets assume I'm under 21 or whatever the age is for youff, cos even in several hours I doubt I could drink enough to fail, but the youff rate, you could. So I take the test and fail it.

On the basis of what the coppers here are claiming, the copper is within his rights in breaking down the door; within his rights in demanding that I take a breath test; and within his rights in chraging me with drinking driving if I fail it.

Cos that's exactly the OPs situation, just extended the times and distances a bit. I say that is bullshit. And if it isn't the law needs to be changed . Fast.

The extraordinary thing is that the police throw this sort of shit at the public, treat perfectly innocent people with total contempt, as if they were machine gun murderers or baby rapists, then pompously spout about "wanting the publics assistance and cooperation". Fat chance.

[scumdog]

And hour or two later he's driving along and sees my car parked in the drive. " Ahah. Oi saw dat car before, he didn't go frew da checkpoint, must be avoiding it". And smashes his way into the house. And demands I take a breath test.



Total troll:bash:

Or lay off them ancient recreational potions - the paranoia they cause is doing your head in.:yes:

[idb]

Thanks for the input guys.:yes:
Without seeming too cheeky, it seems that in most situations like mine, the weight on the law is in the police officer's favour.
Right or wrong, this sort of makes joe citizen fairly neutered to any form of rights. (police can push a situation, get the desired results, and then if need be beg for forgiveness because they stepped over the mark).
The percentages of such cases are probably alot lower than actual bad Joe citizens infringing in a similar manner (and with the possibility of maiming/killing a third party whether it is domestic violence, armed robbery etc).

So I will admit that my approach towards the young coppa was a bit out of line, but in the pit of my stomach it still feels a bit surreal that such powers are available to someone in uniform that isn't in a high pressure situation. Lucky our police force is maned by a high percentage of decent folk


for now.

I sympathise.
I'd be f*%^ed off too.
Just a crappy situation all rund I think.

Have you tried getting your missus to take pikelets out to them while they're working?
It works with roadworkers outside your house when you want your driveway clear.

[Oscar]

I must be missing summat??

Blow in the bag-not guilty-rozza smiles sweetly, sez 'thank you Sir' and fucks off. Unless of course you had been hitting the turps tri boy??

Yeah a bit dodgy him coming into the house an all, but lets face it the chance of him doing anything other than the breath test is zero?........a mongrel mob member and I would be calling for the dog and figuring where the nearest stashed knife is!..........a copper?........hell you could have had a laugh and offered the bugger a donut!

Another good German....

The Cop either didn't have cause or didn't elucidate his cause to Brent in so many words.
If a policeman walks into your house he better have a warrant or probable cause.
Either way the Cop ended up trespassing.

[Ixion]

Total troll:bash:

Or lay off them ancient recreational potions - the paranoia they cause is doing your head in.:yes:

Only to the extent that I have postulated a more extreme case than the (actual) case of the OP. The OP was 200 meters from the checkpoint , and the police entry maybe 10 minutes later. Your response to that was "The law says we can" , and "whinging". I postulate a couple of kilometres and a cuple of hours. Your response is that's paranoid.

So, somewhere between 200mtrs/10 minutes and 2km / 2 hours , whinging turns to paranoia ? Where , pray is the dividing line.

This is no light matter. For 1000 years the law has respected the sancity of the law abiding citizen's home. The king himself , cannot willy-nilly pass the street door of the meanest subject. That is why the police must obtain search warrants. The OP had committed no crime, nor given any grounds for presuming he had. Yet, his home was forcibly entered , and he was interrogated against his will

Your argument would mean that warrants were unnecessary . Because almost always there would be a vehicle around - and a fair presumption that it's been used some time or other "Ah, theres a modderboike. N the engines still warm, good no warrant needed, smash the door down Officer Bumblebee."

You argue that the police , because I have committed the heinous sin of driving into my own driveway and entering my own home, are entitled to force their way in . And (according to Mr SkyTwr) arrest anyone in sight , even though they haven't been driving, and charge them with drink driving. . So I would like to know at what point in time and distance my ancient rights cease to exist.

(BTW - assuming that a passenger was arrested for drink driving , even though he had not been driving, what would happen if he had no licence. Would he also be charged with nondriving without a drivers licence? To accompany the charge of nondriving under the influence.If the car was stationary at the time would he also be charged with nonspeeding? )

[idb]

Only to the extent that I have postulated a more extreme case than the (actual) case of the OP. The OP was 200 meters from the checkpoint , and the police entry maybe 10 minutes later. Your response to that was "The law says we can" , and "whinging". I postulate a couple of kilometres and a cuple of hours. Your response is that's paranoid.

So, somewhere between 200mtrs/10 minutes and 2km / 2 hours , whinging turns to paranoia ? Where , pray is the dividing line.

This is no light matter. For 1000 years the law has respected the sancity of the law abiding citizen's home. The king himself , cannot willy-nilly pass the street door of the meanest subject. That is why the police must obtain search warrants. The OP had committed no crime, nor given any grounds for presuming he had. Yet, his home was forcibly entered , and he was interrogated against his will

Your argument would mean that warrants were unnecessary . Because almost always there would be a vehicle around - and a fair presumption that it's been used some time or other "Ah, theres a modderboike. N the engines still warm, good no warrant needed, smash the door down Officer Bumblebee."

You argue that the police , because I have committed the heinous sin of driving into my own driveway and entering my own home, are entitled to force their way in . And (according to Mr SkyTwr) arrest anyone in sight , even though they haven't been driving, and charge them with drink driving. . So I would like to know at what point in time and distance my ancient rights cease to exist.

(BTW - assuming that a passenger was arrested for drink driving , even though he had not been driving, what would happen if he had no licence. Would he also be charged with nondriving without a drivers licence? To accompany the charge of nondriving under the influence.If the car was stationary at the time would he also be charged with nonspeeding? )
Jeez...where have you been the last 15 years?!
I wish i still had your youthful naivete.
The sovereign might not be able to violate the personal space of one of his/her subjects but her/his agents are fully licensed to respond to any suspicion they might have...as long as it pertains to road safety of course, after all what could be more important!

[Patrick]

Not at all. The fact he was clearly the occupant means the good cause doesn't have the foundation required - there is no longer good cause, hardly even a hunch - he was just turning into his own driveway, not simply attempting to avoid the checkpoint.

Not at all... A very rare occasion this is, but hey, it has happened before. Tri's response is the odd feature, is all......

Good cause even if it is his house. Driving on a road, breath test any where, any time...


So I will admit that my approach towards the young coppa was a bit out of line, but in the pit of my stomach it still feels a bit surreal that such powers are available to someone in uniform that isn't in a high pressure situation. Lucky our police force is maned by a high percentage of decent folk

for now.

The powers were brought in because people were fleeing the Police while pissed and racing home to hide from the breath or blood test. Back then, you were safe if ya made it home.

The "posse" of pursuing patrol cars led to this important law change, so that the guilty could not escape....and the courts strongly agreed... As it should be....


And hour or two later he's driving along and sees my car parked in the drive. " Ahah. Oi saw dat car before, he didn't go frew da checkpoint, must be avoiding it". And smashes his way into the house. And demands I take a breath test.

Now, I've been home for several hours, had a few drinks since I got home (none before). Lets assume I'm under 21 or whatever the age is for youff, cos even in several hours I doubt I could drink enough to fail, but the youff rate, you could. So I take the test and fail it.

On the basis of what the coppers here are claiming, the copper is within his rights in breaking down the door; within his rights in demanding that I take a breath test; and within his rights in chraging me with drinking driving if I fail it.


Definite troll. Not in fresh pursuit 2 hours later, is he... so can't rely on Section 119 entry without warrant.


Another good German....

The Cop either didn't have cause or didn't elucidate his cause to Brent in so many words.
If a policeman walks into your house he better have a warrant or probable cause.
Either way the Cop ended up trespassing.

Try re-reading Section 119 again then... "may enter, without warrant, by force if necessary..." to lock up said piss heads who may be evading ya.......


...The OP was 200 meters from the checkpoint , and the police entry maybe 10 minutes later.

If that cop took 10 minutes to cover 200 metres, there is something seriously wrong - he needs to lay off the donuts.... NOW!!!!

You argue that the police , because I have committed the heinous sin of driving into my own driveway and entering my own home, are entitled to force their way in .

If they believe you may have been drinking and driving, then yes...

So I would like to know at what point in time and distance my ancient rights cease to exist.

"In fresh pursuit" means you are just behind them. Covering 200 metres from just up the road to get to the car in the drive very soon after would be "fresh" enough...

(BTW - assuming that a passenger was arrested for drink driving , even though he had not been driving, what would happen if he had no licence. Would he also be charged with nondriving without a drivers licence? To accompany the charge of nondriving under the influence.If the car was stationary at the time would he also be charged with nonspeeding? )

Yep. And nondriving vehicular manslaughter. And nondriving burglary/rape/aggravated robbery.... oh, and non driving clearing up all of the unsolved cases around the country....

That should cover it.:niceone:

[tri boy]

So, I had a quick chat over the phone to a complaints authority guy, (he called me to verify a few things, very quick responce if I do say so).
Bottom line, it will become a "conciliation case".
I think that means a senior/superior officer will give it an overview, and make any suggestions he see's fit, and I will be notified accordingly.
Bloody good system really.:cool:
There is no major deal here, and I'm the first to admit I could of handled it better, but if my comment about being less keen, (read, in a hurry to corner joe public), then maybe some good will come out of it.

Funny how situations can develop, and be read in different lights by different people. A cup of coffee n doughnuts shared would be the best out come IMHO.

[Patrick]

Funny how situations can develop, and be read in different lights by different people. A cup of coffee n doughnuts shared would be the best out come IMHO.

Now ya talkin....

Can anyone come? Open invite? Mmmmmmmmmmm donuts........

[Oscar]

Try re-reading Section 119 again then... "may enter, without warrant, by force if necessary..." to lock up said piss heads who may be evading ya.......





Try reading the NZ Bill of Rights 1990.
The bit about "unreasonable search or seizure".
There' a Catch 22 situation here: If the rozza had of followed through with his demand for a breath test, he would have been well within his rights. But he didn't, so he breached Tri-boys human rights by following him into his house.

[pritch]

Now ya talkin....

Can anyone come? Open invite? Mmmmmmmmmmm donuts........

After wading through this thread I fail to see why you would need an invite. :whistle:

It might pay to let him know how many of you are going though - just to avoid a shortage of donuts you understand...

[tri boy]

"Hello, is this Five Cross Roads Cake Kichen"?
"Great. I'd like to place an order for a mega caterer's pack of assorted doughnuts".
"Yep, they're to shout the h/way patrol".
"No, I don't expect more than 6-8 officers will be attending"
"Whats that"?

"55 bakers doz should do it"?
"Budget on super coating of icing sugar, and cream"?

"No worries. Please charge it to Mr Scumdogs personal account".
"He will not mind".:sunny:

[Ixion]

The OP was 200 meters from the checkpoint , and the police entry maybe 10 minutes later.

If that cop took 10 minutes to cover 200 metres, there is something seriously wrong - he needs to lay off the donuts.... NOW!!!!

You argue that the police , because I have committed the heinous sin of driving into my own driveway and entering my own home, are entitled to force their way in .

If they believe you may have been drinking and driving, then yes...

So I would like to know at what point in time and distance my ancient rights cease to exist.

"In fresh pursuit" means you are just behind them. Covering 200 metres from just up the road to get to the car in the drive very soon after would be "fresh" enough...



The first the rozza would have seen of OP was ehen he saw the oncoming car turn into the drive. SO he would have to start his car, put on his seat belt, pull out, drive 200 meters, pull into the driveway, stop, undo his seatbelt, secure the car, walk through into the house, find the OP. Five to ten minutes seems reasonable. It's not just the time to drive 200 meters

As I read it the rozza was never behind the OP. The OP was heading toward the checkpoint , whence one assumes the rozza came from. The cop would not have started up until the car turned into the driveway. So by the time the cop was actually on the road (heading TOWARD Mr TB , not behind him), Mr TB would have been stopped and parked up.

And why would the cop have any reasonable grounds to believe Mr TB had been drinking and driving? That is the nub of the matter. No one would object to a cop following someone when there was reason to suspect he was pissed. Indeed the ancient principle of hot pursuit covers that.

But Mr TB did nothing but drive into his driveway. As I did tonight. As I imagine you will when you return home at the end of your shift. Would the fact the you drove into your driveway justify me lodging a complaint about a police officer driving under the influence? "Yes, IPCA bod, I do indeed have reasonable grounds to believe that the officer was drink drinving. I know for a fact that he drove into his driveway. What more evidence do you require ?". Would you admit to it, on the basis of that evidence?

There was no pursuit. There was no grounds for any presumption that Mr TB had been drinking .

[Max Preload]

There was no pursuit. There was no grounds for any presumption that Mr TB had been drinking.

And he was never signaled to stop by any enforcement officer whilst actually on the road. 30 seconds or 30 hours later - there was never grounds for entry, nor good cause to suspect he had been drinking.

[Forest]

This is no light matter. For 1000 years the law has respected the sancity of the law abiding citizen's home. The king himself , cannot willy-nilly pass the street door of the meanest subject. That is why the police must obtain search warrants. The OP had committed no crime, nor given any grounds for presuming he had. Yet, his home was forcibly entered , and he was interrogated against his will

You are wrong in fact, and wrong in law.

A large number of state agencies, and their agents, can enter private property without a warrant.

[ManDownUnder]

You are wrong in fact, and wrong in law.

A large number of state agencies, and their agents, can enter private property without a warrant.

True ... assuming they have just cause... and I believe that's where the heart of the matter lies...

[jrandom]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin, 1775

[scumdog]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin, 1775

Who defines 'essential'??

[jrandom]

Who defines 'essential'??

Whoever's giving it up, I suppose.

But the status quo should never be accepted as a baseline to be built upon with further deprivations of liberty. Sometimes, liberties previously taken away need to be restored.

A healthy society's laws should oscillate with the times, not proceed in a steady march toward totalitarianism. Even though totalitarianism makes the policeman's job enormously easier.

[Max Preload]

Laws should oscillate with the times, not proceed in a steady march toward totalitarianism. Even though totalitarianism makes the policeman's job enormously easier.

Especially if said Policeman is only really interested in fitting up someone he just doesn't like, because, oh I don't know... maybe just doesn't pass the 'attitude test' we hear so much about.

[tri boy]

Not into my house this time :cool:
But set up in exactly the same place as last Thursday. There is a earth works contractors drive where they stash the bus for the baddies, and where the doughnut van can park out of site.:lol:

Now the interesting bit.
Te Kowhai Rd, although becoming more popular due to urban spread has very little in the way of road accidents. MHO.
Occasionally a car will screw up a corner, and go through a farm fence, but it is rare to hear, or see ambulance, fire, or paddy wagon screaming up it. There is an old folks home further up, and ambulances cruise up there to drop off, or pick up, but it certainly isn't a high crash site. MHO

So, are they there for a fishing expedition, or is it just convenient to their base?
Or, does an increase of residential houses mean a "target rich" enviroment?
8 coppas, two patrol cars for 1 1/2 hours, and I havn't seen a car pulled over into the booze bus area yet. Cushy shift if you can get on it:zzzz:

An interesting aside also, when the complaints authority dude called me the other day, one of his Q's was. "Do you feel that your area is being targeted"?
No shit. Thats what he asked.

[peasea]

Especially if said Policeman is only really interested in fitting up someone he just doesn't like, because, oh I don't know... maybe just doesn't pass the 'attitude test' we hear so much about.

They do it all the time, it's called abuse of power and the greater the power the more dangerous the abuse. They DO fit people up that they don't like or have their suspicions about, they DO lie in court and they DO cover their tracks, often aided and abetted by the likes of the PCA or whatever, their own white-washing machines ffs!

No, they're not ALL scumbags but the scumbags sure don't do their workmates any favours. You can't pick them generally, so trust none.

[peasea]

Not into my house this time :cool:
But set up in exactly the same place as last Thursday. There is a earth works contractors drive where they stash the bus for the baddies, and where the doughnut van can park out of site.:lol:

Now the interesting bit.
Te Kowhai Rd, although becoming more popular due to urban spread has very little in the way of road accidents. MHO.
Occasionally a car will screw up a corner, and go through a farm fence, but it is rare to hear, or see ambulance, fire, or paddy wagon screaming up it. There is an old folks home further up, and ambulances cruise up there to drop off, or pick up, but it certainly isn't a high crash site. MHO

So, are they there for a fishing expedition, or is it just convenient to their base?
Or, does an increase of residential houses mean a "target rich" enviroment?
8 coppas, two patrol cars for 1 1/2 hours, and I havn't seen a car pulled over into the booze bus area yet. Cushy shift if you can get on it:zzzz:

An interesting aside also, when the complaints authority dude called me the other day, one of his Q's was. "Do you feel that your area is being targeted"?
No shit. Thats what he asked.

Could be a training exercise for newbies. I'd ride up and down the road all day just to give them something to do. (In your gruns.) Go and photograph them, excessively, from all angles and close up.

[tri boy]

It started pissing down with rain not long ago, so they scarpered away.
They sure can pack up quick if it means getting wet. Fasted they moved all through the RBT session.
(I thought humans were water proof)?:lol:

[Winston001]

Yeah, I know now that I misread the situation. bad day, demanding customers, then a rozza in my face firing Q's and statements at me).

i guess the site of coppa's approaching at more than a leisurely pace while I'm at such a pace sort of sets me off.
Damn, I'm starting to feel quilty about making his working shift a bit more awkward. Lesson (sorta) learnt. Next time I'll set Rosa on them, that will give me at least a minute to staighten my thought/opinion process, while they wipe dog slobber off themselves.

Good on ya for being honest about this with hindsight. The law has been comprehensively explained already. The officer had the lawful authority to enter your property.

What seemed to annoy you was the demanding attitude of the policeman. I do wonder about that myself at times. Young officers are taught to be strong, assertive, and to hold control. They need those skills learned at Police College to get them through the first year or two because its a tough job - they have to mainly deal with some right pricks.

Once an officer becomes experienced, he relaxes and is able to read the situation so aggression is only adopted when necessary. Sounds like you had a nervous newbie who wanted to stand up to you.

[Ixion]

Good on ya for being honest about this with hindsight. The law has been comprehensively explained already. The officer had the lawful authority to enter your property.

...

In another thread, objections are raised to the proposals to give the police wider authority to demand DNA samples. Much of the objection arises from the suspicion that such authroity, once granted will firstly be used as a lever to demand yet more incursions upon our ancient rights and freedoms. And secondly from the suspicion that the new powers will promptly be abused by the police

This thread (and indeed your post) is the PERFECT illustration of how well justifed those suspicions are.

[Winston001]

I.........be used as a lever to demand yet more incursions upon our ancient rights and freedoms. And secondly from the suspicion that the new powers will promptly be abused by the police

This thread (and indeed your post) is the PERFECT illustration of how well justifed those suspicions are.

Dang. The Fall Of Western Civilisation. And it all started in Invercargill. Thanks Ix it's a heavy burden but I'm up for it.:soon: And to think I almost joined Socialist Unity at varsity...... :Punk:

[davereid]

Go and photograph them, excessively, from all angles and close up.

That has already been made difficult in the UK. Police regularly confiscate cameras or cellphone if you take pictures of them.

[Dave Lobster]

That has already been made difficult in the UK. Police regularly confiscate cameras or cellphone if you take pictures of them.

Only if they can catch you. A few friends and I used to take photos of the fat ones, and send them to the chief constable.

[scumdog]

Only if they can catch you. A few friends and I used to take photos of the fat ones, and send them to the chief constable.

Wow, that sounds pretty exciting!!, have you any good tips on the proper angle to photograph them, what film to use etc??<_<

[jrandom]

Wow, that sounds pretty exciting!!, have you any good tips on the proper angle to photograph them, what film to use etc??<_<

Cop spotting, eh. I guess it's like trainspotting or bird watching, but with hoodies instead of anoraks.

[Dave Lobster]

Wow, that sounds pretty exciting!!, have you any good tips on the proper angle to photograph them, what film to use etc??<_<

Just make sure you've got a wide angle lens :)

[peasea]

Wow, that sounds pretty exciting!!, have you any good tips on the proper angle to photograph them, what film to use etc??<_<

Film? Film? This is the digital age man! Wake up! Check these two turkeys: the one in the centre of the frame doesn't look like he wants his piccie taken (tough shit) and the other looks like he could do with a few sit-ups. On top of hiding (or trying to hide) behind a lamp post (in a dip) they parked in a 'No Parking' zone to set up the cash register.

One rule for some etc.....

[ManDownUnder]

Only if they can catch you. A few friends and I used to take photos of the fat ones, and send them to the chief constable.

For God's sake... why? What're you trying to achieve?

[Dave Lobster]

For God's sake... why? What're you trying to achieve?

Because we were paid by the government at the time too, and could run a mile and a half in eight and a half minutes. None of the fat cunts paid to catch burglars/muggers/thieves could touch their toes, let alone chase a villian.
They'd got plenty of time to wonder up and down the rows of bikes in Stratford handing out tickets for noisy (looking) exhausts and slightly small number plates, but they were too bone idle to check frame numbers looked intact, and matched plates.

[ManDownUnder]

Because we were paid by the government at the time too, and could run a mile and a half in eight and a half minutes. None of the fat cunts paid to catch burglars/muggers/thieves could touch their toes, let alone chase a villian.
They'd got plenty of time to wonder up and down the rows of bikes in Stratford handing out tickets for noisy (looking) exhausts and slightly small number plates, but they were too bone idle to check frame numbers looked intact, and matched plates.

sooo... you took the photos and sent them to someone in authority to prove you were fitter than the local cop? Or is it because they weren't paying enough attention to an aspect of their job you (in your infinite wisdom) deem more important?

And as a govt employee... I hope you weren't taking photos on my time.

[Dave Lobster]

sooo... you took the photos and sent them to someone in authority to prove you were fitter than the local cop? .

No, for a laugh.


Or is it because they weren't paying enough attention to an aspect of their job you (in your infinite wisdom) deem more important?


I'd be more than happy to have my bike checked to see if it was stolen.. And if my bike does end up stolen, I'd expect police (already in attendance) to be checking for stolen bikes at a large 'meet'. Solely giving out tickets for minor infractions does nothing for police/public relations, other than make them look like money collecting cunts.


s
And as a govt employee... I hope you weren't taking photos on my time.

Of course not. Unless you were paying taxes in ingerlund in the 90s.. and the country more than got its money's worth out of me.

[Patrick]

Try reading the NZ Bill of Rights 1990.
The bit about "unreasonable search or seizure".
There' a Catch 22 situation here: If the rozza had of followed through with his demand for a breath test, he would have been well within his rights. But he didn't, so he breached Tri-boys human rights by following him into his house.

Sigh... bush lawyers...

No he didn't. Entry was lawful. He decided not to push it and left when asked = No trespass.



The first the rozza would have seen of OP was ehen he saw the oncoming car turn into the drive. SO he would have to start his car, put on his seat belt, pull out, drive 200 meters, pull into the driveway, stop, undo his seatbelt, secure the car, walk through into the house, find the OP. Five to ten minutes seems reasonable. It's not just the time to drive 200 meters

Jesus... must be a fat bastard who is driving a matchbox car....

As I read it the rozza was never behind the OP. The OP was heading toward the checkpoint , whence one assumes the rozza came from. The cop would not have started up until the car turned into the driveway. So by the time the cop was actually on the road (heading TOWARD Mr TB , not behind him), Mr TB would have been stopped and parked up.

And why would the cop have any reasonable grounds to believe Mr TB had been drinking and driving? That is the nub of the matter.

Ummm... approaching a checkpoint and turning into a driveway, to avoid it, at a real crazy guess... but hey, that never happens...??? Dunno what that cop was thinking. His powers of reading minds must have been turned off not to realise at the time he turned off that he actually lived there. Back to psychic school for that young rozzer...!!!

No one would object to a cop following someone when there was reason to suspect he was pissed. Indeed the ancient principle of hot pursuit covers that.

But Mr TB did nothing but drive into his driveway. As I did tonight. As I imagine you will when you return home at the end of your shift. Would the fact the you drove into your driveway justify me lodging a complaint about a police officer driving under the influence? "Yes, IPCA bod, I do indeed have reasonable grounds to believe that the officer was drink drinving. I know for a fact that he drove into his driveway. What more evidence do you require ?". Would you admit to it, on the basis of that evidence?

There was no pursuit. There was no grounds for any presumption that Mr TB had been drinking .

They often set up outside my home. I have had cops run down the drive after me twice, the wife a few times too... to do a passive test. NO problem. Ever. Done. Usually followed by me saying, "Want a coffee? Sorry out of donuts at the mo..."


Film? Film? This is the digital age man! Wake up! Check these two turkeys: the one in the centre of the frame doesn't look like he wants his piccie taken (tough shit) and the other looks like he could do with a few sit-ups. On top of hiding (or trying to hide) behind a lamp post (in a dip) they parked in a 'No Parking' zone to set up the cash register.

One rule for some etc.....

Large coppers "Trying to hide behind a lamp post..." in their day glow jackets... Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...... Shit you're funny today....

No parking zone looks like a piece of council land.... and they have the parking exemption lights on the roofs...

[ManDownUnder]

No, for a laugh.

aaa ok - so you were having a laugh at the taxpayers' expense while proving the cops should have been doing something more productive - working as they are at.. the... taxpayers'... exp...

... did I miss something here?

[peasea]

No parking zone looks like a piece of council land.... and they have the parking exemption lights on the roofs...

It's actually a private driveway and so pleased you can still pick sarcasm, it's wasted on so many.

[peasea]

No, for a laugh.

I'd be more than happy to have my bike checked to see if it was stolen..




Me too. In fact I recall spying somewhere how many times my plate on the old FXR had been called up but I'd never been stopped. Whoever pulled it up while I was cruising along (oblivious to the check) was just checking to see if it had been stolen. No complaints here.

[Oscar]

Sigh... bush lawyers...

No he didn't. Entry was lawful. He decided not to push it and left when asked = No trespass.




No need to be condescending there, Officer.

I'm no lawyer, just a reasonably well informed citizen who is:


Sad to see the gradual erosion of civil rights in this country.
Appalled at the number of arrogant macho fuckwits that are graduating Police College lately. I remember the day not so long ago when a cop was someone to be respected (and MOT Traffic Cops were the aforementioned arrogant fuckwits). I know there are still some of these hardworking and brave individuals still in the force, but I can't tell the difference between the and the ones who just see me as a source of $$$$$$$$$$$$.

[Dave Lobster]

I am sure there are still some of these hardworking and brave individuals still in the force,

Heaps of them. But they're out of sight, doing real work. (catching criminals)

[peasea]

Heaps of them. But they're out of sight, doing real work. (catching criminals)

You might have a point there; maybe we only meet the real scum on the roads.

[peasea]

No need to be condescending there, Officer.

I'm no lawyer, just a reasonably well informed citizen who is:


Sad to see the gradual erosion of civil rights in this country.
Appalled at the number of arrogant macho fuckwits that are graduating Police College lately. I remember the day not so long ago when a cop was someone to be respected (and MOT Traffic Cops were the aforementioned arrogant fuckwits). I know there are still some of these hardworking and brave individuals still in the force, but I can't tell the difference between the and the ones who just see me as a source of $$$$$$$$$$$$.


Sigh...bush pigs.

Have to agree me old son.

I read (with interest) an article in (I think) The Press about one of the teens who took part in the "ambush" of a copper in Christchurch. He told of the copper brandishing his truncheon in the midst of 300 b'rs. Ya what? Get backup man, are you Superman or what? He looked to be a right twat in that article yet on TV he was the poor, downtrodden bobby. Two sides and all that, but hey, the teenager doesn't have the PCA to tidy up his lies so I would doubt he'd be full of porkies.

Oh, puns are fun.

[avgas]

go inside, get a rifle and say your going hunting.........you will not see a recruit shit themselves so fast.
oh and stop drinking all the drive home and then they might leave you alone.

[peasea]

go inside, get a rifle and say your going hunting.........you will not see a recruit shit themselves so fast.
oh and stop drinking all the drive home and then they might leave you alone.


I AM inside, well not IN-side, but in-SIDE, like AT HOME!

("I can feel the inside, but I cant get....OUTside")

Where the fuck are YOU?

[marty]

"Hello, is this Five Cross Roads Cake Kichen"?
"Great. I'd like to place an order for a mega caterer's pack of assorted doughnuts".
"Yep, they're to shout the h/way patrol".
"No, I don't expect more than 6-8 officers will be attending"
"Whats that"?

"55 bakers doz should do it"?
"Budget on super coating of icing sugar, and cream"?

"No worries. Please charge it to Mr Scumdogs personal account".
"He will not mind".:sunny:

you have no idea how close to the truth that post is :)

don't EVER turn up late to line-up in hamilton unless you've swung past 5 x rds......(especially early shift)

i had their number on speed dial #5.

[peasea]

[QUOTE=Oscar;1934699]No need to be condescending there, Officer.

QUOTE]



Quite right, but I fear it's in the blood. The Pat is ok at times but the word 'defensive' does rule.

[peasea]

"Hello, is this Five Cross Roads Cake Kichen"?
"Great. I'd like to place an order for a mega caterer's pack of assorted doughnuts".
"Yep, they're to shout the h/way patrol".
"No, I don't expect more than 6-8 officers will be attending"
"Whats that"?

"55 bakers doz should do it"?
"Budget on super coating of icing sugar, and cream"?

"No worries. Please charge it to Mr Scumdogs personal account".
"He will not mind".:sunny:


Mate! You should bottle that (oh dear, bad pun, not).

[Patrick]

No need to be condescending there, Officer.

I'm no lawyer, just a reasonably well informed citizen who is:


Sad to see the gradual erosion of civil rights in this country.
Appalled at the number of arrogant macho fuckwits that are graduating Police College lately. I remember the day not so long ago when a cop was someone to be respected (and MOT Traffic Cops were the aforementioned arrogant fuckwits). I know there are still some of these hardworking and brave individuals still in the force, but I can't tell the difference between the and the ones who just see me as a source of $$$$$$$$$$$$.


Me? Condescending? (Well... maybe just a little, by accident.... promise...:innocent:

Glad to see the erosion of CRIMINAL rights in this country.

Know what you mean about some macho graduates, but they are far and few, and get weeded out soon enough. Was on a course not too long ago, and while getting changed, could have sworn I was at the South Auckland Crips/Killer Beez convention. The shite they were spouting - "Dog" "G" etc. Couldn't they speak Eengrish?

We all see you as a source of $$$$... so many willing donors to the Govt coffers. If only we were on commission....


... He told of the copper brandishing his truncheon in the midst of 300 b'rs. Ya what?

Maybe a newbie... but a Sergeant? On his own? Taking on 300? TUI....

Oh yeah... he was wearing his uniform, so that must mean, of course he can.... those uniforms have super powers....


Quite right, but I fear it's in the blood. The Pat is ok at times but the word 'defensive' does rule.

Tis human nature. Only when tarred with the same brush, for no other reason other than I wear the same uniform. Go figure.

[tri boy]

Arrived last Friday, but the weekend took higher priorities, (ie, going for a ride), so I opened it today.
Quick response, only a week +1 day to put it in writing.
Is now going through the conciliation system, and I will be contacted by the rozza's in due course.
If I have learned anything from this, it's that there is an open and fair system towards complaints. Doesn't mean it works for everyone/situation, but at least you are acknowledged. Maybe more people should give the IPCA a go.
(doughnuts on hold, until the hoedown with said rozza's)
(IPCA =Independent Police Complaints Authority).

[davereid]

Glad to see the erosion of CRIMINAL rights in this country.


I would cheerfully agree with you and support you if it were true.

But we arent seeing an erosion of criminal rights. All the current laws of which I am complaining are targetd at the 98% of New Zealanders who don't break the law.

[carver]

they are after me, i live 10mins from you, or 2 mins on the gixxer.

i found shooting the roadblocks made them go away

[scumdog]

Fark....6 days on the West Coast doing 'stuff' and I come back to the same old cliche'd lame KB whimpers of 'breach of rights', 'fat cops' ad neauseum, ad infinitum...........:rolleyes:

[Bass]

Fark....6 days on the West Coast doing 'stuff' and I come back to the same old cliche'd lame KB whimpers of 'breach of rights', 'fat cops' ad neauseum, ad infinitum...........:rolleyes:

Hang on mate! It's been nearly 4 days since anyone bothered.

You are obviously not overly sensitive on the topic.

Do you just miss having something to shout about?


How was the coast by the way?
I can remember a time when no-one turned a key in a lock between Karamea and Haast. You could walk down any street in Greymouth and 1/3 of the parked cars, still had the keys in them.

[Pixie]

Funny how they are so reticent about entering gang houses.

booook book book book

[scumdog]

Funny how they are so reticent about entering gang houses.

booook book book book

Are they??

ARE they?

[Pixie]

Appalled at the number of arrogant macho fuckwits that are graduating Police College lately. I remember the day not so long ago when a cop was someone to be respected (and MOT Traffic Cops were the aforementioned arrogant fuckwits). I know there are still some of these hardworking and brave individuals still in the force, but I can't tell the difference between the and the ones who just see me as a source of $$$$$$$$$$$$.
[/LIST]

Allow me to recount a conversation overheard recently:

Drongo 1: "How's your Police application going?"

Drongo 2: "They didn't like my 5 driving while disqualified convictions,so

they said to keep my nose clean for 18 months and I should be sweet"




Last time I looked contempt of court made you unsuitable to be a police officer.

[Patrick]

Funny how they are so reticent about entering gang houses.

booook book book book

Bwahahahahaha....

What a load of bollocks.

You sit outside the Gang HQ 24/7???? If so, get a life, go for a motorbike ride......


Allow me to recount a conversation overheard recently:

Drongo 1: "How's your Police application going?"

Drongo 2: "They didn't like my 5 driving while disqualified convictions,so

they said to keep my nose clean for 18 months and I should be sweet"




Last time I looked contempt of court made you unsuitable to be a police officer.

Still does. Drongo Two is talking it up for his mate. Drongo two is fulla shite, and Drongo one is lapping it all up....

[scumdog]

Allow me to recount a conversation overheard recently:

Drongo 1: "How's your Police application going?"

Drongo 2: "They didn't like my 5 driving while disqualified convictions,so

they said to keep my nose clean for 18 months and I should be sweet"




Last time I looked contempt of court made you unsuitable to be a police officer.

Maybe they were winding you up...or one was winding the other up...??..or you are winding us up???

[MIXONE]

Maybe they were winding you up...or one was winding the other up...??..or you are winding us up???

Fuck there is a lot of clocks on kb!

[jafar]

Fuck there is a lot of cocks on kb!

That's better :lol:

[davereid]

I guess it depends on how well you understand the rules !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Top cop refuses breath test
Like everyone, he is entitled to, say lawyers
By EMILY WATT - The Dominion Post | Saturday, 28 February 2009

One of the country's top police officers has been cleared of wrongdoing for refusing to take a breath test after he was reported driving home erratically from a police bar.

Police say the man was "entitled" to refuse to comply with officers who knocked on his door.

Superintendent Graham Thomas, the head of police prosecutions at Police National Headquarters, has been cleared by a police investigation and is now on six months' paid "medical rehabilitation".

Criminal lawyers say everyone has a right to act within their legal rights. But many members of the public are convicted after being breathalysed in their homes, either because they believed they had to follow police demands or because they felt they should front up to their wrongdoing.

Some police spoken to by The Dominion Post said the officer, who is in charge of every drink-driving case in the country, ought to have fronted up.

Mr Thomas was reportedly visited after a member of the public reported erratic driving on a Friday night in December. A community patrol car went to his house and officers knocked on his door.

Police human resources manager Wayne Annan said the man, whom he would not identify, was asked to give a breath test at his home, but he declined "as he was entitled to do".

He reportedly told officers he had been home all night. Mr Thomas was not home when The Dominion Post visited yesterday, but a police-issue car was parked in his driveway. Police would not say if it was being driven on the night in question.

Mr Annan said police had completed the investigation and employment matters were concluded.

Drink-drive lawyer Chris Reid said that, although many members of the public had been convicted in similar circumstances, Mr Thomas was acting within the law.

"Morally, he should probably have done it, but legally, he didn't have to," Mr Reid said. "There's no doubt if someone knocked on my door and asked me to do a breath test, I would tell them to go to hell."

Lawyer Michael Bott said clients had been arrested for failing to provide a sample when police arrived at their house. "What concerns me is the double standard." But anyone who knew the law was entitled to apply it.

A spokesman for Police Minister Judith Collins said she would not comment on an employment issue.

Former police commissioner Peter Doone resigned in 2000 after controversy over whether he abused his power by getting out of a car and speaking to a rookie constable who stopped it on election night 1999. The car was being driven by his partner Robyn Johnstone after it was seen driving without headlights on, but the couple were allowed to drive away without being breath-tested.

A report by deputy commissioner Rob Robinson said Mr Doone should have insisted on "the full treatment for the driver to dispel any later suggestions of insobriety".

The State Services Commission last year cleared Commissioner Howard Broad of claims he avoided a breath test in 1992. When stopped, Mr Broad admitted he had been drinking with a meal and the officer told him to park and stop driving.

[tri boy]

I guess this proves that this certain area of RBT enforcement is still very much a grey area legally.
Oh, just an update. One week from the day I first emailed the complaints authority, I had received their outcome to move it to the local traffic police dept. I'm still waiting for their follow up interview. Guess they are really busy..................

[spudchucka]

Its not grey at all. Just read the legislation, which really makes it quite clear.

[Forest]

Its not grey at all. Just read the legislation, which really makes it quite clear.

Quite right. The Herald reporting makes this clear.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10559186


It is not an offence to refuse an initial breath-screening test. But a police officer can then require someone to take an evidential breath test. Refusing to take the second breath test is an offence.

[tri boy]

I'm interested to know why the police didn't follow up on who was actually driving the car erratically, assuming it was an govt issued vechile, then there would be few people legally entiteled to drive it, and the processof illemination would be straight forward in my view.
Assuming the big chief didn't tell a porky (chuckle) pie to the constable.
Coppa's don't tell porkies (chuckle) do they?:laugh:

[carver]

some cops do, some dont.
from what i have seen they will lie to save themselves.

you cant trust the pigs

[Ocean1]

Quite right. The Herald reporting makes this clear.



It is not an offence to refuse an initial breath-screening test. But a police officer can then require someone to take an evidential breath test. Refusing to take the second breath test is an offence.

It does. The Harold missed a quote from Chris Reid which appears in the Dom, though...


If a police officer knocks on your door, you do not have to give a breath or blood test and are entitled to ask them to leave the property. But if they follow you in "fresh persuit" and arrive directly after you, you are required to comply. If you refuse to give a blood test in a public place, you can be arrested for refusing to supply a sample, a serious offence. You can call a lawyer before giving a test and seek advice.

So it appears the dude was within his rights, as it seems unlikely the officers were on his tail up the driveway. It also appears that he's either terminally stupid or guilty as hell.

[scumdog]

some cops do, some dont.
from what i have seen they will lie to save themselves.

you cant trust the pigs

Amazing how that reflects the rest of society...:shutup:

[carver]

Amazing how that reflects the rest of society...:shutup:

do you agree that the uniform you wear does not set you apart from the rest of society?

is your duty to uphold the law or to do what is morally right

[Ocean1]

Amazing how that reflects the rest of society...:shutup:

Part of the reason I'm not a member. <_<

[scumdog]

do you agree that the uniform you wear does not set you apart from the rest of society?

Sure it sets me apart - it's like a big red target for KBers for a start...<_<

[Ixion]

Its not grey at all. Just read the legislation, which really makes it quite clear.

No. It is not clear at all.

Where is the difference between this case (where the police admit the man did not have to take a breath test) and Mr Tri Boy's, where all the site cops insist the cop was within his rights to demand a breath test? (except of course that Mr TB is not a cop) .In both cases the people concerned were in their homes. In both cases they had been seen driving some time earlier. In neither case were the police in pursuit. What is teh difference?

it is clear that if you are driving on the road , you must take a breath test anytime a cop requires it.

It is *very* far from clear to me under what circumstances a cop may force his way into your home and demand you take a breath test.

We have already seen (supra) that a passenger in a car can be charged with drink driving (even though he wasn't driving). And the site cops claim that you can be charged with drink driving in your lounge room . Even if you maybe haven't driving a vehicle in weeks . Can someone else in the lounge, who might have been the passenger in the car that you weren't driving , be charged with drink driving ?


This whole area seems to be a first class example of the way police powers creep beyond anything originally envisaged by Parliament. From demanding the right to test drivers at will , which parliament granted, the police are now claiming that this gives them the right to breath test ANY person , at any time , any place, including their own home, and if they fail the test charge them with drink driving. even if there is no proof that they have been driving at all, and , indeed, even if they can prove that they have NOT been driving.

And they want the public to grant them MORE powers? Piss off.

[carver]

Sure it sets me apart - it's like a big red target for KBers for a start...<_<

well, your all tarred by the same brush.
alot of you seem like glorified tanker drivers.

instead of tankers you drive police cars

instead of milk, you process citizens.

same attitude, just another day on the job

[scumdog]

well, your all tarred by the same brush.
alot of you seem like glorified tanker drivers.

instead of tankers you drive police cars

instead of milk, you process citizens.

same attitude, just another day on the job

Hey, you sound almost as cynical as me - ya must deal with many members of the public on a daily basis eh?

[carver]

Hey, you sound almost as cynical as me - ya must deal with many members of the public on a daily basis eh?

kinda, but thats beside the point, and its no excuse.

moral virtue is what the police force should uphold, and they should take pride in it.
not entirely the fault of the force, more the vast amount of laws they have to uphold that protects us from ourselves, thereby making them cynical babysitters some of the time.

[scumdog]

kinda, but thats beside the point, and its no excuse.

moral virtue is what the police force should uphold, and they should take pride in it.
not entirely the fault of the force, more the vast amount of laws they have to uphold that protects us from ourselves, thereby making them cynical babysitters some of the time.

Good point, as I am not one to do the kind of shit that is whinged about on KB I can't really comment - but it kinda drags with the "You wear the same uniform/drive the same type of car so you must be an arsehole too" KB credo...<_<

[spudchucka]

It is *very* far from clear to me under what circumstances a cop may force his way into your home and demand you take a breath test.

Its perfectly clear if you read and understand all of the relevant legislation, which is what some of the cops involved should also be brushing up on.

[spudchucka]

moral virtue is what the police force should uphold, and they should take pride in it.

While members of police should maintain high moral virtues there is no place in law for police officers to be the upholders or enforcers of moral standards. If the police were to police moral standards then 99% of the population would be incarcerated.

[carver]

While members of police should maintain high moral virtues there is no place in law for police officers to be the upholders or enforcers of moral standards. If the police were to police moral standards then 99% of the population would be incarcerated.

i think you mis-understand me

[Skyryder]

If the police can positively identify the driver they can ask for a breath test anywhere.
Skyryder

well I'm with the cops on this one............wrong. But then I'm only a civilian and expect Officers to know the law better than I do. Not slag other KBers on legal matters when they do not. I expect better from you guys.



http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/02/28/12459ee91dda


Skyryder

[spudchucka]

well I'm with the cops on this one............wrong. But then I'm only a civilian and expect Officers to know the law better than I do. Not slag other KBers on legal matters when they do not. I expect better from you guys.



http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/02/28/12459ee91dda


Skyryder

What's your point?

[spudchucka]

i think you mis-understand me

Possibly goes both ways.

The laws of the land and moral virtue are two very separate things. If you have a country that legislates for moral standards and the national police service enforce those laws then I think you will find yourself living in a country not too dissimilar to Afghanistan under the Taliban or the present day Iran etc.

[carver]

Possibly goes both ways.

The laws of the land and moral virtue are two very separate things. If you have a country that legislates for moral standards and the national police service enforce those laws then I think you will find yourself living in a country not too dissimilar to Afghanistan under the Taliban or the present day Iran etc.

thats not morality.
the law was intended to protect people from each other, not themselves

[Skyryder]

Its perfectly clear if you read and understand all of the relevant legislation, which is what some of the cops involved should also be brushing up on.

This. Don't see any clear explanation of the law in this thread from yourself in respect to breath testing in the home.

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

This. Don't see any clear explanation of the law in this thread from yourself in respect to breath testing in the home.

Skyryder

There's a real big hint as to what the problem here is in post #88. You're a smart guy and can figure the rest out for yourself.

[spudchucka]

thats not morality.
the law was intended to protect people from each other, not themselves

I think we are on totally different wavelengths here.

[Skyryder]

There's a real big hint as to what the problem here is in post #88. You're a smart guy and can figure the rest out for yourself.

The original post was about a copper entering the bedroom of a private dwelling and asking for a breath test. It was not about the right to enter property and the reasons for.

The general comments and I include myself in this is that the police had every right to ask for the test. This tended to be the general comments other than from those who knew the law better than both you and I. No where in this thread have you stated that the police 'do' not have this right This does bring up an interesting point. Tri Boy in his post states that the officer was a ‘newbie’ and left after his refusal to comply with the test. From this, it is not unreasonable to assume, that said ‘newbie’ was aware that Tri Boy was well within his rights to refuse. If I am correct I will not delve deeper into the ramifications of what this may represent with the culture of the NZ Police.

I will however state quote categorically that I believe that those officers here on KB made a genuine mistake in believing that Joe public is required to give a breath test in the home.

Perhaps there is a case for a law change, on that score I would have no qualms. If this breath testing in the home had have been lawfull it would after all have removed one hypocritical cop from the force.

Skyryder

[Ixion]

I have read with care both Mr Spudchucka's excerpt of the legislation and the legislation itself.

As I would interpret it (IANAL - but since in this matter police and lawyers seem unable to agree or provide a clear statement , we are needs be thrown back on our own resources) :

1) If a cop is pursuing someone he may enter private property and demand a breath test. So if the five-oh are after you with reds and blues, diving into your back door isn't going to get you off the hook. (Clause 1b "Is freshly pursuing that person.").

2) If a cop has reasonable grounds to believe that a person (emphasis mine) " or is, or has recently been, driving under the influence of drink or a drug, or both" (Clause 1aii)

Both these clauses are subject to the test of fact. A pursuit must be that : a pursuit. It is not enough for the cop to say "Oh, well , I drove up the same road as the suspect, but in the opposite direction, and 10 minutes later, when he was stopped and parked ". That's not a pursuit in my book.

And for 2) to apply, the cop must be able to identify "a person". If the police see me driving erratically and wildly, whilst swigging from my can of Bourbon, and they get a good look at me and see me go onto my house, they may follow me on in. But they need to be looking for a specific person. Not throw everybody and anybody in the vicinity into the net.The police are not able to say "Oh , we had a report that someone, dunno who, might have been drink driving (or might not). We don't know who the person was, or if they were drunk, so what we'll do is force our way into every house in the district and breath test everybody we find and if anyone fails, we've got our man".

[Skyryder]

Ixion. Open the link on my post #177. The lawyer states very clearly that the police officer was within his rights to refuse the breath test. OK it's media but unless someone can show me an opposite opinion from a legal source I'll hold my view that a breath test can be refused in your private dwelling. Said officer was insistant that he was not going to be breath tested. He was not arrested for refusal. So I'm picking he knew his rights. Now I may be wrong in all of this but I have yet to hear of an officer backing down when they have the law to back up their insistance that Joe public carries out a police officers instructions.

And you are right they can not go on a fishingtrip.

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

The original post was about a copper entering the bedroom of a private dwelling and asking for a breath test. It was not about the right to enter property and the reasons for.

Skyryder

Of course it is about the right to enter the property, without that right no other process can be lawfully completed.

The cop needs to be freshly pursuing the subject onto the property or have reasonable grounds to believe , (not suspect, he must believe) that a person in that address has committed an offence against the prescribed sections of the Act. Both cases appear to neither meet the fresh pursuit or the reasonable grounds for belief criteria, hence the cop could not lawfully enter the property under the provisions of section 119 and would have had to leave the property when asked as they had no statutory power under which they had any right to stay or to carry out any other process under the Act, (ie: a breath test).

[tri boy]

The young rozza in my case did indeed mention that I could be arrested for failing to comply with his request. (i am not sure if that is totally correct).
But the reason he finally left, was because when I asked him if he could honestly identify me as the driver, he couldn't come up with a suitable response.
I guess each individual situation the coppa's have to deal with throws up legal arguments further down the track.
I think they are doing a bloody good job most of the time, and having to stay on top of ever changing laws of the land, would be enough to cause some officers to strip naked, and charge after offenders in the middle of the night.:rofl: Such must be their level of frustration and cynical approach to joe public.:dodge:

[spudchucka]

I have read with care both Mr Spudchucka's excerpt of the legislation and the legislation itself.

As I would interpret it (IANAL - but since in this matter police and lawyers seem unable to agree or provide a clear statement , we are needs be thrown back on our own resources) :

1) If a cop is pursuing someone he may enter private property and demand a breath test. So if the five-oh are after you with reds and blues, diving into your back door isn't going to get you off the hook. (Clause 1b "Is freshly pursuing that person.").

2) If a cop has reasonable grounds to believe that a person (emphasis mine) " or is, or has recently been, driving under the influence of drink or a drug, or both" (Clause 1aii)

Both these clauses are subject to the test of fact. A pursuit must be that : a pursuit. It is not enough for the cop to say "Oh, well , I drove up the same road as the suspect, but in the opposite direction, and 10 minutes later, when he was stopped and parked ". That's not a pursuit in my book.

And for 2) to apply, the cop must be able to identify "a person". If the police see me driving erratically and wildly, whilst swigging from my can of Bourbon, and they get a good look at me and see me go onto my house, they may follow me on in. But they need to be looking for a specific person. Not throw everybody and anybody in the vicinity into the net.The police are not able to say "Oh , we had a report that someone, dunno who, might have been drink driving (or might not). We don't know who the person was, or if they were drunk, so what we'll do is force our way into every house in the district and breath test everybody we find and if anyone fails, we've got our man".

Finally, someone seems to get it.:woohoo:

[marty]

The young rozza in my case did indeed mention that I could be arrested for failing to comply with his request. (i am not sure if that is totally correct).

he was correct, although there is no charge for failing to supply a screening test, it is simply to allow proceeding to the next step, which is the evidential test. refusing evidential or blood though WILL attract a charge.



But the reason he finally left, was because when I asked him if he could honestly identify me as the driver, he couldn't come up with a suitable response.

as he should have (left i mean)

i'm picking he was testing your ability to say 'wasn't me officer'. if you said 'yes i was the driver', you've just dug your hole.

[scumdog]

I think they are doing a bloody good job most of the time, and having to stay on top of ever changing laws of the land, would be enough to cause some officers to strip naked, and charge after offenders in the middle of the night.:rofl: Such must be their level of frustration and cynical approach to joe public.:dodge:



Hey, I resemble that description ya know...:doh:

[Ixion]

Ixion. Open the link on my post #177. The lawyer states very clearly that the police officer was within his rights to refuse the breath test. OK it's media but unless someone can show me an opposite opinion from a legal source I'll hold my view that a breath test can be refused in your private dwelling. Said officer was insistant that he was not going to be breath tested. He was not arrested for refusal. So I'm picking he knew his rights. Now I may be wrong in all of this but I have yet to hear of an officer backing down when they have the law to back up their insistance that Joe public carries out a police officers instructions.

And you are right they can not go on a fishingtrip.

Skyryder

Yes. I'm agreeing with you. In the case cited in the press , there was no pursuit. The cop turned up 20 minute slater.

And since he (the cop) never saw the alleged drink driver he could not honestly say that he had grounds for believing that the person who answered the door had been drinking and driving. So, the householder was within his rights to say , no, bugger off.

Which is pretty much what my understanding was all along. Until various people started arguing to the contrary.

Logically what would be the point of a breath test administered 20 minutes after driving anyway ?" Oh, well, I did drive home after a couple of drinks at the bar. But at that point I believe I was well under the legal limit. And you can't prove otherwise. Since I got home, I've had another 16 double double whisky. So I will be well over the limit now. But I'm not driving now, am I.

[Winston001]

Logically what would be the point of a breath test administered 20 minutes after driving anyway ?" Oh, well, I did drive home after a couple of drinks at the bar. But at that point I believe I was well under the legal limit. And you can't prove otherwise. Since I got home, I've had another 16 double double whisky. So I will be well over the limit now. But I'm not driving now, am I.

I'm afraid Parliament is way ahead of you Ix - the law specifically says that the breath/blood level at the time of test is deemed to be the level you were driving with. Even if its an hour afterwards and you've had copious nerve-calming libations. Indeed I've represented a guy who did a runner through some paddocks and when he got home, piled into the whiskey only to then open the door to officers who were still in pursuit of him. Dogs and all. Bugger. :angry: No defence.

[scumdog]

I'm afraid Parliament is way ahead of you Ix - the law specifically says that the breath/blood level at the time of test is deemed to be the level you were driving with. Even if its an hour afterwards and you've had copious nerve-calming libations. Indeed I've represented a guy who did a runner through some paddocks and when he got home, piled into the whiskey only to then open the door to officers who were still in pursuit of him. Dogs and all. Bugger. :angry: No defence.

Ooooo, I bet a lot of you never saw THAT coming , did you??

But all the KB bushlawyers did eh.....pffft!!:rolleyes:

[Winston001]

The doctrine of "fresh pursuit" is English and been around in the common law for decades. The LTA codification is just to put it on a statutory footing. You are always able to argue in court that the officer was not in fresh pursuit and if the judge agrees, the prosecution will fail. Every case will depend upon the individual facts.

As for the original poster, it's a 50/50 call as to whether this was legitimate fresh pursuit. Drivers do dive up entranceways to avoid traffic stops. However identifying the driver is a problem and the police usually rely on people admitting it. You'd be surprised how often people admit stuff.

[Ocean1]

The doctrine of "fresh pursuit" is English and been around in the common law for decades.

Centuries.

Nautical roots, customs cutters chasing smugglers up estuaries etc.

[Ixion]

I'm afraid Parliament is way ahead of you Ix - the law specifically says that the breath/blood level at the time of test is deemed to be the level you were driving with. Even if its an hour afterwards and you've had copious nerve-calming libations. Indeed I've represented a guy who did a runner through some paddocks and when he got home, piled into the whiskey only to then open the door to officers who were still in pursuit of him. Dogs and all. Bugger. :angry: No defence.

If you are relying on Land Transport Act 1998 S77 (1) "it is to be conclusively presumed that the proportion of alcohol in the defendant's breath at the time of the alleged offence was the same as the proportion of alcohol in the defendant's breath indicated by the test", then I may distinguish.

"at the time of the alleged offence". In the OP's case there was no alleged offence, since there was no grounds upon which any reasonable allegation of offence could be made.

The case you cite is distinguishable, since that clearly involved fresh pursuit. Which , BTW, is , as you note, a term well established for many centuries, and lying at the heart of the posse comitatus (and thus imported into US law as well) .

If the law was , as you imply , that the police could breath test someone,(who is not driving) and on the basis of a positive test , accuse them of drink driving at some distant time in the past, then the result would be a total nonsense. The alleged offence occured two weeks ago. The police force their way into my home today and test me (I having not left the house all day) and find me over the limit. "You are over the limit today. That proves you were over the limit two weeks ago when I saw you driving". No court in this country would listen to such a claim. UK courts may be another matter , the concept of freedom has been well and truely eradicated there. There must be a connection (such as a pursuit) between the alleged offence and the presen test result.

[Patrick]

Drink-drive lawyer Chris Reid said ....
"Morally, he should probably have done it, but legally, he didn't have to," Mr Reid said. "There's no doubt if someone knocked on my door and asked me to do a breath test, I would tell them to go to hell."

Lawyer says morally he should have, but legally he didn't have to. Then goes on to say if the same happened to him, he would tell them to go to hell... Talk about double standards all right...


No. It is not clear at all.

Where is the difference between this case (where the police admit the man did not have to take a breath test) and Mr Tri Boy's,

Tri boys was, maybe, a minute after being seen. This one was who knows how long after. At a guess, a considerable time after...

it is clear that if you are driving on the road , you must take a breath test anytime a cop requires it.

It is *very* far from clear to me under what circumstances a cop may force his way into your home and demand you take a breath test.

It is very clear, as in the legislation.....

We have already seen (supra) that a passenger in a car can be charged with drink driving (even though he wasn't driving).

Usually reserved for car crashes, where all occupants deny driving. All occupants will be processed for drink driving.

And the site cops claim that you can be charged with drink driving in your lounge room .

Yes...

Even if you maybe haven't driving a vehicle in weeks ......

Now this is silly. No where did anyone say this.....

........ even if there is no proof that they have been driving at all, and , indeed, even if they can prove that they have NOT been driving.

Herein lies the legislation proviso...

And they want the public to grant them MORE powers? Piss off.

And there is also the bit where, if you have a crash and flee the scene... you can be breath tested soon after (how long exactly after, is determined by the court).


I have read with care both Mr Spudchucka's excerpt of the legislation and the legislation itself.

As I would interpret it (IANAL - but since in this matter police and lawyers seem unable to agree or provide a clear statement , we are needs be thrown back on our own resources) :

1) If a cop is pursuing someone he may enter private property and demand a breath test. So if the five-oh are after you with reds and blues, diving into your back door isn't going to get you off the hook. (Clause 1b "Is freshly pursuing that person.").

2) If a cop has reasonable grounds to believe that a person (emphasis mine) " or is, or has recently been, driving under the influence of drink or a drug, or both" (Clause 1aii)

Both these clauses are subject to the test of fact. A pursuit must be that : a pursuit. It is not enough for the cop to say "Oh, well , I drove up the same road as the suspect, but in the opposite direction, and 10 minutes later, when he was stopped and parked ". That's not a pursuit in my book.

And for 2) to apply, the cop must be able to identify "a person". If the police see me driving erratically and wildly, whilst swigging from my can of Bourbon, and they get a good look at me and see me go onto my house, they may follow me on in. But they need to be looking for a specific person. Not throw everybody and anybody in the vicinity into the net.The police are not able to say "Oh , we had a report that someone, dunno who, might have been drink driving (or might not). We don't know who the person was, or if they were drunk, so what we'll do is force our way into every house in the district and breath test everybody we find and if anyone fails, we've got our man".

Kind of... but how do you get a good look at someone, at night time, who is driving well ahead of you....?

If they all bail out of the car down a driveway and you pull up moments later, you will be looking at those there, as an example.... not the entire neighbourhood, neighbours house, whatever, unless a dog handler points you in the right direction, of course......


Ixion. Open the link on my post #177. The lawyer states very clearly that the police officer was within his rights to refuse the breath test. OK it's media but unless someone can show me an opposite opinion from a legal source I'll hold my view that a breath test can be refused in your private dwelling. Said officer was insistant that he was not going to be breath tested. He was not arrested for refusal. So I'm picking he knew his rights. Now I may be wrong in all of this but I have yet to hear of an officer backing down when they have the law to back up their insistance that Joe public carries out a police officers instructions.

And you are right they can not go on a fishingtrip.

Skyryder

True.


Logically what would be the point of a breath test administered 20 minutes after driving anyway ?" Oh, well, I did drive home after a couple of drinks at the bar. But at that point I believe I was well under the legal limit. And you can't prove otherwise. Since I got home, I've had another 16 double double whisky. So I will be well over the limit now. But I'm not driving now, am I.

The point? How about the hit and run driver, found at home soon after. The courts have held it to be reasonable to assume that the cops would come door knocking after a hit and run and if you were to flee the scene (coz you were pissed) and got home to "have a drink" (merely to hide the fact that you were already pissed when you crashed), then getting home to have a drink would not be a defence and your breath reading at the time of being located would be deemed as being the same as when the crash occurred. Time is the only factor, and the court will determine how long is reasonable afterwards.

I have personally dealt with two cases like this. One was two hours after the crash (he claimed to have taken a box of beers to the beach after the crash) and another was 5 hours (drove through a booze checkpoint almost hitting two cops, found parked up asleep in a drive with the keys in the ignition, seatbelted in, a pile of vomit on the grond next to the open drivers door.... oh, and a cops torch in the back seat - which was hurled at him by one of the cops who was narrowly missed....). Both went down for excess breath alcohol and other charges. These times were acceptable then. It is likely to be different now....

[Winston001]

If you are relying on Land Transport Act 1998 S77 (1) "it is to be conclusively presumed that the proportion of alcohol in the defendant's breath at the time of the alleged offence was the same as the proportion of alcohol in the defendant's breath indicated by the test", then I may distinguish.

"at the time of the alleged offence". In the OP's case there was no alleged offence, since there was no grounds upon which any reasonable allegation of offence could be made.

.......The alleged offence occured two weeks ago. The police force their way into my home today and test me....

Think we are at cross-purposes. I simply was responding to the suggestion that downing a few drinks the moment you reach the shelter of your home is a defence. It isn't.

Going back to Triboy at the start, he says the officer turned up pretty quickly. No judge would have a problem with that = fresh pursuit. Plus the implied licence to enter property which we all have.

However - once the officer learned Triboy was legitimately on the property - as opposed to doing a dive down the nearest driveway, then he has a problem. The single reason he has to believe drink/driving (hiding) is gone. If Triboy was obviously intoxicated then I suspect he'd have been arrested and it would be up to a judge to decide.

[Winston001]

Lawyer says morally he should have, but legally he didn't have to. Then goes on to say if the same happened to him, he would tell them to go to hell... Talk about double standards all right...


Yeah there are some embarrasing pricks out there. They say stuff like this to raise their profile and be seen as tough. In fact hmmm......this could be complained about to the Law Society. Must check the quote is accurate.

As for the senior officer, this is just a milder version of what Riccard did. No law broken but far below the professional standards expected of a police officer.

[Max Preload]

However - once the officer learned Triboy was legitimately on the property - as opposed to doing a dive down the nearest driveway, then he has a problem. The single reason he has to believe drink/driving (hiding) is gone.

Which is what I was saying here:


The fact he was clearly the occupant means the good cause doesn't have the foundation required - there is no longer good cause, hardly even a hunch - he was just turning into his own driveway, not simply attempting to avoid the checkpoint.

[spudchucka]

However - once the officer learned Triboy was legitimately on the property - as opposed to doing a dive down the nearest driveway, then he has a problem.

It makes no difference if there is fresh pursuit involved.

[Max Preload]

It makes no difference if there is fresh pursuit involved.

True. But in this case there was no signal to stop when he was driving on the road, so I would argue that's no more a fresh pursuit than turning up to your house 10 minutes after you when you've done a runner...

[Warr]

All this reminds me of some years ago I was dropping our baby sitter(cousins daughter) back home.
The route I normally took involved taking a right/hander off a road that :Police: had set up a breath test road block on.
Now I turned right before I got to the block and thought it would be "funny!" to swing right in a controlled but quick manner.
Well of course :Police: had other vehicles down this street to stop any villan attempting to evade their road block.
Now I know what I was doing, but :Police: was 300% certain I was guilty of evasion and proceeded to argue and tell me to my face that I was lying.
He was also highly pissed that I was completely sober.
Lets just say I did leave with just the slightest remorse that I hadnt been more deliberate in signaling my intention to take the turn :shifty:
It could have ?? eliminated :Police: from raising his heart-rate and making an ass of himself.

[Patrick]

All this reminds me of some years ago I was dropping our baby sitter(cousins daughter) back home.
The route I normally took involved taking a right/hander off a road that :Police: had set up a breath test road block on.
Now I turned right before I got to the block and thought it would be "funny!" to swing right in a controlled but quick manner.
Well of course :Police: had other vehicles down this street to stop any villan attempting to evade their road block.
Now I know what I was doing, but :Police: was 300% certain I was guilty of evasion and proceeded to argue and tell me to my face that I was lying.
He was also highly pissed that I was completely sober.
Lets just say I did leave with just the slightest remorse that I hadnt been more deliberate in signaling my intention to take the turn :shifty:
It could have ?? eliminated :Police: from raising his heart-rate and making an ass of himself.

Perhaps two to make asses of themselves?

[Patrick]

Yeah there are some embarrasing pricks out there. They say stuff like this to raise their profile and be seen as tough. In fact hmmm......this could be complained about to the Law Society. Must check the quote is accurate.

As for the senior officer, this is just a milder version of what Riccard did. No law broken but far below the professional standards expected of a police officer.

I might be wrong there... one lawyer saying one thing, another saying another.... will have a look too....

Riccard? What did he do?

[Patrick]

....Criminal lawyers say everyone has a right to act within their legal rights. But many members of the public are convicted after being breathalysed in their homes, either because they believed they had to follow police demands or because they felt they should front up to their wrongdoing.

.......

Drink-drive lawyer Chris Reid said that, although many members of the public had been convicted in similar circumstances, Mr Thomas was acting within the law.

"Morally, he should probably have done it, but legally, he didn't have to," Mr Reid said. "There's no doubt if someone knocked on my door and asked me to do a breath test, I would tell them to go to hell."

Lawyer Michael Bott said clients had been arrested for failing to provide a sample when police arrived at their house. "What concerns me is the double standard." But anyone who knew the law was entitled to apply it.



Here is what was said......

REID says legally he didn;t have to, and if someone did it to him, he would say bugger off...

BOTT claims the double standard, but misses the double standards in his own profession.

Hmmm.....

Damn lawyers.......:devil2:

[Oscar]

Here is what was said......

REID says legally he didn;t have to, and if someone did it to him, he would say bugger off...

BOTT claims the double standard, but misses the double standards in his own profession.

Hmmm.....

Damn lawyers.......:devil2:

Irrelevant - the public cares not a jot about the ethical standards of Lawyers.
It does care about the ethical standards and behaviour of its police.

[Patrick]

Irrelevant - the public cares not a jot about the ethical standards of Lawyers.
It does care about the ethical standards and behaviour of its police.

You forget... they also care about the moral standars, too........... apparently....

[spudchucka]

True. But in this case there was no signal to stop when he was driving on the road, so I would argue that's no more a fresh pursuit than turning up to your house 10 minutes after you when you've done a runner...

Lights activated are not necessarily required either, just keeping an eyeball on the subject would be sufficient. Equally, somebody that did a runner on foot from a vehicle that was stopped under the LTA and was tracked by a land shark back to an address could still be processed under the fresh pursuit requirements of section 119.

[munterk6]

Tell them to piss off! What a friggin cheek :2guns:

[Patrick]

Tell them to piss off! What a friggin cheek :2guns:

Lawyers? Might need one, one day.... Clever buggers, them Lawyer thingies.

[Blackshear]

All this reminds me of some years ago I was dropping our baby sitter(cousins daughter) back home.
The route I normally took involved taking a right/hander off a road that :Police: had set up a breath test road block on.
Now I turned right before I got to the block and thought it would be "funny!" to swing right in a controlled but quick manner.
Well of course :Police: had other vehicles down this street to stop any villan attempting to evade their road block.
Now I know what I was doing, but :Police: was 300% certain I was guilty of evasion and proceeded to argue and tell me to my face that I was lying.
He was also highly pissed that I was completely sober.
Lets just say I did leave with just the slightest remorse that I hadnt been more deliberate in signaling my intention to take the turn :shifty:
It could have ?? eliminated :Police: from raising his heart-rate and making an ass of himself.

And they go absolutely APE SHIT on the throttle to catch whoever just 'evaded' the block, a HUNDRED miles an hour up the road! No pedestrian would stand a chance! Course the sirens and all...
Slow traffic, probably blocked up a few meters... 'Oh i'll cross h- WHABAAAAM'

Just they way they rip off the line really gets to me. It's justified, but to add another speeding vehicle in with a supposed drunken speeding vehicle... :rolleyes:

[scumdog]

Fark.. too many wannabe bush-lawyers on THIS thread...

[Oscar]

Fark.. too many wannabe bush-lawyers on THIS thread...

Yeah, we should just shut up and do what we're told.
You know - be Good Germans...









...and is it any wonder why the Police in this country are increasingly disliked for their arrogance.

[scumdog]

Yeah, we should just shut up and do what we're told.
You know - be Good Germans...









...and is it any wonder why the Police in this country are increasingly disliked for their arrogance.

Aaaand them bush-lawyers REALLY help eh?? pffft!!!

[Oscar]

Aaaand them bush-lawyers REALLY help eh?? pffft!!!

If I don't know my rights, I suppose I can trust a copper to respect them, eh? A compliant, ignorant population is gut, Ja?

[scumdog]

If I don't know my rights, I suppose I can trust a copper to respect them, eh? A compliant, ignorant population is gut, Ja?

Oh, I can respect them alright - but try and tell me 'I know my rights' when you're misinformed and know jack-shit (bush-lawyer?) then it's a different story.

You would at that stage have become a loser.

[Oscar]

Oh, I can respect them alright - but try and tell me 'I know my rights' when you're misinformed and know jack-shit (bush-lawyer?) then it's a different story.

You would at that stage have become a loser.

They may be losers, but they are citizens and tax payers.
Notwithstanding that, I thought that issues like who is misinformed, right, wrong etc was up to a Judge to decide- no yer humble flatfoot.

[scumdog]

They may be losers, but they are citizens and tax payers.
Notwithstanding that, I thought that issues like who is misinformed, right, wrong etc was up to a Judge to decide- no yer humble flatfoot.

Oh sure, I see your point.

But when some drunk idiot loser who ignores your best attempts to 'advise' him and tries to tell you what you can and can't do and refuses to contact a lawyer becaue "I know my rights" then he's a loser...

And I'm sure the judge will appreciate being told the same by Mr Loser.

I do my job from day-to-day dealing with the same issues and sober.

Mr Loser knows jack-shit, is pissed and has never been in that situation before but 'remembers' what a mate who has been to prison five years ago told him...

[oldrider]

How do this thread and this DVD stack up with one another? :blip:

http://bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/articles/john-harris-its-illusion

I also posted this under another title in this forum, should have put it here! :shifty: John.

[Winston001]

Irrelevant - the public cares not a jot about the ethical standards of Lawyers.


I certainly hope you are wrong Oscar. I can tell you that I definitely care.


Mr Reid said. "There's no doubt if someone knocked on my door and asked me to do a breath test, I would tell them to go to hell."

Its the words in italics which are of concern because arguably they bring the legal profession into disrepute. They may also breach the rule of dealing with others with integrity, courtesy, and respect.

On the other hand they could be characterised as robust comment, and a bit like Prince Harry's gaffes, ordinary blokes language. Not offensive.

[Max Preload]

Its the words in italics which are of concern because arguably they bring the legal profession into disrepute. They may also breach the rule of dealing with others with integrity, courtesy, and respect.

Conspicuous by it's absence is honesty... :Pokey:

[Oscar]

I certainly hope you are wrong Oscar. I can tell you that I definitely care.


Mr Reid said. "There's no doubt if someone knocked on my door and asked me to do a breath test, I would tell them to go to hell."

Its the words in italics which are of concern because arguably they bring the legal profession into disrepute. They may also breach the rule of dealing with others with integrity, courtesy, and respect.

On the other hand they could be characterised as robust comment, and a bit like Prince Harry's gaffes, ordinary blokes language. Not offensive.

I think Mr Reid may be reflecting a growing public opinion that is sick of smarmy LTSA advertising and aggressive highway policing.

[Winston001]

Conspicuous by it's absence is honesty... :Pokey:

Oxford Dictionary:

Integrity • noun 1: the quality of being honest and morally upright

[Max Preload]

Oxford Dictionary:

Integrity • noun 1: the quality of being honest and morally upright

So what you're saying is integrity shouldn't be in there either?

[Winston001]

So what you're saying is integrity shouldn't be in there either?

LOL you win :eek:

[Winston001]

Aaarrgg double post......doh

[Patrick]

And they go absolutely APE SHIT on the throttle to catch whoever just 'evaded' the block, a HUNDRED miles an hour up the road! No pedestrian would stand a chance! Course the sirens and all...
Slow traffic, probably blocked up a few meters... 'Oh i'll cross h- WHABAAAAM'

Just they way they rip off the line really gets to me. It's justified, but to add another speeding vehicle in with a supposed drunken speeding vehicle... :rolleyes:

Like pedestrians get run over often, or at all....:rolleyes:

Same can be said about bikes at the front of the traffic lights at times...:whistle:


If I don't know my rights, I suppose I can trust a copper to respect them, eh? A compliant, ignorant population is gut, Ja?

Yep. Breach your rights = no case. Kinda pointless then, dontcha think?

The point was, if you don't know your rights, the bush lawyer advice given at times is putting you in greater jeopardy..... We are trying to point out that some of the bush lawyer advice given, all too often, is very dangerous to your liberty. Ya follow????

[Ixion]

Well, there was a young lad seriously injured not long ago, just standing on the footpath when a cop lost it at warp speed.

[Patrick]

Well, there was a young lad seriously injured not long ago, just standing on the footpath when a cop lost it at warp speed.

From a checkpoint?

Thought he was chasing a stolen car full of burglars. (Or summit like that...)

And that fella was hit by the traffic light pole ... :bleh: Fairly sure the car never touched him...:innocent:

[Oscar]

The point was, if you don't know your rights, the bush lawyer advice given at times is putting you in greater jeopardy..... We are trying to point out that some of the bush lawyer advice given, all too often, is very dangerous to your liberty. Ya follow????

I follow alright.
Anything said here that you and yer fellow Gendarmes consider uppity is bush lawyering...

I know my rights and I've seen Police infringe them on numerous occasions - the first being outside Eden Park on a winters day in 1981 when cops weren't wearing numbers and refused to give them when requested..

[rwh]

Oh, I can respect them alright - but try and tell me 'I know my rights' when you're misinformed and know jack-shit (bush-lawyer?) then it's a different story.


Seems to me that the problem is that people don't know their rights well enough. We have this 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', yet there's so much of it that it's impossible to know. IMHO we need a major overhaul and simplification of our laws. This would be a great money spinner for current lawyers, so hopefully they'd be in favour, despite there being much less work for future lawyers ...

Richard

[Winston001]

I follow alright.
Anything said here that you and yer fellow Gendarmes consider uppity is bush lawyering...

I know my rights and I've seen Police infringe them on numerous occasions - the first being outside Eden Park on a winters day in 1981 when cops weren't wearing numbers and refused to give them when requested..

Know what you mean about the '81 Tour but that was tough on the cops too. Many privately sympathised but others were very pro-rugby. So they were caught between two factions and there were officers who went too far. You will also remember that police officers were prosecuted afterwards. One of them was a friend of mine.

As for the cops on here, almost without exception they are good-humoured and take the rough and nasty stuff dished out. I've been here 3 years and never seen a cop diss correct legal points. They actually know the criminal law better than most lawyers. Its their job.

I'll speculate Oscar and suggest what upsets some people here is police methodology. The cops don't tell people their rights until they get to the point where they have to. That is entirely lawful.

To be clear, once an officer believes the person being questioned has committed a crime, he should stop, issue a caution, and arrest/advise of the charge. Until that point, he can chat all day. I'll say it on this forum again - the police largely succeed because of what suspects tell them.

The rule is - do not talk to the police. Name, address, DOB. (Unless its serious fraud, tax or some exotic type charge). But it doesn't matter cos people always do. :eek:

[Oscar]

Know what you mean about the '81 Tour but that was tough on the cops too. Many privately sympathised but others were very pro-rugby. So they were caught between two factions and there were officers who went too far. You will also remember that police officers were prosecuted afterwards. One of them was a friend of mine.

As for the cops on here, almost without exception they are good-humoured and take the rough and nasty stuff dished out. I've been here 3 years and never seen a cop diss correct legal points. They actually know the criminal law better than most lawyers. Its their job.

I'll speculate Oscar and suggest what upsets some people here is police methodology. The cops don't tell people their rights until they get to the point where they have to. That is entirely lawful.

To be clear, once an officer believes the person being questioned has committed a crime, he should stop, issue a caution, and arrest/advise of the charge. Until that point, he can chat all day. I'll say it on this forum again - the police largely succeed because of what suspects tell them.

The rule is - do not talk to the police. Name, address, DOB. (Unless its serious fraud, tax or some exotic type charge). But it doesn't matter cos people always do. :eek:

It is the methodology of an arrogant few (read: most Highway Patrol Bastids) that winds me up. If any are reading this, some points to note:


Yes, as a matter of fact I do know how fast I was going, but you don't think I'd be stupid enough to tell you, do you?
Don't gimme the road toll or accident backspot sermons. We both know you have a quota to fill.
If I wanted someone to talk to me like a naughty teenager, I'd go home and see my wife. Just gimme the ticket, OK?
No, I haven't been drinking. It's 11am on a Tuesday for fucks sakes and we're in Leamington, 10 miles from the nearest pub (which isn't open). So tell me why you have five cops and booze bus here?
No one ever said "Driving's in the blood.".
Dave is a cahnt and no-one's mate.
We get it Knackstead, now do something constructive for road safety like fixing the road surfaces or actually training drivers before you license them.

[Pixie]

Like pedestrians get run over often, or at all....:rolleyes:



The odd school kid may get hit by a falling sign post and suffer brain damage when a cop loses it at speed and runs off the road.

but that's ok

And it was reported as a car avoiding a check point,but then I know the area and 50% of traffic take that side road to avoid the major intersection,so avoidance was debatable

[MadDuck]

Police 10-7 right now for yous

[Max Preload]

Police 10-7 right now for yous

Saw that, but the scenario was different. A witness reported a suspected drink driver and followed the vehicle to an address. Cops turned up, spoke to the nark on the street, then the cops went to the door of the address. A woman at the address answered the door and admitted she was driving the vehicle. Police requested she undergo a breath screening test. She asked what would happen if she said no - the cops said she'd be arrested - probably because she'd already admitted she was the driver.

The fact she takes legal advice from cops should have been evidence enough of intoxication to arrest her! :rofl:

[warewolf]

The cops don't tell people their rights until they get to the point where they have to. That is entirely lawful.

To be clear, once an officer believes the person being questioned has committed a crime, he should stop, issue a caution, and arrest/advise of the charge. Until that point, he can chat all day. I'll say it on this forum again - the police largely succeed because of what suspects tell them.

The rule is - do not talk to the police. Name, address, DOB. (Unless its serious fraud, tax or some exotic type charge). But it doesn't matter cos people always do. :eek:This is all very true. The cops will never admit the truth of the process unless you first demonstrate you know it, then they'll usually back off and try for a softer target elsewhere that they can coerce into rolling over.

In recent years I've been kicking around with some lawyers. Their clients who try to co-operate - mistakenly believing it will help their defence - only incriminate themselves, making the defence much more difficult. In comparison those that shut up, say & do nothing until the lawyer arrives to supervise are rarely found guilty. The prosecutors know this, so try to surprise the clients and bully them into co-operating and self-incriminating as much as possible until the lawyer arrives and forces them to back off and play by the rules.

[scumdog]

This is all very true. The cops will never admit the truth of the process unless you first demonstrate you know it, then they'll usually back off and try for a softer target elsewhere that they can coerce into rolling over.

In recent years I've been kicking around with some lawyers. Their clients who try to co-operate - mistakenly believing it will help their defence - only incriminate themselves, making the defence much more difficult. In comparison those that shut up, say & do nothing until the lawyer arrives to supervise are rarely found guilty. The prosecutors know this, so try to surprise the clients and bully them into co-operating and self-incriminating as much as possible until the lawyer arrives and forces them to back off and play by the rules.

Faark, some great generalisations and assumptions there dude :eek:- if you believe what you posted 100% then you come from a different planet than me...

[warewolf]

Faark, some great generalisations and assumptions there dude :eek:Just following your lead.


if you believe what you posted 100% then you come from a different planet than me...It's not some faith-belief, it's experience. I come from the planet where the cops are fallible, as proven by the judiciary. Not some dream world where the cops are always a) honest and b) right.

[scumdog]

Just following your lead.

It's not some faith-belief, it's experience. I come from the planet where the cops are fallible, as proven by the judiciary. Not some dream world where the cops are always a) honest and b) right.

Sooo, hmm, reading your comment I came to the conclusion cops ALWAYS lie and are ALWAYS wrong.....

Did I read you right???

[warewolf]

Not some dream world where the cops are always a) honest and b) right.


Sooo, hmm, reading your comment I came to the conclusion cops ALWAYS lie and are ALWAYS wrong.....

Did I read you right???Uh, no. Which just makes a classic example supporting item b). :laugh:

Or are you attempting humour?

[Patrick]

I follow alright.
Anything said here that you and yer fellow Gendarmes consider uppity is bush lawyering...

Winston says it betterer than me....

I know my rights and I've seen Police infringe them on numerous occasions - the first being outside Eden Park on a winters day in 1981 when cops weren't wearing numbers and refused to give them when requested..

Ahhh... the Red Squad. Thems the good ole days..... I take it you didn't see the cops getting dealt to with picket pailings and having Fire Fudge thrown on them then.... But dang, he didn't give me his name when I asked... Waaaaaaa.....:zzzz:


It is the methodology of an arrogant few (read: most Highway Patrol Bastids) that winds me up. If any are reading this, some points to note:


Yes, as a matter of fact I do know how fast I was going, but you don't think I'd be stupid enough to tell you, do you?

Some have no idea how fast they are going...

Don't gimme the road toll or accident backspot sermons. We both know you have a quota to fill.

Yeah.... its just a bull shit line to throw coz they feel guilty about having quota....

If I wanted someone to talk to me like a naughty teenager, I'd go home and see my wife. Just gimme the ticket, OK?

Some pay bloody top dollars to be treated like this... You get it for free??????

No, I haven't been drinking. It's 11am on a Tuesday for fucks sakes and we're in Leamington, 10 miles from the nearest pub (which isn't open). So tell me why you have five cops and booze bus here?

So there is no such thing as booze sessions in private home in them parts then? (This has to be a piss take... surely do don't think that there are no pissed drivers at 11 in the morning, on a Tuesday??????????? Nice world you live in....)

No one ever said "Driving's in the blood.".

Yes they did!!! I saw it on telly. One of those road safety ads.... where dad teaches his kid how to kill himself....

Dave is a cahnt and no-one's mate.

I know a Dave, he IS a cahnt. Then there is this other Dave, he is a good bastard......

We get it Knackstead, now do something constructive for road safety like fixing the road surfaces or actually training drivers before you license them.


Ummmm.... isn't that someone elses job? The unions will be up in arms.....


This is all very true. The cops will never admit the truth of the process unless you first demonstrate you know it, then they'll usually back off and try for a softer target elsewhere that they can coerce into rolling over.

Pfft. Lawyers, and wannabe lawyers are funny, when pissed and making out they know it all.....

In recent years I've been kicking around with some lawyers. Their clients who try to co-operate - mistakenly believing it will help their defence - only incriminate themselves, making the defence much more difficult.

Not everyone has an actual "defence..." just a lawyer who tells them to say nothing.

In comparison those that shut up, say & do nothing until the lawyer arrives to supervise are rarely found guilty.

This is really funny. Oh..... you believe this??????????

The prosecutors know this, so try to surprise the clients and bully them into co-operating and self-incriminating as much as possible until the lawyer arrives and forces them to back off and play by the rules.

Nah. We just tell the judge either... "He cooperated fully" or, if you prefer, "He refused to cooperate."

Guess who gets the better results....???

[Oscar]

Ahhh... the Red Squad. Thems the good ole days..... I take it you didn't see the cops getting dealt to with picket pailings and having Fire Fudge thrown on them then.... But dang, he didn't give me his name when I asked... Waaaaaaa.....:zzzz:



It don't work like that and you know it.
Those people are called criminals, and cops don't get to act like criminals (except the ones from Rotorua).
They're supposed to be better than criminals, that's how we tell them apart (except for the snazzy uniform,of course).

BTW: the way you replied? Boring - I can't be arsed picking out all your fatuous comments, except to say:

If the accident blackspot/no quota thing really is true, why do you put fixed speed cameras is areas where accidents are rare, but speeding drivers are common? Places like Cambridge Road & Te Rapa Road in Hamilton and SH1 in Orewa. Places where you catch out of towners doing 70 in a 60 zone? What is that doing for road safety?

[warewolf]

Pfft. Lawyers, and wannabe lawyers are funny, when pissed and making out they know it all.....Specially the one that previously worked as an Auckland central detective for twenty years.


Not everyone has an actual "defence..." just a lawyer who tells them to say nothing. Which puts the onus on the cops, who don't always have actual "proof..." if they didn't get away with bullying the person into incriminating themselves. When a cop is leaning on you, why should you trust anything he says?? Any advice he gives is in his best interests, not yours. It's not up to people to fall on their sword, it's your job to prove your case. This is a fundamental principle of the society we live in.


This is really funny. Oh..... you believe this?????????? In the industry these lawyers work in, yep, I've got various reasons to believe them and few not to (the main one being that they're full of piss and hot wind - sometimes).


We just tell the judge either... "He cooperated fully" or, if you prefer, "He refused to cooperate."... and the level of co-operation has what bearing on level of guilt?

[tri boy]

Why, oh why has the local rozza controller forgotten/chosen not to contact me as requested by the police complaints authority?:confused:
I feel ignored, used, and slightly dirty.:crybaby:
Ahh, fuggit. I didn't think they would respond anyway.
Guess ya have to go begging to the man now a days just to be given the right to be ignored. Dylan was right. Times , they are a changing. Change they have.

No doughnuts for Waikato rozza's.
Bad copper. At least Rosa acts on the directions she is given. Some dogs ya just can't train.:laugh:

[Skyryder]

Well the cops are certainly getting their arse kicked by Bains defence team.

Justified or not I don't know. Still not looking good for them either way.


Skyryder

[spudchucka]

Well the cops are certainly getting their arse kicked by Bains defence team.

Justified or not I don't know. Still not looking good for them either way.


Skyryder

Was that in some way unexpected?

[SixPackBack]

Was that in some way unexpected?

The general public had an expectation that evidence and memories would have remanded constant!?