Do cops legally have to have their red and blues flashing if...

[Ixion]

My point exactly 'Forest' when i made my earlier post but then Ixion thinks he knows it all and can't be told and usually finishs with an insult.

I would love to know the occupations of 'some' people on here so I can tell them how to do their job without knowing a single thing about it.

Other professions perhaps are not so universally and obsessionally convinced of their Godlike omnicompetence and infallibility. They do not claim that their fellows are incapable of error , or that if one of their number claims anything it must be correct merely by definition of that claim. Nor do they deman an absolute impunity for accountability for wrongdoing.

On the paper this noting a senior judge is suggesting that another judge is guilty of impropiety. And the entire Appeal Court system is a recognition that lawyers and judges can get it wrong.

Compare that to the police force, who claim never to make an error, and deny any suggestion of wrongdoing, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Apart from you, the only other mortal who claims to be infallible is the Pope. And even he does extend his claims of infallibility to the rest of the Church

[scumdog]

Quitep so. And your point is? The original quote was in response to the suggestion that the "officer wearing a hat" was an 'urban myth' . The Crimes Act specifically references a provision for a constable to stop a vehicle whilst wearing a hat . So, not a myth.

It was the scaley gentlewomen who introduced the extra, tangential and irrelevant argument as to traffic.

The myth is: "He can't give you a ticket unless he's wearing his hat" or "If he wasn't wearing his hat the ticket doesn't count" - just wearing the rest of the uniform suffices. (Or showing ID if in plain clothes)

And I ain't never worn no hat while dishing out a ticket, noe sirree bob!

[red mermaid]

Yes, that what I thought the thread was about as well, issuing a ticket which is clearly related to a traffic offence.

And if you know how to read the legislation you will notice the frequent use of the word 'or' and what that means in law.

[peasea]

Apart from you, the only other mortal who claims to be infallible is the Pope. And even he does extend his claims of infallibility to the rest of the Church

No, no I won't have that! You're quite wrong there.

I have crossed paths with an MOT officer (back in the day) and two policemen in Auckland who pulled that stunt, so there's three others for a start.

[Usarka]

How can you carry ID if you're starkers? I know of one case where a naked cop made an arrest while naked; where was the ID that night? Is this a case of unlawful detention?

He was equipped with a truncheon which is standard cop issue.

Usually small truncheons though

[firefighter]

Ohhh you are wrong there!

Try getting the Navy to admit to wrong doing.....R.I.P Byron James Solomon.
Another died after receiving a blow to the head during CQC training. (bet you never heard of that one)
The liferaft that fell off HMNZS Endeavour in Sydney harbour......and injured backs and necks, then left behind the injured sailors all alone in the hospital (remember this is an overseas hospital so family had to buy plane tickets to visit) all because they were too cheap to fly them home because it had to be first class......

Never once heard the Navy admit fault for any of these......

Other professions perhaps are not so universally and obsessionally convinced of their Godlike omnicompetence and infallibility. They do not claim that their fellows are incapable of error , or that if one of their number claims anything it must be correct merely by definition of that claim. Nor do they deman an absolute impunity for accountability for wrongdoing.

[Ixion]

Firstly, specifically for the benefit of the scaley gentlewoman : the Transport Act 1998 :

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

So, it makes no difference whether the stop be for a traffic offence or otherwise. The hat is relevant regardless.

Which brings us back to the problem of the copper being naked. What then? How can you carry ID if you're starkers? I know of one case where a naked cop made an arrest while naked; where was the ID that night? Is this a case of unlawful detention?

As to your point, a police officer does not need to be in uniform to make an arrest. (Though if he is not in uniform or displaying hat cap badge etc and does not indentify himself or produce ID, then a subsequent charge if resisting arrest or escaping from arrest could be problematic).

Nor, more significantly, does a cop need to be in uniform or wearing hat etc etc to give you a ticket . A cop may be stark naked taking a shower, look out the window and see you doing a wheelie, and send you a ticket in the mail. It has always been thus. It was not different in MoT days. A snake would have laughed at the idea that he could not ticket because he was not wearing a hat .

The relevance of the hat, and the ONLY relevance of the hat relates to the power to stop. As I said in the very beginning of this argument .

If I am riding along and some random signals me to stop I am under no obligation to do so. BUT if said random is wearing the hat (or cap badge uniform etc etc) then I must stop. The hat confers a power to stop. It has nothing to do with the power to arrest or hand out tickets.

The Crimes Act conferred such a power to stop on every constable, in the exercise of any statutory function.Such as those functions defined by the Transport Act.

Back then , traffic cops were not constables. So the Transport Act specifically provided the same power to stop, for traffic offences only, to enforcement officers.

Now, (almost) every enforcement officer is also a constable and vice versa. So a cop wishing to stop me might take his choice whether he invokes his general power under the Crimes Act, to carry out his statutory functions under the Transport Act; or invoke his powers as an enforcement officer directly under the Transport Act. The practical effect is the same. If he is wearing his hat (or etc etc) you must stop.

The question of producing ID is unlikely to be relevant. If I am bowling along at even 50 kph I can hardly be expected to recognize what the small card the hatless dude is waving is.

This is (like most law before cops obfusticate it) quite clear and sensible. I should not be expected to stop just because some random wants me to. But I should have to stop if a police officer wants me to. How am I to know whether or the dude waving me down is a police officer ? Why, if he is wearing etc etc then I know he is.

(to forestall the obfusticatory efforts of the scaley gentlewoman, let us note that red and blue lights are a separate matter; and let us further note that we know full well the meaning of 'or' , as likewise of commas and semicolons)

[red mermaid]

In case anyone else wants to look up this piece of legislation, its the Land Transport Act 1998.

Correctness is essential when you are dealing with the law, as anyone who knows what they are talking about will tell you.

[Mully]

Correctness is essential when you are dealing with the law

Welcome to Kiwibiker, by the way......

[peasea]

In case anyone else wants to look up this piece of legislation, its the Land Transport Act 1998.

Correctness is essential when you are dealing with the law, as anyone who knows what they are talking about will tell you.

Correctness as according to who?

[GOONR]

Correctness as according to who?

The dude with the hat...

[peasea]

The dude with the hat...

Holy crap! How did you manage to get a current pic of red mermaid????

There's something fishy going on here, it's a biggie on the scale of things.
(Rouge aquatic slut indeed....)

[GOONR]

Holy crap! How did you manage to get a current pic of red mermaid????

That was easy, found it in Ten-One.

[marty]

Quitep so. And your point is? The original quote was in response to the suggestion that the "officer wearing a hat" was an 'urban myth' . The Crimes Act specifically references a provision for a constable to stop a vehicle whilst wearing a hat . So, not a myth.

It was the scaley gentlewomen who introduced the extra, tangential and irrelevant argument as to traffic.

Look for the word 'or'. It's quite different to 'and'

[peasea]

That was easy, found it in Ten-One.

Must spread rep, etc etc.