Is it illegal to ZING on your bike?

[limbimtimwim]

Paraphrased to hell, but the first thing that came to my mind was.....
Narrator: In A.D. 2005, MD was riding.
[...]
Cop: Move 'Zing'
MD: Give to me name of Supervisor, for great justice!!

LOL

Well said sir..

[spudchucka]

I think there is case law on this. Didn't Sir Robert Jones take the police to court over this? Some bimbette cop pulled him up in his Jag, then decided to show her authority with the "I'm going to muck about for half an hour or so and make you wait until I decide you can go just to show you who's boss " trick (maybe with a side order of feminazi - and I think he missed a plane flight or somehting , and she knew that). He sued the police, won in the NZ courts. Courts said the police did NOT have a carte blanche right to detain motorists as long as they chose. I think the police took it all the way to the Privy Council, not sure what happened there. Must check.

I can't remember the details of the Bob Jones case so won't comment.

In the context of this thread the length of time detained hasn't really been raised until now. Jimbo suggested just taking off as soon as you think you are being detained solely for the purpose of the cop lecturing you. I'm suggesting that is foolish because the cop may well have other lawful reasons for detaining you and buggering off may lead to your arrest.

The legislation says cops can detain you for as long as reasonably necessary to establish identity but not longer than 15 minutes if required to remain stopped under this subsection only. The point is that there are many other reasons to detain a driver other than establishing identity so bugger off at your own peril.

I'm not in favour of or condoning unnecessary lecturing of motorists. All I'm trying to get across here is that Jimbo's idea is not really a good one.

[spudchucka]

After reading the whole thing it sounds like a decision based on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the first stop. The decision appears to have been made on the basis that an abuse of police powers MAY have occurred, not that it did.

While this incident was on one view minor and mundane, no abuse of police power (if such occurred) is ever trivial.

The appellant may, or may not, succeed in establishing his version of events at trial. It cannot, however, be said at this stage that he cannot do so, and if the outcome of the action is potentially dependent on the facts found it is inappropriate to give summary judgment for the defendant.

If your name starts with Sir and you have Bob's budget then perhaps you might be so lucky as well.

6. It is common ground between the appellant and the constable that when she approached his car after stopping him on the first occasion he was indignant at being stopped and demanded to know why she had stopped him. Then their respective accounts diverge. According to the appellant's pleaded case (paragraph 16), the constable's first answer was that "she had noticed that he had moved slightly to the right on two occasions, and she had wondered why". The pleading continues (paragraph 22):
"After some time, Constable Dankl asserted that the plaintiff's car had crossed two white centre lines."
The appellant (paragraph 23) told the constable that there were no white lines and that he had not crossed any. In an affidavit sworn in these proceedings on 22 August 2000 the appellant deposed (paragraph 3):
"... Several hundred metres off the bridge, and while travelling at approximately 15 to 20 kms per hour, my vehicle moved slightly to the right of the truck it was following so that I could ascertain the reason for the traffic slowing. At the point on the road at which this occurred there is no white line, and no oncoming traffic. There is a concrete median barrier of some width."

The appellant deposed (paragraph 5) that the constable's reference to his crossing the white centre line occurred later in his first conversation with her. In his opinion it was a deliberate falsehood, fabricated in an attempt to justify an arbitrary and frivolous stopping.

7. In the defence it is pleaded (paragraph 10) that the constable twice observed the right-hand wheels of the appellant's car cross the centre line in the face of oncoming traffic, and (paragraphs 16 and 22) she told the appellant that he had twice crossed the centre line when she first spoke to him. In an affidavit sworn in these proceedings on 19 June 2000 the constable expanded the pleaded account. She deposed (paragraph 9) that when the appellant's car was approximately three quarters of the way across the bridge its right hand wheels partially crossed the centre white line into the oncoming lane before returning to its own lane, and (paragraph 10) that as it reached the end of the bridge the wheels of the appellant's car crossed fully into the oncoming lane, although only by a few inches. When she first spoke to him (paragraph 15) she explained that he had twice crossed the centre line and she was curious why he had done so. She stopped the appellant's car (paragraph 34) because he had twice crossed the centre line in the face of heavy traffic. In her notebook she recorded:
"I stopped him as I saw him edging across the centre line on the bridge (Wainone St o/bridge). At the end of the bridge."

8. It is plain from these conflicting accounts that although the appellant acknowledged a slight movement to the right after the bridge, where there was a concrete barrier between the carriageways but no white line, he was certainly not admitting to the incident which the constable described, involving as it did a double crossing of the central white line towards the end of the bridge. It was because the appellant so strongly challenged the description of the incident given by the constable that he stigmatised her account as dishonest and her stopping of his car as capricious, arbitrary and an unlawful abuse of the power conferred by section 114 of the 1998 Act.

9. In addressing this part of the case the Court of Appeal said (in paragraph 20 of its judgment):
"... Constable Dankl's uncontradicted evidence is that she did have a traffic purpose for stopping the car: she had observed it moving to the right (a matter not in dispute), a movement which might indicate drink driving, something wrong with the car or with the truck in front, or impatience. Whether she inaccurately later elaborated those reasons (a matter on which we need not and could not make a ruling) cannot affect the initial lawfulness of the stopping ..."

Earlier, in paragraph 7, the court had recorded the appellant as accepting that he had moved to the right on two occasions, which he had not. Mr Reed directed his primary criticism to these paragraphs. To describe the constable's evidence as "uncontradicted" was, he submitted, wrong, since the only episode she described was a double crossing of the white line on the bridge, which the appellant adamantly denied. The later elaboration relied on by the appellant could not, it was submitted, be disregarded, since she contended that she had given this explanation from the beginning and he relied on her alleged lateness in giving it as evidence of invention. It seems that the court erroneously understood the appellant to admit two movements to the right, when in truth he only admitted one slight movement.

10. If this case were to be fully tried, and depending of course on the evidence given, any one of several findings might be open to the tribunal of fact, whether judge or jury. It might be found that the appellant had crossed the white line on the bridge (once or twice, wittingly or unwittingly) and the constable had seen him do so, or that the appellant had not crossed the white line on the bridge but the constable honestly but mistakenly thought he had. In either of these events the appellant's claim would inevitably fail. There would, however, be a third theoretical possibility: that the appellant had not crossed the white line on the bridge and the constable did not think he had, but chose to assert that he had when, having stopped him for no road traffic reason, she was challenged to justify her action. Even if this finding were made it would not follow that all or any of the appellant's claims as currently pleaded would necessarily succeed. But it is clear, applying the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Westpac, that summary judgment should not be given for the defendant unless he shows on the balance of probabilities that none of the plaintiff's claims can succeed. That is an exacting test, and rightly so since it is a serious thing to stop a plaintiff bringing his claim to trial unless it is quite clearly hopeless.

11. In the opinion of the Board, this exacting test is not satisfied in this case. The appellant may, or may not, succeed in establishing his version of events at trial. It cannot, however, be said at this stage that he cannot do so, and if the outcome of the action is potentially dependent on the facts found it is inappropriate to give summary judgment for the defendant. The Board is persuaded that the Court of Appeal, in reaching a contrary view, gave less than proper weight to the conflict of evidence between the appellant and the constable, treating as uncontradicted evidence which was in truth very strongly contradicted, and attributing to the appellant an admission which he did not make. It is unnecessary to explore a number of other questions which were the subject of detailed consideration in the courts below.

12. It is with genuine reluctance that the Board disturbs a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal on a matter which it would ordinarily regard as very much within the province of that court. But the appellant has exercised a right of appeal which the law gives him. While this incident was on one view minor and mundane, no abuse of police power (if such occurred) is ever trivial. And there are cases, whether or not this turns out to be one of them, where a challenge made by a private individual promotes the interests of the wider community. The Board concludes that it should give effect to its own clear opinion.

13. The Board will humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal be allowed with costs before the Board and in the Court of Appeal, and that the order of the Court of Appeal be set aside.

[limbimtimwim]

If I were Bob Jones, I'd consider driving off if I felt like I was being stuffed around. He's a bit of a brawler, but he is good to have around sometimes. If I were regular Joe without the fanatical tenacity and deep pockets of RJ, stay put and take the lecture.

Driving off would be total waste of time and money. The cop could drag you over the coals for your modified muffler, your non-factory brake pads, your micro indicators, going 78 in a 70 zone, 'failure to keep left', not indicating for at least 3 seconds at an intersection 5km back..

Then make your complaint, nothing too formal, just try and write a simple letter to said officer's boss.

Every dealing I have had with the police has been entirely reasonable, people like him screw it up for the vast majority of honest cops out there. Like the ones outside my house catching these guys yesterday http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominio...5a6479,00.html Good work!

Not clever, wearing their prison gear, near the Premier House which often has police coming and going..

[jimbo600]

Well would you bloody well credit it. Rode home from TRTNR tonight and came accross guess who? That's right officer Helmut Visor on Paekakariki Hill rd, obviously fresh from invading poland. Stopped me for Zinging and true to my word while he was faffing around bleating on I simply rode off.

I'm now sharing a cell with bubba.

Of course non of this is true but I felt like a little bit of humour would go down well.

What I did notice on paekak hill though was now we get SUV's and 4WD fuckheads crossing the center line at 70Kms as opposed to 100kms. The speed reductions has not made a bit of difference to butthole cagers.

[Macktheknife]

GOOD GOD you were zinging in a public place!!!!!!
Are you mad??? You are lucky he didnt shoot you on the spot!
The dreaded zing is often fatal to innocent bystanders too...
You should be reprimanded in the strongest possible terms....
go to your room and give yourself a good talking to!
When you've learned your lesson you can come out again, and show us your zinging skills!

[Ixion]

After reading the whole thing it sounds like a decision based on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the first stop. The decision appears to have been made on the basis that an abuse of police powers MAY have occurred, not that it did.

...

If your name starts with Sir and you have Bob's budget then perhaps you might be so lucky as well.

There was a good deal of discussion about S114. It seemed pertinent to the OPs situation (he objected to the fact that he was harangued, having committed no offence). I think it is probably stretching things to call it "abuse of police power" - it was the attitude that was complained of in both cases.

It occurs to me that there may be another relevant point . The OP says

I pulled over into a large driveway entrance to a farm. He did a u-turn and came back to find me.

If it was actually in the driveway, then it was not on the road. It was on private property (probably). That distinction will not save you if you have committed some offense. But if (as in this case) no offense has been committed, police powers to detain, or lecture people on private property are somewhat limited.

If your name starts with Sir and you have Bob's budget t

Therein lies the nub. Few of us can afford to spend the time and megasquidillion dollars to prove our point.

It is still annoying though that the occasional prattish cop can behave in this sort of way (remember , even the cop had to admit that no offence had been committed - he just objected to the bike, per se), and the public have no redress. Unless you are a millionaire with hot and cold running Queen's Counsel on tap, you must just suck it up and accept the abuse.

I would strongly advise against complaints to the "boss".A very good way, methinks, to become a "marked man" permanently.

I must say also that , with one exception many years ago , my own (infrequent, thank goodness) dealings with the police have been notably for the politeness of the officers. (Though that one exception still rankles after more than quarter of a century)

[Velox]

The legislation says cops can detain you for as long as reasonably necessary to establish identity but not longer than 15 minutes if required to remain stopped under this subsection only. The point is that there are many other reasons to detain a driver other than establishing identity so bugger off at your own peril.

Just out of curiosity SC, when you say "at your own peril" can we be had up for not hanging around "long enough"? Obviously we have to stop and show the licence and hear if we're being pinged for something, but is it legally fine (even if not advisable) to ride off after that? Or are there some sorts of fines involved?

[Zapf]

I think there is case law on this. Didn't Sir Robert Jones take the police to court over this? Some bimbette cop pulled him up in his Jag, then decided to show her authority with the "I'm going to muck about for half an hour or so and make you wait until I decide you can go just to show you who's boss " trick (maybe with a side order of feminazi - and I think he missed a plane flight or somehting , and she knew that). He sued the police, won in the NZ courts. Courts said the police did NOT have a carte blanche right to detain motorists as long as they chose. I think the police took it all the way to the Privy Council, not sure what happened there. Must check.

EDIT: Found it. I was not quite right. In fact it was more relevant. Sir Robert actually did exactly what was talked of, and drove off. The bimbette chased him, he sued, NZ Court of Appeal said he had no case, he went to the Privy council , who said he did . Interesting quote (judgement is attached). Note that he was NOT arrested (would have been much fireworks if he had been methinks). Case is almost exactly like OPs

damm I hate lawyers.... after trying to read that attachment...

[spudchucka]

If it was actually in the driveway, then it was not on the road. It was on private property (probably). That distinction will not save you if you have committed some offense. But if (as in this case) no offense has been committed, police powers to detain, or lecture people on private property are somewhat limited.

``Road'' includes—


(a)A street; and


(b)A motorway; and


(c)A beach; and


(d)A place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not; and


(e)All bridges, culverts, ferries, and fords forming part of a road or street or motorway, or a place referred to in paragraph (d):


(f)All sites at which vehicles may be weighed for the purposes of this Act or any other enactment:

(d) A place to which the public have access, whether of right or not.

The driveway is still a road. Particularly if the OP had simply pulled over into the entrance to the driveway, (as I suspect), as it could just as easily be classified as the road shoulder.

[spudchucka]

Just out of curiosity SC, when you say "at your own peril" can we be had up for not hanging around "long enough"? Obviously we have to stop and show the licence and hear if we're being pinged for something, but is it legally fine (even if not advisable) to ride off after that? Or are there some sorts of fines involved?

If you think the cop has done all he / she needs to do with you and you want to leave, just ask, "have you finished because I really want to get on my way"?

If you just bugger off as soon as you want to without being "released" by the officer you may be liable as follows;

52.Contravening notices, requirements, etc, given or imposed by enforcement officers—




(1)A person commits an offence if the person—


[(aa)is the driver of a vehicle that is stopped and fails to remain stopped in accordance with section 114(2A); or]


(a)Removes, obscures, or renders indistinguishable a notice affixed to a vehicle under section 115, unless new evidence of vehicle inspection has been obtained for the vehicle [or (if the notice was given under section 96(1B)) the direction requiring the vehicle not to be driven on a road has been cancelled under section 102(3)(b) or section 110(3)(a)(ii)]; or





(b)Drives a vehicle to which a notice under section 115 applies (other than when driving in compliance with a condition imposed under subsection (4) or subsection (5) of that section [or under section 96(1D)]) before new evidence of vehicle inspection has been obtained for, and is displayed on, the vehicle; or


(c)Fails or refuses to comply with any lawful requirement, direction, notice, request, or prohibition given to or imposed on him or her under this Act by an enforcement officer or a dangerous goods enforcement officer; or


(d)Whether or not he or she is the person to whom the direction was given, knowingly drives a heavy motor vehicle on a road in breach of a direction given by an enforcement officer under section 128.


(2)The maximum penalty on conviction for an offence against subsection (1) is a fine not exceeding $10,000.

There may be times where the cop is happy for you to just ride away, in other cases you will find yourself liable as above. My advice is simply to check with the cop before you bugger off into the distance.

[Deano]

If you think the cop has done all he / she needs to do with you and you want to leave, just ask, "have you finished because I really want to get on my way"?

Which would be about as effective as telling the school bully you need your lunch money to buy food.

In my experience cops will not tolerate any request to leave like that. More likely to wind them up even more.

[Lou Girardin]

Its only a name...people think because it says "Police" that its part of the station you're complaining at. WRONG. Led by a judge (ex lawyer/ the opposition!!) and investigators, many of whom are not in the Police anyhow. Everything is looked into, you should see the paperwork involved. White wash machine my arse!

Most of their decisions have been very pale though. Even contrary to what courts have said.
Still, what can you expect when their investigators are serving Police Officers.
The ex-Judge gets fed the info they want him to have. The only penalty for cops is the paperwork they have to do.

[Lou Girardin]

In the context of this thread, how did you find an opportunity to to branch into calling general duties cops tossers?

You're nothing more than a WINJA with a few more years under your belt and somewhat better dialect.

Vocabulary. My dialect is Jaffa.

[Lou Girardin]

He sounds like a total dick!

Traffic (STU) and Highway Patrol cars are marked in the yellow and blue colours. General duties cars are orange and blue, have more dents and higher K's.

There ya go Lou he was a HP tosser, not a GDB tosser.

Or an STU tosser. As long as you're not like him Spud.

No-one has yet suggested asking the cop why you are being detained. If it's not for a lawful reason, and "shut the fuck up", will not stand in court, then say I wish to leave, post the ticket to my address. If you are not allowed the leave it then becomes unlawful detention.
It'll all come down to how much fun you want to have with Officer Dickus, but I have to say that this tactic works better if you're of a more mature age.