Highway Patrol making stuff up

[Skyryder]

Ask her to explain the Shaheed balance test.

No I think you need to explain where the law gives you the right to conduct a search of mailboxes to establish the identity of the occupier of the dwelling.

Skyryder

[Shadows]

Um I believe that under the misuse of drugs act there is a power to search without warrant.

And you dismissed my tinny house theory

[Skyryder]

Ask her to explain the Shaheed balance test.

I read all of this

http://www.adls.org.nz/doclibrary/pu...TS_JTK_301.pdf

Bottomline don't talk to the Police with the camera running

THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7) In late July 2004 a copy of the reconstruction videtape was supplied to TVNZ by a Police Officer.


I'm still not sure just what this has to do with a police officer checking out a mail box. Mind you on this decision the Police could hardly complain if this tape was 'supplied' to the media. Somehow I don't think that was the intent of you post.

Skyryder


I forgot to post this.

(127) Part of

On the other hand many judges and commentators are of the view that the Sharheed balancing test should be replaced by an approach which is more rights centered and more likely to result in the exclusion of evedence obtained in breach of the the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

[Ixion]

dont get your wife/jp buddies/law writers/ law/ spudchucka wrong but i think i have mis read or mis interpreted somewhere along the lines

say officer bumble bee is walking up my path to the front door (worn down grass, not over growen grass) he knocks on door, no one answers, but is nosy he takes a few steps off the beaten path,

finds my grow shed witha hundred plants, my asian slave family locked up in there cage, maris in the garage ripping up the latest bmws and harelys ive stolen, uncle jo molesting cousin beth on the stoep, and cousin earl in the back shed trying to brew me some real meth.....

officer bumblee bee would have no legal grounds to arrest anyone as he had no legal grounds to search? maybe i should build i big massive fuck off wall around the house and not answer the gate. sorted. tell me im right.

Correct. But (there's always a but) PC Bumble Bee can get straight on the radio to base "Sarge, go get me a warrant right now, cos this is what I see. I'll wait here to make sure they don't take it away. And what I see is sure reasonable grounds to suspect (which is all that's needed for a warrant)". And once PC Bumble Bee has his warrant , you're toast.

See.Easy. You do it the way the law works.

And some of those things don't even need a warrant.

In general the law works. Smart cops figure this and work with it. It's only the dumbos that bash their heads against it.

[Ixion]

Yes but the police still need reasonable cause. Section 21 states.

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence, or otherwise.

The sticky point is what information or evidence is reasonable. This thread was about an HP officer 'rifleing' through a letter box. And it is pretty clear both in action and intent that any kind of search on a property without a warrent or without reasonable cause is illegal.

Skyryder

Exactly so. "Reasonable cause". That bastard on the Clapham omnibus again.

In Mr Mikeys's well argued and cogent (see Mikey, you never knew you were cogent, did y') instance, PC Bumble Bee would have "reasonable cause".

In the OP's instance, it would depend on the whether the rifling was before or after the ticket. If after, then there is reasonable cause. " I , PC Bumble Bee, saw a person commiting various heinous and illegal acts. I had reasonable cause to suspect that it was the dude who lived at XX Blog Street, and , acting in pursuance of that reasonable suspicion, I checked the mailbox to see if that suspicion were correct". If the rifling took place before the ticket, no reasonable cause, and therefore unconstitutional.

[imdying]

Hahahaahha, would take two minutes to post some screenies from the video here... Pics or it didn't happen. (very effective troll mind you!)

[scumdog]

I read all of this

http://www.adls.org.nz/doclibrary/pu...TS_JTK_301.pdf

Bottomline don't talk to the Police with the camera running

Hmm, it was LAWYERS that wanted the video interviews installed "That way the Police will not be able to obtain confessions from out clients by means of inducement or other physical or mental duress"

Hahahah!

All it did was make their clients look like the twankers they are.
Now a lot advise against video interviews.


BTW I make anybody I'm speaking to at the roadside turn off their cell phone - otherwise......

[Fatjim]

After reading that disgusting ruling it is plain that the justice system of the western world is not concerned with justice.

My limited experience of judges shows them to be isolated from the "common man" and are therefor out of tune with both common sense and proper justice. Judges are more in tune with lawyers, and I think they get a kick out of a well constructed argument, and this clouds their independence.

I would also like to know how a jury, given that evidence and instructed to ignore it could. Surely a jury is the backstop of stupidity, and has the power to ignore a judges instructions if they deem them plainly contrary to justice.

Hasn't anybody seen "The verdict".

[Fatjim]

Hmm, it was LAWYERS that wanted the video interviews installed "That way the Police will not be able to obtain confessions from out clients by means of inducement or other physical or mental duress"

Hahahah!

I think those who are in the right would be the ones who are most likely to have this sort of evidence available.

All it did was make their clients look like the twankers they are.

Might I suggest that blanket attitude of all who need a lawyer are "twankers" is the attitude that turns law abiding citizens against the fuzz.

[scumdog]

I think those who are in the right would be the ones who are most likely to have this sort of evidence available.

Might I suggest that blanket attitude of all who need a lawyer are "twankers" is the attitude that turns law abiding citizens against the fuzz.

Notice I did not say "all" clients.

But the ones who lawyers thought had most to gain from a video interview are the ones who now shun it like the plague. - well especially after their lawyer 'suggests' it would not be to their advantage for a Judge to see them au natural so to speak (when they have not shaved/had a hair-cut/got a clean smart set of clothes/been 'groomed' as to what to NOT say etc)

[davereid]

I would also like to know how a jury, given that evidence and instructed to ignore it could. Surely a jury is the backstop of stupidity, and has the power to ignore a judges instructions if they deem them plainly contrary to justice.

You are quite right Fatjim - the original purpose of a jury was to ensure that the law was sensible as well as determining the innocence or guilt of the accused. Thats why you get "your peers" on a jury, rather than the G'mint just hiring 12 full time people to be jurors.

The assumption that "because it is the law it must be right" should be challenged by all credible jurors. Don't forget that over the years it has been legal to keep slaves and beat your wife, but illegal to dance if you are irish.

In recent times we have forgotten that as a jury we can say "yep, looks like he may have done it, but no way will we convict someone of that"

[Actually, I haven't forgotten, if your "crime" is victimless, I'd be hard pushed to vote for guilty, I guess thats why the prosecution never let me get on a jury]

[spudchucka]

No I think you need to explain where the law gives you the right to conduct a search of mailboxes to establish the identity of the occupier of the dwelling.

Skyryder

Police examining the names on mail in a mail box for the purpose of determining who may or may not reside at a residence once other means have been exhausted is not unreasonable, (assuming of course that the police officer involved has a legitimate and lawful purpose for wanting to locate that person). It would not amount to being anywhere near a serious breach of section 21.

The bill of rights act and the shaheed balancing test make the whole thing quite subjective, it isn't as black and white as you suggest.

And if you have read the R vs Shaheed ruling you will understand that even if a search is unreasonable in terms of the bill of rights act it isn't necessarily unlawful and vice versa.

[spudchucka]

Judges are more in tune with lawyers.......

Judges are lawyers........

[Finn]

Isn't it amazing what the cops will do for revenue yet try and get them to investigate a burglary or vandalism (with evidence of the scumbag) and they'll laugh in your face.

[SPman]

It helps if you take off the false nose and chin.........