Highway Patrol making stuff up

**Skyryder** · 3rd January 2007, 14:50

Originally Posted by spudchucka

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.

So your are saying if you knock on the door and no one is home then it is not unreasonable to search the letter box to ascertain who lives in the dwelling? What about other dwellers on the property of whom you have no 'interest' in? Waht right do you have to remove their mail. I would argue the search of a letter box is one of expediancy other than reasonableness as you claim. Section 21 makes very clear the intent of that clause. And you know as well as I 'intent' is as important as meaning. 21 of the Bill of Rights specifacly mentions 'corrospondence' and 'other,' both of which could be argued as the letter and mailbox respectively and when coupled with the Shaheed test, may well include the removal of the mail from the letter box.

Skyryder

**spudchucka** · 3rd January 2007, 16:41

Originally Posted by Skyryder

So your are saying if you knock on the door and no one is home then it is not unreasonable to search the letter box to ascertain who lives in the dwelling? What about other dwellers on the property of whom you have no 'interest' in? Waht right do you have to remove their mail. I would argue the search of a letter box is one of expediancy other than reasonableness as you claim. Section 21 makes very clear the intent of that clause. And you know as well as I 'intent' is as important as meaning. 21 of the Bill of Rights specifacly mentions 'corrospondence' and 'other,' both of which could be argued as the letter and mailbox respectively and when coupled with the Shaheed test, may well include the removal of the mail from the letter box.

Skyryder

Your intent is only to ascertain who or who doesn't reside there.

You have no interest in the "correspondence" only the name on the envelope.

I don't believe it is unreasonable at all and in the cases I have mentioned where there is a court warrant for the person's arrest it would be totally reasonable.

**Jantar** · 3rd January 2007, 17:06

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Your intent is only to ascertain who or who doesn't reside there.

You have no interest in the "correspondence" only the name on the envelope.

The name on the envelope doesn't confirm that addressee lives at the address, only that they are the intended recipient of the correspondence. Nor will the correspondence in the mailbox identify everyone who lives at the address.

eg. I often receive correspondence for my son. He doesn't live at my address, but its more convenient than trying to chase him all over the world. (He's currently in Darwin after spending almost a year in europe.) Anyone seeing his name on a letter in my mail box would be mistaken to believe he lives at the address on the envelope.

**scumdog** · 3rd January 2007, 23:19

Originally Posted by Jantar

The name on the envelope doesn't confirm that addressee lives at the address, only that they are the intended recipient of the correspondence. Nor will the correspondence in the mailbox identify everyone who lives at the address.

eg. I often receive correspondence for my son. He doesn't live at my address, but its more convenient than trying to chase him all over the world. (He's currently in Darwin after spending almost a year in europe.) Anyone seeing his name on a letter in my mail box would be mistaken to believe he lives at the address on the envelope.

I've heard (ahem!) that the mail chack may not prove somebody is actually living there but it is a good lead that they MAY have or have had links with it - and the neighbours (not talking about YOUR particular location of course) may confirm or not that this is true.

**SixPackBack** · 4th January 2007, 06:52

One thing I have noticed over the time spent on KB is the attitude of some online Police Officers, who almost without fail support their fellow workers regardless of the circumstances.

The Law and Policing in general are ever changing, attempting to reflect the present society we live in and it would seem the majority of KBers [and I would argue general population] find the thought of anyone going through their private mail abhorrent.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible Coppers, try being a litle more subjective.

**Skyryder** · 4th January 2007, 07:32

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Your intent is only to ascertain who or who doesn't reside there.

I am not talking about 'your' intent or for that matter anyone else's, but the 'intent' of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

If as you say there is a warrent out for arrest then I would tend to agree, but that was not the case in post #1 of this thread, and it seems to me that the searching of letter boxes for whatever reason is an acceptable practice within the policing community.

# In broad terms a search is an examination of a person or property and seizure is a taking of that which is discovered. Entry and search of private property by officers of the state without permission of the owner or occupier is an actionable trespass unless authorised by the common law or under specific statutory provision. While not ordinarily a crime it is customary to refer to such trespassory intrusion as unlawful and illegal.

The above is from

Ministry of Justice

NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990:
SUMMARY OF CASE ANNOTATIONS

Now to me that seems pretty clear.

Skyryder

**scumdog** · 4th January 2007, 08:30

Originally Posted by SixPackBack

One thing I have noticed over the time spent on KB is the attitude of some online Police Officers, who almost without fail support their fellow workers regardless of the circumstances.

The Law and Policing in general are ever changing, attempting to reflect the presant society we live in and it would seem the majority of KBers [and I would argue general population] find the thought of anyone going through their private mail abhorrent.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible Coppers, try being a litle more subjective.

Loosen up.

I've done it.
Empty looking building where XXXX was meant to have been living, a mailbox bulging with a mixture of junk and normal mail.
Of course I'm going to have a look to see if I'm at the right place.

Not saying the thread starter was under those circumstances

**SPman** · 4th January 2007, 11:52

I think using fair and reasonable means to attempt to ascertain if someone is possibly residing at an address, would encompass checking the details on the outside of any mail in a letterbox. As long as it is publicly accessible - not locked and the mail is not otherwise tampered with and it is done in the legitimate execution of their duty, I see no problem with it, whatsoever.

People get too hung up, over the supposed infringement of their rights, in minor matters, without considering some of the responsibilities entailed in trying to live in a functioning community, yet in major matters, they roll over and let the "authorities" screw them over!

I wonder why that is??????

Oh well, back to the land of dreams........

**jrandom** · 4th January 2007, 12:57

Originally Posted by SPman

People get too hung up, over the supposed infringement of their rights, in minor matters...

Indeed.

Ever noticed that people pissing and moaning about 'infringement of their rights' are usually just trying to weasel out of the consequences of doing something dodgy?

**spudchucka** · 4th January 2007, 13:38

Originally Posted by Jantar

The name on the envelope doesn't confirm that addressee lives at the address,

Thats why I said that it may or may not confirm who lives there.

If you find the name of the person you are looking for then that would indicate that the address would be one which you would continue making enquiries at.

**scumdog** · 4th January 2007, 14:01

Originally Posted by 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.

Mehh, pretty low grade troll here......

(And 'revenue'? - never even think of it as such since I gain no more from the alleged 'revenue' than I do for the person that I put on front of the Court and who is sent to jail.)

**Squeak the Rat** · 4th January 2007, 14:02

Originally Posted by scumdog

(And 'revenue'? - never even think of it as such since I gain no more from the alleged 'revenue' than I do for the person that I put on front of the Court and who is sent to jail.)

But do you have a quota for catching burglars?

**scumdog** · 4th January 2007, 14:05

Originally Posted by Squeak the Rat

But do you have a quota for catching burglars?

Yup, the same one I have for the number if tickets I 'have' to issue.

**sAsLEX** · 4th January 2007, 14:06

Originally Posted by scumdog

(And 'revenue'? - never even think of it as such since I gain no more from the alleged 'revenue' than I do for the person that I put on front of the Court and who is sent to jail.)

ah but it fills some of your performance quota