So, a rozza enters my home...

**SixPackBack** · 20th March 2009, 12:45

Originally Posted by Patrick

The merger was 16 years ago or more... but some can't let it go... No one likes getting tickets, I know I sure don't... but who is to blame? One look in the mirror is a good clue. Blaming H/W, Snakes, whatever, is blame shifting to a target which can't fight back.

The bad media beat ups of recent years also fuel the lack of respect, but when one looks at it, it is the actions of a very few, which affect the look of the other 11,000 odd.... You just can't sort that out, probably never will, because there will always be something that will happen and we make news... great news...., which sells papers/ratings.

But hey, cops still rate better than car salesmen and polititians..

I'd be worried if they pass us in them polls....

.

A sizeable porportion of the general public see's highway patrol as glorified tax collectors-people hate them with good reason!.............personally I beleive if the coppers had stayed split between cops/traffic the general public and media would have far more confidence in the general copper population.

It's with some irony I note that even the coppers use the term s 'land sharks', 'snakes', and 'mermaids'!?..................my experience with friends in the force over the years is a divide does exist and mutual respect is not always that flash-we all know there exists good reasons for these attitudes to exist.

**Patrick** · 20th March 2009, 14:57

Originally Posted by SixPackBack

A sizeable porportion of the general public see's highway patrol as glorified tax collectors-people hate them with good reason!.............personally I beleive if the coppers had stayed split between cops/traffic the general public and media would have far more confidence in the general copper population.

It's with some irony I note that even the coppers use the term s 'land sharks', 'snakes', and 'mermaids'!?..................my experience with friends in the force over the years is a divide does exist and mutual respect is not always that flash-we all know there exists good reasons for these attitudes to exist.

Interestingly, most of the bad press in recent years has been from cops, not ex MOT (although there has been some...).

Land sharks = Police dog... as in "rips you to pieces."
Snakes = traffic
Mermaids = .......

CVIU

There might be a divide of sorts, but everyone has to do time in the snake pit. It is all part of the job. Watch House, Public Counter are shittier IMHO, but everyone gets a go....

As for a divide, not so sure... there was at the time of the merger, but that was sooooooooo 16 years ago....

**Winston001** · 20th March 2009, 20:10

Originally Posted by spudchucka

In certain circumstances only, under the Land Transport Act or when under arrest for an offence. You can't just go around stopping people on the street, demanding to see their "papers".

You've got powers under the Crimes Act too, but I take your point. However there is a bonus - the common law powers of a constable apply to the police in NZ - confirmed by the useful Mr John Minto v Police - [1987] 1 NZLR 374. It's laid out in Halsbury somewhere but oddly enough I don't have that here in the living room.

That includes the basic right to stop citizens and ascertain their identity - provided you do so in the execution of your duty. So no stopping chicks just to get their details.......

**Winston001** · 20th March 2009, 20:15

Originally Posted by SixPackBack

A sizeable porportion of the general public see's highway patrol as glorified tax collectors-people hate them with good reason!.............personally I beleive if the coppers had stayed split between cops/traffic the general public and media would have far more confidence in the general copper population.

I tend to agree. Not that it's exactly fair on whatever branch picks up traffic work, but part of the disillusionment with our police can be attributed to speeding tickets. At least that's the impression I get from ordinary people. Couple that with the likes of Shipton, Rikard etc and it's a damned shame the loss of public respect.

**spudchucka** · 21st March 2009, 07:01

Originally Posted by Winston001

That includes the basic right to stop citizens and ascertain their identity - provided you do so in the execution of your duty. So no stopping chicks just to get their details.......

You can't just demand the details of anyone walking down the street minding their own business, which is what your reference to the Gestapo style, "show me your papers" implied.

The LTA allows you to demand particulars from a person driving a motor vehicle on a road, the Arms Act allows you to demand particulars from persons in possession of firearms etc and makes it an offence to refuse those particulars. The Crimes Act also bestows powers but not to the point that you can stop anyone ,anywhere, demand their particulars and lock them up if they refuse. Those powers only kick in once a person has committed an offence.

**Winston001** · 21st March 2009, 15:39

Originally Posted by spudchucka

You can't just demand the details of anyone walking down the street minding their own business, which is what your reference to the Gestapo style, "show me your papers" implied.

The LTA allows you to demand particulars from a person driving a motor vehicle on a road, the Arms Act allows you to demand particulars from persons in possession of firearms etc and makes it an offence to refuse those particulars. The Crimes Act also bestows powers but not to the point that you can stop anyone ,anywhere, demand their particulars and lock them up if they refuse. Those powers only kick in once a person has committed an offence.

Yep yep and good on you, heartening to see respect and understanding of the limits of powers. I guess the common law gets forgotten when most of us are used to statutory rights and limitations.

My point - and it is a small one (which the doctor refuses to enlarge

) is that for centuries the common law has allowed a constable to stop and ascertain the identity of citizens while undertaking his lawful duties. Thus if there was riot and affray at a location, after the obligatory 'Ello 'ello 'ello, whats all this then?...... you can legitimately stop and identify persons in the vicinity. If they disagree, you could arrest and ask them to come quietly to the station.

Having said that, if the citizens spoken to were a couple of grannies, a judge may not agree with you. But if they were wearing red or blue colours, welll.......its all on.

:

**Ixion** · 21st March 2009, 15:54

That power predates the police force. It derives from the ancient power of watch and ward. But there is no obligation on the subject to *prove* his identity. He must merely provide a name and address.He need not produce identity papers of cards. Of course, if the watchman (police officer nowadays) suspects he has been given a false name he may arrest on that basis . Though he would do well to be sure of his grounds.

**spudchucka** · 21st March 2009, 16:17

Originally Posted by Winston001

Yep yep and good on you, heartening to see respect and understanding of the limits of powers. I guess the common law gets forgotten when most of us are used to statutory rights and limitations.

My point - and it is a small one (which the doctor refuses to enlarge

) is that for centuries the common law has allowed a constable to stop and ascertain the identity of citizens while undertaking his lawful duties. Thus if there was riot and affray at a location, after the obligatory 'Ello 'ello 'ello, whats all this then?...... you can legitimately stop and identify persons in the vicinity. If they disagree, you could arrest and ask them to come quietly to the station.

Having said that, if the citizens spoken to were a couple of grannies, a judge may not agree with you. But if they were wearing red or blue colours, welll.......its all on.

:

The common law allows you to stop and speak to anyone, however the common law does not "require" them to speak back if they don't want to. It doesn't allow you to detain people and demand their particulars at the threat of arrest if they refuse, only statutory powers in certain circumstances permit that.

common law has allowed a constable to stop and ascertain the identity of citizens while undertaking his lawful duties.

If those lawful duties being undertaken give the constable a statutory power to demand they offer their identity.

If their was a riot to deal with the last thing any cop would be doing is acquiring the details of onlookers and there are numerous public order offences that would enable the police to deal with the rioters appropriately.

**spudchucka** · 21st March 2009, 16:19

Originally Posted by Ixion

Of course, if the watchman (police officer nowadays) suspects he has been given a false name he may arrest on that basis . Though he would do well to be sure of his grounds.

Only where particular statutes require a person to give their name and address.

**Winston001** · 21st March 2009, 17:53

Originally Posted by Ixion

That power predates the police force. It derives from the ancient power of watch and ward. But there is no obligation on the subject to *prove* his identity. He must merely provide a name and address.He need not produce identity papers of cards. Of course, if the watchman (police officer nowadays) suspects he has been given a false name he may arrest on that basis . Though he would do well to be sure of his grounds.

Agreed. We aren't at the point yet of having to produce "papers" but it's common for people now to reach for their photographic drivers licence as a means of identity. So our social habits are changing and in a generation I suggest everyone will accept showing an identity card.