So, a rozza enters my home...

**Skytwr** · 7th February 2009, 21:11

The right to enter property and carry out the Breath tests is covered under the Land Transport Act 1998.

The entry to the property is covered under Section 119, Power to enter when following a vehicle / person to carry out the Breath / alcohol testing.

Section 68 covers the right to request a breath screening test. Given that the officer saw the car enter the driveway prior to the check point and upon arriving saw you close by to the car is good cause to suspect you are the driver. And if you are not, but you are the owner of the car then have to supply details of the driver, but he can still request a breath test.

As the case of the car that had the driver and passengers leave the scene. The Act allows us to breath test all persons located and treat them all as the driver until some one owns up. All persons in the car are charged and most times some one will give up the driver when they realise that they will end up going to court for a drink drive charge.

A lot of drivers try to avoid a check point for amny reasons and pull into a driveway. Some times it is the owner of the property other times it is a driver trying to get away but in all cases a Breath test is carried out.

**Ixion** · 7th February 2009, 23:00

Which makes a total arse of the sober driver idea.

If I have had too much to drink, what is the point of getting a lift with a sober driver, since I may still be breathtested and charged with driving the car that I am not driving.

I may as well just do the simple thing and drive myself

And the police wonder why the public do not respect them. Whoever was responsible for that piece of raving idiocy is unqualified to be part of the human race. Or indeed any species with a greater claim to sapience than a slug.

I live down a long right of way. At the end are four houses. There are no fences between them If a neighbour comes down the drive and parks his car and disappears inside, it is quite possible that I, going about my own business, may be quite close to his parked car (which is not mine and which I have nothing to do with). If a cop follows him down the drive and tries to do me for DIC (having not even been out that day), on no more substantial evidence than that I happen to be nearby, he will get VERY short shrift indeed.

Why not extend that breathtaking (pun intnded) logic to all crime? Someone been shot? Just grab the nearest bystander and charge him. Saves so much time hunting for the actual criminal.

**Katman** · 7th February 2009, 23:09

Silly rules aye.........

Who would ever possibly think that they might be so unreasonable as to indiscriminately project some similar silly rules specifically onto motorcyclists.

**KiwiRat** · 8th February 2009, 05:37

Originally Posted by Ixion

Someone been shot? Just grab the nearest bystander and charge him. Saves so much time hunting for the actual criminal.

Been done before........................Arthur Allan Thomas etc, etc, etc..................

**Owl** · 8th February 2009, 06:35

Originally Posted by pritch

The judge said that according to the law if you refuse a breath test you must go to jail. The law did not require that you actually be the driver. So off to jail the poor bastard went.

That sounds a tad suspect to me dude? I know a guy that got pulled up and refused a breath test (asthma Yeah right) and was charged with refusing a breath test. He lost his licence for 6 months and yet a passenger must go to jail?

**davereid** · 8th February 2009, 09:09

Originally Posted by Skytwr

As the case of the car that had the driver and passengers leave the scene. The Act allows us to breath test all persons located and treat them all as the driver until some one owns up. All persons in the car are charged and most times some one will give up the driver when they realise that they will end up going to court for a drink drive charge.

This is the kind of bully-boy tactics that has destroyed the image of the police for most kiwis.

No one approves of drunks on the road, yet shit like this just shows how easily the power to search and seize without due cause has been bastardised by the police.

The police should ask themselves that most basic of questions - what have they done to create a relationship with the public that is so negative that middle aged whitemen, with no criminal history at all, hate them just as much as P dealers.

Next time I am sober, riding my warranted and fully legal motorcycle, if I see a check point, I shall change my mind about my intended route and choose another. The police of course can chase me if they wish. But if only 1 in 20 drivers just did a U turn, the check point would collapse.

**tri boy** · 8th February 2009, 09:31

Skytwr gave me the info I was after. Cheers dude.
I don't toally agree with all the rights given to the police, and hope at times, a court can make informed choices as to whether a police person over stepped the mark.
In hindsight, I think the invasion of my personal surroundings was the triggar point to ignore him.
Think I would approach it differently in future, but having demands laid on me, and rozza toys shoved under my face, without being given the usual courteousness expected from property visitors annoyed the hell out of me.
Not to many years ago, such actions were deemed to be highly insulting.
Thanks for all the input. Yes, even yours katman.

**The Pastor** · 8th February 2009, 21:09

Originally Posted by meteor

Interesting since this last year saw about 360 fatalities against nearly 1000 15 yrs ago. They are dropping, and it's not by accident (pardon the pun) it's by the coppers hammering the drunks and speeders which changes the behaviour. And no, not for revenue but to keep me safe... I thank them for that.

Now back on topic... I wonder if those cops on that alcohol checkpoint had a dollar for every drunk that turned into the nearest driveway to avoid the checkpoint and claimed it was their house, just how rich they'd be? Can't see the problem really, maybe that checkpoint did stop a drunk that was just about to kill your daughter or your dad as they turned into your driveway. Have I missed something? Maybe it's you who should be thanking them.

get stuffed, its down because its now socially unaceptable (or at the very least frowned upon).

Law & enforcement dont change behaviours, attitudes, social pressure and cultures do.

**pritch** · 9th February 2009, 09:23

Originally Posted by Owl

That sounds a tad suspect to me dude?

Well, that was as reported in the press at the time. When exactly the time was I would be hard pressed to say. Probably relatively soon after the breath testing legislation came into effect?

I don't read the court reports anymore, endless stupidity tends to be depressing after a few years.

**Finn** · 9th February 2009, 09:27

Last time I had a Rozza enter my house, she took her clothes off. She had an interesting way of breath testing me too.

**peasea** · 9th February 2009, 14:42

Originally Posted by meteor

Interesting since this last year saw about 360 fatalities against nearly 1000 15 yrs ago. They are dropping, and it's not by accident (pardon the pun) it's by the coppers hammering the drunks and speeders which changes the behaviour. And no, not for revenue but to keep me safe... I thank them for that.

Now back on topic... I wonder if those cops on that alcohol checkpoint had a dollar for every drunk that turned into the nearest driveway to avoid the checkpoint and claimed it was their house, just how rich they'd be? Can't see the problem really, maybe that checkpoint did stop a drunk that was just about to kill your daughter or your dad as they turned into your driveway. Have I missed something? Maybe it's you who should be thanking them.

I'm not saying 'don't stop drunk drivers' but the cops take the credit for a whole bunch of factors that have sfa to do with them. Fatalaties on the road are down thanks in part to increased (read compulsory) wearing of seat belts, crumple zones, intrusion bars, ABS and air bags. Furthermore, it isn't as easy as it used to be to get a driver's license (although still TOO easy) and many drinking establishments offer courtesy vehicles. Society is now frowning on drinking and driving, which is a good thing, and I can't wait for the results of society frowning on driving like a loopy in the rain and failing to indicate.

The cops hammer on about the road toll (which is sad, don't get me wrong) but per 100,000 people and per 10,000 vehicles the ratio is WAY down on what it used to be. (Check the stats..) Much of that is down the technology we now have incorporated into motor cars.