So, a rozza enters my home...

**Max Preload** · 10th February 2009, 20:00

Originally Posted by Patrick

So the fact that he was clearly the occupant meant he obviously hadn't been drinking?

Not at all. The fact he was clearly the occupant means the good cause doesn't have the foundation required - there is no longer good cause, hardly even a hunch - he was just turning into his own driveway, not simply attempting to avoid the checkpoint.

**tri boy** · 10th February 2009, 20:01

Thanks for the input guys.

Without seeming too cheeky, it seems that in most situations like mine, the weight on the law is in the police officer's favour.
Right or wrong, this sort of makes joe citizen fairly neutered to any form of rights. (police can push a situation, get the desired results, and then if need be beg for forgiveness because they stepped over the mark).
The percentages of such cases are probably alot lower than actual bad Joe citizens infringing in a similar manner (and with the possibility of maiming/killing a third party whether it is domestic violence, armed robbery etc).

So I will admit that my approach towards the young coppa was a bit out of line, but in the pit of my stomach it still feels a bit surreal that such powers are available to someone in uniform that isn't in a high pressure situation. Lucky our police force is maned by a high percentage of decent folk

for now.

**SixPackBack** · 10th February 2009, 20:05

I must be missing summat??

Blow in the bag-not guilty-rozza smiles sweetly, sez 'thank you Sir' and fucks off. Unless of course you had been hitting the turps tri boy??

Yeah a bit dodgy him coming into the house an all, but lets face it the chance of him doing anything other than the breath test is zero?........a mongrel mob member and I would be calling for the dog and figuring where the nearest stashed knife is!..........a copper?........hell you could have had a laugh and offered the bugger a donut!

**tri boy** · 10th February 2009, 20:17

Originally Posted by SixPackBack

I must be missing summat??

Blow in the bag-not guilty-rozza smiles sweetly, sez 'thank you Sir' and fucks off. Unless of course you had been hitting the turps tri boy??

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Yeah a bit dodgy him coming into the house an all, but lets face it the chance of him doing anything other than the breath test is zero?

Yeah, I know now that I misread the situation. bad day, demanding customers, then a rozza in my face firing Q's and statements at me).
It wouldn't be the first time. (once on Waiheke, once in Ngawawahia).
i guess the site of coppa's approaching at more than a leisurely pace while I'm at such a pace sort of sets me off.
Damn, I'm starting to feel quilty about making his working shift a bit more awkward. Lesson (sorta) learnt. Next time I'll set Rosa on them, that will give me at least a minute to staighten my thought/opinion process, while they wipe dog slobber off themselves.

**Ixion** · 10th February 2009, 20:33

So then - I drive a distinctive car.

Driving home, completely sober . Along road A. Down the side road off Road A , on Road B is a checkpoint. I don't go through it, maybe don't even see it. A kilometre up the road I turn in my drive .

Whew. Home after a long day. Time for an unwinding drink.

But a copper at the checkpoint saw me go past in the distance when he looked up the road.

And hour or two later he's driving along and sees my car parked in the drive. " Ahah. Oi saw dat car before, he didn't go frew da checkpoint, must be avoiding it". And smashes his way into the house. And demands I take a breath test.

Now, I've been home for several hours, had a few drinks since I got home (none before). Lets assume I'm under 21 or whatever the age is for youff, cos even in several hours I doubt I could drink enough to fail, but the youff rate, you could. So I take the test and fail it.

On the basis of what the coppers here are claiming, the copper is within his rights in breaking down the door; within his rights in demanding that I take a breath test; and within his rights in chraging me with drinking driving if I fail it.

Cos that's exactly the OPs situation, just extended the times and distances a bit. I say that is bullshit. And if it isn't the law needs to be changed . Fast.

The extraordinary thing is that the police throw this sort of shit at the public, treat perfectly innocent people with total contempt, as if they were machine gun murderers or baby rapists, then pompously spout about "wanting the publics assistance and cooperation". Fat chance.

**scumdog** · 10th February 2009, 20:38

Originally Posted by Ixion

And hour or two later he's driving along and sees my car parked in the drive. " Ahah. Oi saw dat car before, he didn't go frew da checkpoint, must be avoiding it". And smashes his way into the house. And demands I take a breath test.

Total troll

Or lay off them ancient recreational potions - the paranoia they cause is doing your head in.

**idb** · 10th February 2009, 20:52

Originally Posted by tri boy

Thanks for the input guys.

Without seeming too cheeky, it seems that in most situations like mine, the weight on the law is in the police officer's favour.
Right or wrong, this sort of makes joe citizen fairly neutered to any form of rights. (police can push a situation, get the desired results, and then if need be beg for forgiveness because they stepped over the mark).
The percentages of such cases are probably alot lower than actual bad Joe citizens infringing in a similar manner (and with the possibility of maiming/killing a third party whether it is domestic violence, armed robbery etc).

So I will admit that my approach towards the young coppa was a bit out of line, but in the pit of my stomach it still feels a bit surreal that such powers are available to someone in uniform that isn't in a high pressure situation. Lucky our police force is maned by a high percentage of decent folk

for now.

I sympathise.
I'd be f*%^ed off too.
Just a crappy situation all rund I think.

Have you tried getting your missus to take pikelets out to them while they're working?
It works with roadworkers outside your house when you want your driveway clear.

**Oscar** · 10th February 2009, 22:23

Originally Posted by SixPackBack

I must be missing summat??

Blow in the bag-not guilty-rozza smiles sweetly, sez 'thank you Sir' and fucks off. Unless of course you had been hitting the turps tri boy??

Yeah a bit dodgy him coming into the house an all, but lets face it the chance of him doing anything other than the breath test is zero?........a mongrel mob member and I would be calling for the dog and figuring where the nearest stashed knife is!..........a copper?........hell you could have had a laugh and offered the bugger a donut!

Another good German....

The Cop either didn't have cause or didn't elucidate his cause to Brent in so many words.
If a policeman walks into your house he better have a warrant or probable cause.
Either way the Cop ended up trespassing.

**Ixion** · 10th February 2009, 23:30

Originally Posted by scumdog

Total troll

Or lay off them ancient recreational potions - the paranoia they cause is doing your head in.

Only to the extent that I have postulated a more extreme case than the (actual) case of the OP. The OP was 200 meters from the checkpoint , and the police entry maybe 10 minutes later. Your response to that was "The law says we can" , and "whinging". I postulate a couple of kilometres and a cuple of hours. Your response is that's paranoid.

So, somewhere between 200mtrs/10 minutes and 2km / 2 hours , whinging turns to paranoia ? Where , pray is the dividing line.

This is no light matter. For 1000 years the law has respected the sancity of the law abiding citizen's home. The king himself , cannot willy-nilly pass the street door of the meanest subject. That is why the police must obtain search warrants. The OP had committed no crime, nor given any grounds for presuming he had. Yet, his home was forcibly entered , and he was interrogated against his will

Your argument would mean that warrants were unnecessary . Because almost always there would be a vehicle around - and a fair presumption that it's been used some time or other "Ah, theres a modderboike. N the engines still warm, good no warrant needed, smash the door down Officer Bumblebee."

You argue that the police , because I have committed the heinous sin of driving into my own driveway and entering my own home, are entitled to force their way in . And (according to Mr SkyTwr) arrest anyone in sight , even though they haven't been driving, and charge them with drink driving. . So I would like to know at what point in time and distance my ancient rights cease to exist.

(BTW - assuming that a passenger was arrested for drink driving , even though he had not been driving, what would happen if he had no licence. Would he also be charged with nondriving without a drivers licence? To accompany the charge of nondriving under the influence.If the car was stationary at the time would he also be charged with nonspeeding? )

**idb** · 10th February 2009, 23:41

Originally Posted by Ixion

Only to the extent that I have postulated a more extreme case than the (actual) case of the OP. The OP was 200 meters from the checkpoint , and the police entry maybe 10 minutes later. Your response to that was "The law says we can" , and "whinging". I postulate a couple of kilometres and a cuple of hours. Your response is that's paranoid.

So, somewhere between 200mtrs/10 minutes and 2km / 2 hours , whinging turns to paranoia ? Where , pray is the dividing line.

This is no light matter. For 1000 years the law has respected the sancity of the law abiding citizen's home. The king himself , cannot willy-nilly pass the street door of the meanest subject. That is why the police must obtain search warrants. The OP had committed no crime, nor given any grounds for presuming he had. Yet, his home was forcibly entered , and he was interrogated against his will

Your argument would mean that warrants were unnecessary . Because almost always there would be a vehicle around - and a fair presumption that it's been used some time or other "Ah, theres a modderboike. N the engines still warm, good no warrant needed, smash the door down Officer Bumblebee."

You argue that the police , because I have committed the heinous sin of driving into my own driveway and entering my own home, are entitled to force their way in . And (according to Mr SkyTwr) arrest anyone in sight , even though they haven't been driving, and charge them with drink driving. . So I would like to know at what point in time and distance my ancient rights cease to exist.

(BTW - assuming that a passenger was arrested for drink driving , even though he had not been driving, what would happen if he had no licence. Would he also be charged with nondriving without a drivers licence? To accompany the charge of nondriving under the influence.If the car was stationary at the time would he also be charged with nonspeeding? )

Jeez...where have you been the last 15 years?!
I wish i still had your youthful naivete.
The sovereign might not be able to violate the personal space of one of his/her subjects but her/his agents are fully licensed to respond to any suspicion they might have...as long as it pertains to road safety of course, after all what could be more important!

**Patrick** · 11th February 2009, 16:23

Originally Posted by Max Preload

Not at all. The fact he was clearly the occupant means the good cause doesn't have the foundation required - there is no longer good cause, hardly even a hunch - he was just turning into his own driveway, not simply attempting to avoid the checkpoint.

Not at all... A very rare occasion this is, but hey, it has happened before. Tri's response is the odd feature, is all......

Good cause even if it is his house. Driving on a road, breath test any where, any time...

Originally Posted by tri boy

So I will admit that my approach towards the young coppa was a bit out of line, but in the pit of my stomach it still feels a bit surreal that such powers are available to someone in uniform that isn't in a high pressure situation. Lucky our police force is maned by a high percentage of decent folk

for now.

The powers were brought in because people were fleeing the Police while pissed and racing home to hide from the breath or blood test. Back then, you were safe if ya made it home.

The "posse" of pursuing patrol cars led to this important law change, so that the guilty could not escape....and the courts strongly agreed... As it should be....

Originally Posted by Ixion

And hour or two later he's driving along and sees my car parked in the drive. " Ahah. Oi saw dat car before, he didn't go frew da checkpoint, must be avoiding it". And smashes his way into the house. And demands I take a breath test.

Now, I've been home for several hours, had a few drinks since I got home (none before). Lets assume I'm under 21 or whatever the age is for youff, cos even in several hours I doubt I could drink enough to fail, but the youff rate, you could. So I take the test and fail it.

On the basis of what the coppers here are claiming, the copper is within his rights in breaking down the door; within his rights in demanding that I take a breath test; and within his rights in chraging me with drinking driving if I fail it.

Definite troll. Not in fresh pursuit 2 hours later, is he... so can't rely on Section 119 entry without warrant.

Originally Posted by Oscar

Another good German....

The Cop either didn't have cause or didn't elucidate his cause to Brent in so many words.
If a policeman walks into your house he better have a warrant or probable cause.
Either way the Cop ended up trespassing.

Try re-reading Section 119 again then... "may enter, without warrant, by force if necessary..." to lock up said piss heads who may be evading ya.......

Originally Posted by Ixion

...The OP was 200 meters from the checkpoint , and the police entry maybe 10 minutes later.

If that cop took 10 minutes to cover 200 metres, there is something seriously wrong - he needs to lay off the donuts.... NOW!!!!

You argue that the police , because I have committed the heinous sin of driving into my own driveway and entering my own home, are entitled to force their way in .

If they believe you may have been drinking and driving, then yes...

So I would like to know at what point in time and distance my ancient rights cease to exist.

"In fresh pursuit" means you are just behind them. Covering 200 metres from just up the road to get to the car in the drive very soon after would be "fresh" enough...

(BTW - assuming that a passenger was arrested for drink driving , even though he had not been driving, what would happen if he had no licence. Would he also be charged with nondriving without a drivers licence? To accompany the charge of nondriving under the influence.If the car was stationary at the time would he also be charged with nonspeeding? )

Yep. And nondriving vehicular manslaughter. And nondriving burglary/rape/aggravated robbery.... oh, and non driving clearing up all of the unsolved cases around the country....

That should cover it.

**tri boy** · 11th February 2009, 18:29

So, I had a quick chat over the phone to a complaints authority guy, (he called me to verify a few things, very quick responce if I do say so).
Bottom line, it will become a "conciliation case".
I think that means a senior/superior officer will give it an overview, and make any suggestions he see's fit, and I will be notified accordingly.
Bloody good system really.

There is no major deal here, and I'm the first to admit I could of handled it better, but if my comment about being less keen, (read, in a hurry to corner joe public), then maybe some good will come out of it.

Funny how situations can develop, and be read in different lights by different people. A cup of coffee n doughnuts shared would be the best out come IMHO.

**Patrick** · 11th February 2009, 18:46

Originally Posted by tri boy

Funny how situations can develop, and be read in different lights by different people. A cup of coffee n doughnuts shared would be the best out come IMHO.

Now ya talkin....

Can anyone come? Open invite? Mmmmmmmmmmm donuts........

**Oscar** · 11th February 2009, 19:40

Originally Posted by Patrick

Try re-reading Section 119 again then... "may enter, without warrant, by force if necessary..." to lock up said piss heads who may be evading ya.......

Try reading the NZ Bill of Rights 1990.
The bit about "unreasonable search or seizure".
There' a Catch 22 situation here: If the rozza had of followed through with his demand for a breath test, he would have been well within his rights. But he didn't, so he breached Tri-boys human rights by following him into his house.