Police lose Duff case

[jrandom]

However, they do have the right...

... but that doesn't matter, cause, get a load of this, all right; if you get stopped by a cop in Amsterdam, it's illegal for them to search you.

I mean, that's a right the cops in Amsterdam don't have.

[spudchucka]

Bravo!
I'd say more but I'm so boorish and self appointed I might get red rep'd.
Bahahahaha

You forgot over opinionated.

[Ixion]

Sigh

114Power to require driver to stop and give name and address, etc
(1)An enforcement officer who is in uniform, or wearing a distinctive cap, hat, or helmet, with a badge of authority affixed to it, may signal or request the driver of a vehicle to stop the vehicle as soon as is practicable.

(2)An enforcement officer in a vehicle following another vehicle may, by displaying flashing blue, or blue and red, lights or sounding a siren, require the driver of the other vehicle to stop.

[(2A)Subject to subsections (4) and (5), the driver of a vehicle that is stopped by an enforcement officer under this Act must remain stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary for the enforcement officer to complete the exercise of any powers conferred, or duties imposed, on an enforcement officer by this Act.]

(3)An enforcement officer may require the driver of a vehicle that is stopped under this Act to—
(a)Remain stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary for an enforcement officer to obtain the particulars referred to in paragraph (b), or to complete the exercise of any other power conferred on an enforcement officer by this Act; and
(b)On demand by an enforcement officer,—
(i)Give his or her name and address and date of birth, or such of those particulars as the enforcement officer may specify; and
(ii)State whether or not he or she is the owner of the vehicle; and
(iii)If the driver is not the owner of the vehicle, give the name and address of the owner or such particulars within the driver's knowledge as may lead to the identification of the owner.

(4)The driver of a vehicle that is stopped under subsection (2) is not obliged to remain stopped if the vehicle with flashing lights and siren does not itself stop in the near vicinity of the place where the driver has stopped.

(5)An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver, but not for longer than 15 minutes if the requirement to remain stopped is made under this subsection only.

(6)An enforcement officer may arrest a person without warrant if the officer has good cause to suspect the person of having—
(a)Failed to comply with this section or a signal or request or requirement under this section; or
(b)Given false or misleading information under this section.

Note however Sect 2A. But doing a QP check is NOT the exercise of any power conferred etc by this act. The act does not require one be done.

The only actual requirement, in a simple traffic stop (ie no arrestable offence etc) is to remain stopped for long enough for the EO to reasonably establish identity, name address , if you are owner of vehicle. Technically, you probably don't even have to wait for him to write out the ticket

There is anecdotal evidence that in some cases cops deliberately detain people by the road side either 'for kicks' or because they know it will cause inconvenience (in the case of Sir Robert Jones , mentioned, Sir Robert was on his way to the airport. It was argued that the officer deliberately held him up so that he would miss his flight. The allegation is not entirely hard to believe .)

Any ability to "instruct" anyone to "remain on the scene for the purposes of gathering evidence" would be very debateable indeed. Unless arrested noone has ANY duty to assist the police in gathering evidence (and if arrested , even less!).

There are some general "reasonableness" powers in the case of emergencies, or major crimes. None would be relevant to a traffic stop. When stopped by the police , in general (unless they cite the Arms Act, Misuse of Drugs etc, in which they had best be VERY sure that they have some grounds), you must provide name address, DoB, and in the case of a motor vehicle, produce satisfactory ID (ie driver's licence) and name the owner of the vehicle. That done you may legally wish the officer a pleasant evening and proceed about your business. Unless, of course, you are arrested. Then you do not have to say anything, you must be cautioned to that effect , and you would be very wise to keep your mouth completely shut until you have consulted a solicitor.

As to the right of search: The 15 minute stop does not confer any right of search. Nor is there any general right of search in NZ. A few acts (Arms Act, Misuse of Drugs mainly) confer a right of search without warrent. If an officer seeks to invoke powers under such an act, ask him his grounds. He is not obliged to tell you, but if he does not , and finds nothing, he could be in big trouble indeed.

[pritch]

Technically, you probably don't even have to wait for him to write out the ticket

Last time I found myself in this unfortunate position I told the cop that I didn't want to stand around all night, and asked him to post me the ticket.

No problem.

[spudchucka]

Sigh


Note however Sect 2A. But doing a QP check is NOT the exercise of any power conferred etc by this act. The act does not require one be done.

No it doesn't but it does require drivers to hold a current licence and simply producing a card does not confirm that the licence is current.

Wait for the appeal decision.

[peasea]

You forgot over opinionated.

OVER opinionated? How do you come to that conclusion, big mouth?

[peasea]

Last time I found myself in this unfortunate position I told the cop that I didn't want to stand around all night, and asked him to post me the ticket.

No problem.

Yup, that's what I've done in the past. Newbie was dicking around, she had my license so I said "when you make up your mind as to what you're going to charge me with...mail it". I departed the scene and my license was mailed back to me with NO ticket! Must have been a bullshit pull in the first place.

[peasea]

Sigh


Note however Sect 2A. But doing a QP check is NOT the exercise of any power conferred etc by this act. The act does not require one be done.

The only actual requirement, in a simple traffic stop (ie no arrestable offence etc) is to remain stopped for long enough for the EO to reasonably establish identity, name address , if you are owner of vehicle. Technically, you probably don't even have to wait for him to write out the ticket

There is anecdotal evidence that in some cases cops deliberately detain people by the road side either 'for kicks' or because they know it will cause inconvenience (in the case of Sir Robert Jones , mentioned, Sir Robert was on his way to the airport. It was argued that the officer deliberately held him up so that he would miss his flight. The allegation is not entirely hard to believe .)

Any ability to "instruct" anyone to "remain on the scene for the purposes of gathering evidence" would be very debateable indeed. Unless arrested noone has ANY duty to assist the police in gathering evidence (and if arrested , even less!).

There are some general "reasonableness" powers in the case of emergencies, or major crimes. None would be relevant to a traffic stop. When stopped by the police , in general (unless they cite the Arms Act, Misuse of Drugs etc, in which they had best be VERY sure that they have some grounds), you must provide name address, DoB, and in the case of a motor vehicle, produce satisfactory ID (ie driver's licence) and name the owner of the vehicle. That done you may legally wish the officer a pleasant evening and proceed about your business. Unless, of course, you are arrested. Then you do not have to say anything, you must be cautioned to that effect , and you would be very wise to keep your mouth completely shut until you have consulted a solicitor.

As to the right of search: The 15 minute stop does not confer any right of search. Nor is there any general right of search in NZ. A few acts (Arms Act, Misuse of Drugs mainly) confer a right of search without warrent. If an officer seeks to invoke powers under such an act, ask him his grounds. He is not obliged to tell you, but if he does not , and finds nothing, he could be in big trouble indeed.

Unless you take it to the PCA (like I did after a search, with a freakin' dog etc that found nothing) then the great whitewashing machine swings into action and 'big trouble' simply evaporates. I have to hand it to the police, they are very, very good at looking after their own.

[davereid]

I must say, I'm surprised that it's not legal to make you wait while the validity of your licence is checked.

It would appear it's an oversight by the lawmakers, and the judge did comment to that effect.

Nonetheless, the ruling is very clear.

I would be surprised if the police appeal.

They already applied for the leave of the court to withdraw the other charges, so they were aware that they going to lose.

It MAY create confusion about other traffic offences though.

Exactly how long are you expected to wait around while police look for evidence (for example) of a vehicle defect ?

Is this covered by other legislation - for example if I am pulled over because a policeman thinks my car MAY be modified.

Do I have to allow him to jack it up to check the suspension travel ? Do I have to pop the bonnet or boot ? Or do we just get bullied into doing it ?

[Skyryder]

Any ability to "instruct" anyone to "remain on the scene for the purposes of gathering evidence" would be very debateable indeed. Unless arrested noone has ANY duty to assist the police in gathering evidence (and if arrested , even less!).

5)An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver, but not for longer than 15 minutes if the requirement to remain stopped is made under this subsection only.


That's the kicker. The fifteen minutes is only to establish identity. They can require you to remain stopped as long as is reasonably necessary for other purposes. That in itself would suggest some kind of involvment by another party. It's not about assisting the police it's just that you can not leave the scene if your prescence is required.


Skyryder

[peasea]

I must say, I'm surprised that it's not legal to make you wait while the validity of your licence is checked.

It would appear it's an oversight by the lawmakers, and the judge did comment to that effect.

Nonetheless, the ruling is very clear.

I would be surprised if the police appeal.

They already applied for the leave of the court to withdraw the other charges, so they were aware that they going to lose.

It MAY create confusion about other traffic offences though.

Exactly how long are you expected to wait around while police look for evidence (for example) of a vehicle defect ?

Is this covered by other legislation - for example if I am pulled over because a policeman thinks my car MAY be modified.

Do I have to allow him to jack it up to check the suspension travel ? Do I have to pop the bonnet or boot ? Or do we just get bullied into doing it ?

The police bully us? Ho ho ho.....

Listen, most cops are doing their job with little (I assume) intention of pissing people off while they do it but the jerkoffs they stick on traffic duties seem to be hell-bent on making some kind of point. When challenged all hell breaks loose and time/money-wasting in the courts comes to the fore.

If we fail to challenge EVEYTHING these brainless morons do then they'll never get it right. There is a set procedure and it starts, IMHO, with basic good manners, never mind legalities. If they don't start with basic good manners then fuck 'em, give them all the shit they deserve. They, not us, need to pass the attitude test in the first instance so as to garner some basic respect. That's the trouble with a lot of cops, NO FUCKING MANNERS!

[marty]

Yup, that's what I've done in the past. Newbie was dicking around, she had my license so I said "when you make up your mind as to what you're going to charge me with...mail it". I departed the scene and my license was mailed back to me with NO ticket! Must have been a bullshit pull in the first place.

i would have stopped you again and demanded to see your licence. then ticketed you for failing to do so.

just cause i could.

then i'd withdraw it 6 months later once you had wrapped yourself into a ball and spent all those $$.

then i'd rofl in the bar on friday night, remembering what a dick you were.

[jrandom]

i would have stopped you again and demanded to see your licence. then ticketed you for failing to do so.

A one-paragraph letter to Wellington would surely get such a silly ticket thrown out.

[peasea]

i would have stopped you again and demanded to see your licence. then ticketed you for failing to do so.

just cause i could.

then i'd withdraw it 6 months later once you had wrapped yourself into a ball and spent all those $$.

then i'd rofl in the bar on friday night, remembering what a dick you were.

But that's not how it went, so I won, so go fuck yourself.

[Max Preload]

i would have stopped you again and demanded to see your licence. then ticketed you for failing to do so.

just cause i could.

then i'd withdraw it 6 months later once you had wrapped yourself into a ball and spent all those $$.

then i'd rofl in the bar on friday night, remembering what a dick you were.

No wonder you cunts get beaten.