David must play fair with the other kids, even the idiots.
They have other powers under other acts. The fifteen minute only applies to establish identity. Duff was stopped under the requirments of the Land Transport Act. The officer established his identity and the Judge dismissed all other charges. But let us suppose that the officer saw a shotgun on the back seat. He / she would be entirely in their rights to hold the driver so that checks could be established the driver held the appropiate licence. That may or may not take fifteen minutes. The key to so many acts is reasonable as againt what is not.
As I said there would need to be a further incident other than say a traffic infringement.
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
have you read your own signature?
i am very happy with who i am. i don't give a toss what you think of me.
and you would have appreciated being dealt with by me when i was in the job.
so how does it apply for heavy vehicles. They are often stopped and gone over with a fine tooth comb looking for problems..........can you just show the copper your license and thank him for his intentions but say I'm off now i do not have to stay for this bullshit......................
Yeh we are all such cunts eh. Heres what I had one day at work last week.
0620hrs arrive and start doing paperwork.
0640hrs get sent to a domestic involving a tresspass
0650hrs arrive and speak to both drunken idiots each claiming that they own the housing N.Z flat and the other needs to be evicted.
0700hrs start getting paid.
0730hrs reach a resolution between the drunken idiots as to who goes where, transport one idiot to a equally shitty South Auckland address.
0900hrs fight way through traffic arrive back in area.
0915hrs get sent to a minor vehicle collision involving two people who refuse to report the matter at a station despite the fact that they have already moved the vehicles, there are no witnesses or physical evidence.
1000hrs after battling traffic arrive at the scene and take report - attempt to complete 8 page crash report but get called away to attend a shoplifter attempting to decamp the scene
1100hrs locate said shoplifter, who turns out to be female who stole makeup and who rants on about how Police can't touch her. Tell female she is under arrest accused of being a rapist.
1200hrs- female transported and processed at central. More stolen property from other stores located on her person.
1230hrs- free from processing the thief, ask if can have meal break, denied as 2 domestics waiting in system.
1245 hrs attend first domestic, obnoxious female opens door and asks' what the fuck took you so long' turns out male party has left after allegedly assaulting female at 8am that morning.
1330hrs- get send to second domestic (other units all tied up). Turns out second domestic is a 13 year old female angry that her mother tried to get her to do some work around the house as she is suspended.
1400hrs- clear from second domestic, ask to have lunch, get an ok on lunch
1415hrs - arrive at lunch bar, purchase lunch.
1416hrs - get sent to a burglars on down the road.
1417hrs - arrive and catch a 14 year old attempting to do a runner.
1417-1530hrs- deal with cyfs and the 14 year old runaway they don't want back.
1540hrs- while returning from runaway get sent to a mentally disordered female handing out suicidal poems to people on a motorway overbridge.
1600hrs- locate female, who becomes aggressive and attempts kick and bite us.
1630hrs - call up local mental health services who state that it has nothing to do with them
1700hrs - stop getting paid
1700-1900hrs - finally get mentally deranged idiot assessed by mental health workers. Can now claim 8 dollars as a meal allowance for the 2 hours unpaid overtime I've done. Have also accumulated 2 hours additional paper work which I will have to do in my own time.
1920hrs arrive home.
I chose to do the job and could quit at anytime, so expect no sympathy but I'm just curious Awful and Paesea what your average day comprises of?
That would require there to be some reasonable grounds to suppose that an aresstable offence had been committed. (eg , the shotgun on the back seat mentioned by someone else).
NZ law knows nothing of any right of arbitrary detention by the police , which is what your argument would require.
You must stop for flashing lights etc. You must produce your licence, and establish your identity. Having done so, you may depart, and if the officer objects to that he must arrest you, for some arrestable offence.
Which said, I must note , as I have before, that in general cooperation gives a better result than defiance. And if you decide to play hard ball , you can hardly blame to cop for doing so also.
What is rather disturbing however, is the intimation in this thread , by an ex cop , and also in the Gingacop thread by a serving cop, of an attitude which would seem to indicate that issuing offence notices without justification, to be later withdrawn , is a routine practice by the force. The purpose being , of course, to harrass the recipient, and force them to spend time and money
'
That is most certainly a gross abuse of process, and any police officer found to be doing so should IMHO be immediately dismissed. If any KBer can produce evidence of this (we are working toward it in the Gingacop thread of course), then I would be happy to present a case to the PCA. If such a practice is indeed so commonplace that is mentioned thus in casual conversation, then the corruption in the force is much worse than people realise.
Originally Posted by skidmark
Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
after being repped for my comment, obviously i need to explain.
i was taking the piss. i was a good bastard. i could make people's lives pretty miserable if i wanted, but reality is, why make your job harder than it needs to be? i never wasted my time with bikers. picked on cars and trucks. and drunken dickheads. there was always someone else coming around the corner who would more than make up for the idiot who had driven off without sticking around for his ticket.
Crimes Act S317A is the power for stopping vehicles for matters other than the initial stop. if a QP is done after the person has driven off, and the driver is shown as disqualified/wanted/warrant etc the power to stop is contained in there.
apologies if i offended anyone.
I certainly appreciate the good work you, and many other officers do.
But the police are expected to operate within the law too, not just enforce it !
This thread is not about knocking good cops.
But it is about establishing what is legal for a cop to do, what is borderline, and what is abuse.
So far, no one has been able to tell me why I should wait around if requested by a cop.
It seems, that if I am pulled over for an (alledged) traffic offence, that if I have a valid licence, current WOF and Rego that I can leave.
All I want is an explaination of why thats not the case...if its not the case !
David must play fair with the other kids, even the idiots.
from S114 LT Act 1998:
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 (my highlights)
for example:
139 Issue of infringement notice
(1) If an enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe an infringement offence is being or has been committed by a person, an infringement notice in respect of that offence may be issued to that person by an enforcement officer.
So, it all comes down to whatever the "other power conferred" might be then.
Does that mean they can piss me around for an hour while they get around to checking the rego of every biker who leaves a rally ?
Or jack my car up to check the suspension when its got a vaild WOF - and they arent qualified to have an opinion anyway ?
David must play fair with the other kids, even the idiots.
dunno (only cause i don't need to). however, the 'issuing' of the ticket does not actually say 'handing' or 'delivering it forthwith'. delivery/service is in the next section. it certainly looks like duff was within his rights to leave prior to the ticket being issued, as it could be delivered or served at later date/time.
[true story]
i was involved in an incident with a truck (an empty semi) about 8 years ago. i had stopped him 3 times in 3 days, at the same time of the day - for speeds over 120kms each time. on the 3rd time he was pretty unhappy, and refused to accept the ticket. he wound his window up when i stepped up on the step to pass it to him, and started to drive off. we were in a large truck stop car park at the time (it's still a road). i jumped off, however i stumbled (we were doing about 10km/h) and ended up tripping and falling onto the rotating wheels. luckily i bounced off, and didn't go underneath. rather shaken, i allowed him to carry on, but i followed him for a while, trying to decide what to do. no backup for 30 minutes at least, and he was in a 20 tonne truck vs my patrol car, and it was 5am in the morning, pitch black.[/true story]
how about some bush lawyer opinions on what my ideal decision should have been?.
Thank you 'at'.
farty's is just the sort of attitude we've been talking about. When, not if, the plonker 'gets his' I'll send the perp some flowers. I just hope I'm there to see it and that farty, oops, marty, lands close to the gutter so that I don't waste too much energy finishing the job.
Is farty a ginga?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks