Police lose Duff case

[jrandom]

If you have nothing to hide...

Eeep!

Don't say those words. The path to fascism begins with "if you have nothing to hide..."

Believe it or not, some people do set store by principles of civil liberty and personal privacy.

[Jantar]

This is disturbing...why should a cop not check someone out......

There is nothing in law preventing the police from checking someone out. Its simply that the police may not detain someone purely for that purpose.

[Grahameeboy]

Eeep!

Don't say those words. The path to fascism begins with "if you have nothing to hide..."

Believe it or not, some people do set store by principles of civil liberty and personal privacy.

I guess criminals don't consider those issues...we allow Banks to know about us, credit card companies, internet sites...like KB...so I am not sure we can complain if the Police are allowed to do a few simple checks when they stop someone for a traffic offence...just in case that person has the potential to disturb our civil liberty and personal privacy potential which we want to protect....if the person is clean etc, they drive away with little impact on these principles

[spudchucka]

Question for our resident law upholders:

Upon being asked for our license, what part of the law states that we (the public) must handover the license??
I was under the assumption (my bad, for assuming) that we only had to produce it, to prove identity etc.

Just a question.

Its a matter of practicality, if you take your licence out and show it to the cop from a metre or so away the cop is hardly going to be able to inspect the details from that distance. You need to hand it over for it to be properly inspected.

[Ixion]

I guess criminals don't consider those issues...we allow Banks to know about us, credit card companies, internet sites...like KB...so I am not sure we can complain if the Police are allowed to do a few simple checks when they stop someone for a traffic offence...just in case that person has the potential to disturb our civil liberty and personal privacy potential which we want to protect....if the person is clean etc, they drive away with little impact on these principles

Your analogys are flawed. Banks, Internet sites, credit card companies have to have our agreement to check us out. They can't demand to do it as a matter of right.

And they don't normally keep us waiting on the reoadside while they do it.

If, after my producing my licence , a cop were to say "OK, I'm just going to call through to check our records, will take just a couple of minutes, that OK ?", I'd say (normally) "Sure".

And if I were a cop and someone objected, I'd think maybe he wasn't who the licence said.,So I'd reply something like "Well, Sir, your answer makes me uncertain whether this is indeed your licence or not. So I'm going to have to check the question of your identity a bit further". Which would keep it all within the fifteen minutes.

But, if a cop wanted me to stay at the roadside for an hour while he buggered around trying to prove a point, then I'd be a mite pissed off too, and invoke my right to clear off.

In practice, a reasonable cop is never going to have a problem. And it shouldn't take more than five minutes at most.

[Ixion]

Its a matter of practicality, if you take your licence out and show it to the cop from a metre or so away the cop is hardly going to be able to inspect the details from that distance. You need to hand it over for it to be properly inspected.

Even so - does the cop then have the right to bugger off with it?

And, I remember more than once asking to see a constable's warrant card (plain cloths cops). They would never allow me to touch it. They'd hold it out, close enough to read, but far enough away to prevent a grab. Sauce for goose, etc.

If a cop can't read a licence held out to him at a distance of a few inches (he's standing right by the car window - where does "a metre away" come into it), then he needs his eyes checked.

In practice of course it's easier for everybody to just hand it over. But I'm not convinced the cop has a right to demand that. Nor does the law give him any right to "inspect" the licence. It must be "produced". Where would "inspection" end ? "OK, I'm taking your licence away for a few weeks for it to be inspected by a forensic lab " ?

[Ixion]

This is disturbing...why should a cop not check someone out...if you watch the UK cop documentaries, this is common practice so a simple motoring stop can establish whether the offender has any o/s warrants etc...you know protecting the free people etc

..

:

UK. Free people. Oh, good one. The most fascist state in Europe, and "free people" in the same sentence. That's irony for you.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I guess criminals don't consider those issues...we allow Banks to know about us, credit card companies, internet sites...like KB...so I am not sure we can complain if the Police are allowed to do a few simple checks when they stop someone for a traffic offence...just in case that person has the potential to disturb our civil liberty and personal privacy potential which we want to protect....if the person is clean etc, they drive away with little impact on these principles

the key word in that sentence is "allow"

[HenryDorsetCase]

Eeep!

Don't say those words. The path to fascism begins with "if you have nothing to hide..."

Believe it or not, some people do set store by principles of civil liberty and personal privacy.

concur!!!!

[Coldrider]

Judge did not forget. Judge in fact made a specific poin tof mentioning it. But also mentioned a fundamental principle of our law, one which dates back well over 1000 years.

That , in short, we are a free people. We are at liberty to go about our lawful business. We cannot be arbitrarily stopped or detained, just because someone does not like the look of us.

That liberty is no small matter. It was not just handed down on a plate : it was won, and preserved at a terrible cost in blood, on the battlefield and the scaffold. And it should not be lightly surrendered, no matter how convenient such a surrender might be to the police. Indeed, the principle that the Crown (ie the Police) do NOT possess an arbitrary right of detention is the whole point.

As the judge carefully noted, so fundamental to our law is this principle, that it can only be overridden by an explicit statement by parliament.

And Parliament has made no such statement. they have said "You, oh Officer Bumblebee, may require a person driving a vehicle to prove their identity, and you may detain them for up to 15 minutes while you check that out". That's it. Parliament has never said that the Police may detain people for an arbitrary time (as long as they like) while they do what ever they like. No matter how convenient the polcie might find it.

If the present ability to detain motorists until their identity is proven, up until a maximum of 15 minutes is not sufficient for you, how long do you want the right to lock people up who are stopped at the roadside (who may, bear in mind, have committed no offence whatsoever)? An hour? A day ? a week? Indefinately? Perhaps the Yanks could sublease us partt of Guatamala Bay to lock them up in ?

Take the matter out of the context of motoring. Your argument would necessarily also justify putting up blockades , say at sports events, and detaining every person leaving (on foot) until they could prove they were not wanted for something. And anyone who could not prove their identity could be locked up for as long as you chose.

The requirement to carry the driver's licence at all times was resisted strongly by those who valued liberty on the grounds that it would become a de-facto identity card system. This case (and others) clearly show that those fears were justified.

What you demand MUST be resisted, because that way lies tyranny.

Codified by the magna carter about 13th century, right to roam and the right to 'live'.
The Police swear their oath to the Queen, not the government, part of the separation of powers.
It is a pity that forein citizens taking up residency in new zealand know more of our history, laws and rights than natural citizens.

[Grahameeboy]

Your analogys are flawed. Banks, Internet sites, credit card companies have to have our agreement to check us out. They can't demand to do it as a matter of right.

And they don't normally keep us waiting on the reoadside while they do it.

If, after my producing my licence , a cop were to say "OK, I'm just going to call through to check our records, will take just a couple of minutes, that OK ?", I'd say (normally) "Sure".

And if I were a cop and someone objected, I'd think maybe he wasn't who the licence said.,So I'd reply something like "Well, Sir, your answer makes me uncertain whether this is indeed your licence or not. So I'm going to have to check the question of your identity a bit further". Which would keep it all within the fifteen minutes.

But, if a cop wanted me to stay at the roadside for an hour while he buggered around trying to prove a point, then I'd be a mite pissed off too, and invoke my right to clear off.

In practice, a reasonable cop is never going to have a problem. And it shouldn't take more than five minutes at most.

In a pedantic way I agree flawed, however, in reality I don't think so and as Citizens we agree to abide by the law which is upheld (yes I know what you are thinking) by the Police.

If they fail to do their duty properly then you have the right to complain, however, I would guess that in most cases it only takes 5/10 minutes so there should be no complaints for the reasons I raised.

[Grahameeboy]

the key word in that sentence is "allow"

And I think we should "allow" and co-operate with the Police...like I said if you have nothing to worry about then you are sweet

[jrandom]

And I think we should "allow" and co-operate...

There are two issues, though:

1. Boundary cases, such as the actions of our ginger friend in the northwest, and the apparently-rather-unreasonable lady who pulled over Mr Duff - such individuals should not be allowed to get away with excesses or abuse of their authority.

2. Frog in the Pot Syndrome; gradual erosion of standards over the years can make what you and I would both clearly define as 'fascism' something that our grandchildren would excuse with mealy-mouthed weasel words.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, etc...

[Littleman]

And I think we should "allow" and co-operate with the Police...like I said if you have nothing to worry about then you are sweet

Just be comfortable with the fact that anytime you disagree with the Kahui family it has to be a good thing.

[spudchucka]

Even so - does the cop then have the right to bugger off with it?

And, I remember more than once asking to see a constable's warrant card (plain cloths cops). They would never allow me to touch it. They'd hold it out, close enough to read, but far enough away to prevent a grab. Sauce for goose, etc.

If a cop can't read a licence held out to him at a distance of a few inches (he's standing right by the car window - where does "a metre away" come into it), then he needs his eyes checked.

In practice of course it's easier for everybody to just hand it over. But I'm not convinced the cop has a right to demand that. Nor does the law give him any right to "inspect" the licence. It must be "produced". Where would "inspection" end ? "OK, I'm taking your licence away for a few weeks for it to be inspected by a forensic lab " ?

What about any special conditions that might be detailed on the back of the licence? I have this mental image of a motorist holding their licence up to a closed window while the cop bends at the waist and peers into the window in an attempt to read the details on the licence and then uses sign language to get the motorist to flip the licence over so he can use his magnifying glass to read the conditions printed on the back of the card.