Police lose Duff case

**scumdog** · 11th July 2008, 00:41

Originally Posted by Max Preload

I, for one, fail to see how this is bush-lawyer-esk since a Judge has ruled that it is lawful, and that the arbitrary arrest of Duff was not. Are you a bush cop?

Holding up an item purporting to be a licence and spouting off a name, address and date of birth and then driving off does not constitute 'remaing stopped as long as reasonably necessary" to allow an officer to check many things i.e. "Wanted for Service of Suspension Notice" for one.

Still you do as you believe you need to, who knows, you may just get away with it.

But not very likely with me.

And if you take it to Court? Good luck, I don't/won't care.

**Patrick** · 11th July 2008, 13:50

A licence must be produced and avaiable for inspection for erroneous material, additional information or conditions, or alteration... You "holding it up" will count for nothing.

Had one who stuck a Maori Sovereignty Flag symbol over the NZ Flag... Can't do that, either.

**peasea** · 11th July 2008, 23:14

Originally Posted by Speedracer

This is how I read it so far:

Imagine this scenario
"I left my license at home"
Name
Address
Date Of Birth
I own this bike
see ya

As soon as you let them touch it they'll make a grab for it so what other option is there to stop them wasting your time. And I still haven't seen a quote from law that says you have to hand over your license. You have to carry it, so in theory you have to produce it to avoid a ticket. If you don't have one how can you show it so you will be waiting forever. The requirement to carry must be simply for identity in the first place.

So if you have a license

"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,"

"See this officer," - point to picture, name, date of birth
"I am XXX born on XXX. I own this vehicle. I live at XXX. Have a nice day"
drive off.

Cop can look up the rest of the information on their system if it comes to it, this includes driving restrictions otherwise not carrying your license would be a bonus if you only had a learners car and drove a 1L bike.

Of course if you were doing license losing speeds or dangerous driving or theres a shotgun in the back seat there will be additional reasons for you to stay stopped.

Seriously? Why antagonise them?

Teehee, here are some reasons;

If you've been stopped for nothing (oops, I meant to say; 'a routine check') then it's likely once the paperwork is checked out you'll be on your way. If they've stopped you for a REAL (read cash-grabbing) reason then you're fucked whether you ride off or not. Riding off just winds them up even more and the power trip kicks in, believe me, I've tried it.

Funny watching it all unfold though, coz it's sooo predictable.

Then you plead not guilty, run it through the hoops and pay the fine anyway but making them shuffle paper adds a certain 'honesty' to the cash grab by making you feel they 'worked' for it.

Next time you head out onto the asphalt take some flowers, grease up the copper that stops you and ask them out for dinner. It's possible they'll be a girl next week. (Eh, Patricia?)

**Speedracer** · 12th July 2008, 00:36

Originally Posted by peasea

Seriously? Why antagonise them?

Teehee, here are some reasons;

If you've been stopped for nothing (oops, I meant to say; 'a routine check') then it's likely once the paperwork is checked out you'll be on your way. If they've stopped you for a REAL (read cash-grabbing) reason then you're fucked whether you ride off or not. Riding off just winds them up even more and the power trip kicks in, believe me, I've tried it.

Alan Duff tried it too, and it was for a REAL reason..... that's the point of this thread. Yes it wound the cop up as well to the point where he was arrested but it appears that the subsequent actions taken by the cop weren't legal. So yes it wasn't worth it but that doesn't mean it was illegal.
Someone else has said earlier in this thread that they left their license with the cop, drove off and didn't even get a ticket in the mail.

Originally Posted by scumdog

Holding up an item purporting to be a licence and spouting off a name, address and date of birth and then driving off does not constitute 'remaing stopped as long as reasonably necessary" to allow an officer to check many things i.e. "Wanted for Service of Suspension Notice" for one.

Isn't that stuff under the QP which isn't allowed to keep you stopped according to Alan Duff's lawyer?
Besides wouldn't the cop be checking that out when they run your plate? Hence why suspended drivers cars get pulled over when they lend them to friends. Plate will give you wof and rego, is this car stolen etc status.

I mean if you can be stopped to check "many things" i.e. fishing that leaves an almost unlimited scope. However if there is something obviously wrong it can be checked, such as a shotgun in the back seat. The identity gives the police enough infrormation to mail you a ticket if an impersonal follow up is required.

Ixons reply on page 2 is worth a read

**scumdog** · 12th July 2008, 10:07

Originally Posted by Speedracer

Isn't that stuff under the QP which isn't allowed to keep you stopped according to Alan Duff's lawyer?
Besides wouldn't the cop be checking that out when they run your plate? Hence why suspended drivers cars get pulled over when they lend them to friends. Plate will give you wof and rego, is this car stolen etc status.

A plate won't tell you if the driver is disqualified, if he has Warrant to Arrest and a whole multitude of things.

When the cop 'runs the plate' it will tell him who the registered owner of the car is (NOT who the driver is or if freshly stolen it won't tell him that) and it will tell him if the cars rego is current/lapsed/on hold etc and if it has a WOF.
It will also say if it has been pink/green stickered.

As you can see the plate tells the cop almost nothing about the driver or his licence status.

**peasea** · 13th July 2008, 19:27

Originally Posted by Speedracer

Alan Duff tried it too, and it was for a REAL reason..... that's the point of this thread. Yes it wound the cop up as well to the point where he was arrested but it appears that the subsequent actions taken by the cop weren't legal. So yes it wasn't worth it but that doesn't mean it was illegal.
Someone else has said earlier in this thread that they left their license with the cop, drove off and didn't even get a ticket in the mail.

Isn't that stuff under the QP which isn't allowed to keep you stopped according to Alan Duff's lawyer?
Besides wouldn't the cop be checking that out when they run your plate? Hence why suspended drivers cars get pulled over when they lend them to friends. Plate will give you wof and rego, is this car stolen etc status.

I mean if you can be stopped to check "many things" i.e. fishing that leaves an almost unlimited scope. However if there is something obviously wrong it can be checked, such as a shotgun in the back seat. The identity gives the police enough infrormation to mail you a ticket if an impersonal follow up is required.

Ixons reply on page 2 is worth a read

Were you referring to me? (Can't be arsed going back through the threads.) But if you are then that was 1980, I'd have trouble getting away with the same thing now. (Cripes, they send the chopper out for overdue library books these days!)

I'd say, if you have the machine, have a go; they (generally speaking) can't drive/ride for shit but if you get the wrong guy/girl (not a lot of difference in the blue gang these days, Derek Erasmus will vouch for that; don't forget the flowers) you're going to come unstuck fairly seriously. Hence my advice to not atangonise them. It makes life so much easier.

The flip side might be fun but it's momentary. If you win you're a legend in your own bourbon glass, if you lose you have big bills, not so much big balls.

I love all aspects of life, cop baiting is a very small part of it and when they haven't got their stracts faight it's so entertaining. If they're on the ball though, just give up and suck butt. They like that, regardless of the gender they are on the day.

**peasea** · 13th July 2008, 19:34

Originally Posted by scumdog

A plate won't tell you if the driver is disqualified, if he has Warrant to Arrest and a whole multitude of things.

When the cop 'runs the plate' it will tell him who the registered owner of the car is (NOT who the driver is or if freshly stolen it won't tell him that) and it will tell him if the cars rego is current/lapsed/on hold etc and if it has a WOF.
It will also say if it has been pink/green stickered.

As you can see the plate tells the cop almost nothing about the driver or his licence status.

Too true;

I used to run a trailer plate on my bike here and there, back when copper's radios were bigger than the average pannier and I have no idea how I got away with it. Rego? What's that?

However, even today you can't get info on what a perp had for brekkie from a plate but it's a starting point re stolen etc. Nowadays I have no prob's being legal and having my plate checked, it shows how much the police care about motorcycle and automobile theft.

**Ixion** · 13th July 2008, 20:28

I asked a question of the police members earlier (or maybe in another thread , i can't be arsed checking back).

Which has not been answered. And was

The law presently allows you 15 minutes to check out a driver, which seems reasonable. But you, and the Police bosses say that it is not sufficient. So, what then do you demand? How long DO you want be able to detain (and, by correlation, imprison) someone, who has very possibly committed no offense.

An hour? a day? a week? a month? indefinitely (which is the impression I'm receiving)

And what, if your wish is granted and you are permitted to detain motorists up indefinitely without charge , do you intend to do about the necessities of life? For 15 minutes things like toilet provisions, food, shelter sleep etc don't really figure.

But, if your wish were granted and the time limit was made "as long as I want to", then they would start to figure. So how do you propose to feed these motorists you have detained for the last few hours? what about sleeping arrangements once it gets into days?

Parliament reckoned that 15 minutes was a reasonable time. You, Mssrs Scumdog, Indoo, Patrick Spudchuka et all, and your bosses, disagree. You demand longer. tell us then , how long?

**scumdog** · 13th July 2008, 20:41

Originally Posted by Ixion

I asked a question of the police members earlier (or maybe in another thread , i can't be arsed checking back).

Which has not been answered. And was

The law presently allows you 15 minutes to check out a driver, which seems reasonable. But you, and the Police bosses say that it is not sufficient. So, what then do you demand? How long DO you want be able to detain (and, by correlation, imprison) someone, who has very possibly committed no offense.

An hour? a day? a week? a month? indefinitely (which is the impression I'm receiving)

And what, if your wish is granted and you are permitted to detain motorists up indefinitely without charge , do you intend to do about the necessities of life? For 15 minutes things like toilet provisions, food, shelter sleep etc don't really figure.

But, if your wish were granted and the time limit was made "as long as I want to", then they would start to figure. So how do you propose to feed these motorists you have detained for the last few hours? what about sleeping arrangements once it gets into days?

Parliament reckoned that 15 minutes was a reasonable time. You, Mssrs Scumdog, Indoo, Patrick Spudchuka et all, and your bosses, disagree. You demand longer. tell us then , how long?

Well, on a good day without much radio chatter 15 minutes is plenty most of the time.

But on a bad day and a bad crash nearby and the fire service using the radio too (we share the same channel) you may have to wait almost 15 minutes just to get on the air.

So yes, at times we disagree 15 minutes is enough as a 'blanket' time for EVERY occasion.

**Ixion** · 13th July 2008, 20:42

Originally Posted by scumdog

Well, on a good day without much radio chatter 15 minutes is plenty most of the time.

But on a bad day and a bad crash nearby and the fire service using the radio too (we share the same channel) you may have to wait almost 15 minutes just to get on the air.

So yes, at times we disagree 15 minutes is enough as a 'blanket' time for EVERY occasion.

So, how long then?

**scumdog** · 13th July 2008, 20:46

Originally Posted by Ixion

So, how long then?

Same as a piece of string.

I've held up motorsist for longer, I've always explained why the delay and ya know what?
None have got abusive, none have driven off.

**Ixion** · 13th July 2008, 20:55

So , your demand is indeed for detention at pleasure?

If your radio was broken, you would expect to be permitted to lock the driver up until it was fixed?

And what about the other issues that are implicit in detaining someone for hours or days? Presumably, you will take the driver (who, bear in mind may have committed NO OFFENCE - you just want to detain him because your radio isn't working !), back to the station, where he will at least be fed . Or do you expect him to camp out overnight by the roadside?

It has been one of the most fundamental principles of British justice for over 1000 years that none can be arbitrarily detained. No one can be locked up simply because "I say so, and that's enough". You want to overturn this.

And that without even the imprimatur of Parliament.

Do you also want this power of indefinite imprisonment without charge extended to people on foot. "Lock this guy up for a few weeks, I don't like his attitude". If not, the why do you think that motorists should be deprived of the most fundamental of civil liberties, but not non-motorists?

**peasea** · 13th July 2008, 21:02

Originally Posted by scumdog

Same as a piece of string.

I've held up motorsist for longer, I've always explained why the delay and ya know what?
None have got abusive, none have driven off.

Which means: Peasea wasn't there.

**scumdog** · 13th July 2008, 21:22

Originally Posted by Ixion

So , your demand is indeed for detention at pleasure?

If your radio was broken, you would expect to be permitted to lock the driver up until it was fixed?

And what about the other issues that are implicit in detaining someone for hours or days? Presumably, you will take the driver (who, bear in mind may have committed NO OFFENCE - you just want to detain him because your radio isn't working !), back to the station, where he will at least be fed . Or do you expect him to camp out overnight by the roadside?

It has been one of the most fundamental principles of British justice for over 1000 years that none can be arbitrarily detained. No one can be locked up simply because "I say so, and that's enough". You want to overturn this.

And that without even the imprimatur of Parliament.

Do you also want this power of indefinite imprisonment without charge extended to people on foot. "Lock this guy up for a few weeks, I don't like his attitude". If not, the why do you think that motorists should be deprived of the most fundamental of civil liberties, but not non-motorists?

You are bordering on rdiculous - obviously nobody would would stetch it THAT far

But in the good 'ol UK they arrest on 'suspicion' - unlike here.

Lucky 'here' eh?