So, a rozza enters my home...

[jrandom]

Fuck, you lot have pissed me off (again!) with your inane whinging and half-arsed knowledge of law.

So it's all good for a cop to barge into my house and follow me to my bedroom waving a breath tester after seeing a car drive into my garage, but not being able to identify the driver?

[scumdog]

So it's all good for a cop to barge into my house and follow me to my bedroom waving a breath tester after seeing a car drive into my garage, but not being able to identify the driver?

In a word: Yes.

The law says they can.



Next.

[jrandom]

The law says they can.

Interesting. Where?

[tri boy]

How many nth shore coppa's have barged into the bedrooms of young scrumpet's using that excuse? Or are they more brazen, and get the AOS to shoot out the bedroom windows?
Something seems seriously wrong with this power.

Got a follow up call from the complaints authority today, just checking on contact details Am I to be the next SIS victim for making an enquiry.

[Jantar]

The aspect of who must give a breath sample is covered in section 68 of the act:

Who must undergo breath screening test
(1) An enforcement officer may require any of the following persons to undergo a breath screening test without delay:

(a) A driver of, or a person attempting to drive, a motor vehicle on a road:

(b) A person whom the officer has good cause to suspect has recently committed an offence against this Act that involves the driving of a motor vehicle:

(c) If an accident has occurred involving a motor vehicle,—

(i) The driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident; or

(ii) If the enforcement officer is unable to ascertain who the driver of the motor vehicle was at the time of the accident, a person whom the officer has good cause to suspect was in the motor vehicle at the time of the accident.

(2) An enforcement officer may not require a person who is in a hospital or doctor's surgery as a result of an accident involving a motor vehicle to undergo a breath screening test.

(3) A person who has undergone a breath screening test under this section must remain at the place where the person underwent the test until after the result of the test is ascertained, and an enforcement officer may arrest the person without warrant if the person refuses or fails to remain at that place.

(4) If an enforcement officer is entitled to require a person to undergo a breath screening test, the officer may also require that person to undergo a test using a passive breath-testing device, which test is one where the officer holds a passive breath-testing device near the person's mouth for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is any alcohol in the person's breath.

(5) The use or non-use of a passive breath-testing device does not of itself affect the validity of a breath screening test.

So according to the strict wording, the officer must identify the driver, or at the very least suspect a person of having commited an offence. It would be up to the court to decide if simply being in the proximity of a parked car that a person is or was the driver.

The right to follow that person onto private property is covered in section 119:

Powers of entry
(1) An enforcement officer may exercise the powers conferred by subsection (2) if the enforcement officer—

(a) Has good cause to suspect that a person—

(i) Has contravened a request or requirement or demand made under section 114 (other than subsection (1)); and

(ii) Has also committed or is committing an offence against section 35(1)(a) or section 35(1)(b) (which relate to reckless or dangerous driving offences), or is, or has recently been, driving under the influence of drink or a drug, or both; and

(b) Is freshly pursuing that person.

The enforcement officer may, without warrant, in the course of the pursuit enter, by force if necessary, any premises which the person has entered, for either or both of the following purposes:

(a) Determining whether or not a power conferred on an enforcement officer by section 68 or section 69 should be exercised in respect of that person:

(b) Exercising or completing the exercise of any such power in respect of that person (as if the person were in a motor vehicle on a road).

Again, it would up to the court to decide if a person entering their own property, but not having broken any law at that stage gives the officer "good cause to suspect" I would think not, but a judge may think otherwise.

There is also the question of whether observing someone enter their own driveway from a distance legally constitutes "fresh pursuit"? Again, it is a question for the court to decide.

[tri boy]

"Holy Moist Police Batons Batman"!
Those Rozza's sure can do some cleaver stuff.
Sounds like I could of had my scrawny white arse dragged out of my own dwelling, and focibly made to wrap my lips around something authoritative.

Best, next time I just roll over like Rosa the collie, and let the nice coppa tickle, (or kick ) my tummy.
Cheers Jantar.

[ajturbo]

he loves ya...

[Horse]

(b) Is freshly pursuing that person.

Vimes was right.

[Dave Lobster]

Those Rozzas sure can do some clever stuff.

Only if someone shows them how to do it.

[scumdog]

"Holy Moist Police Batons Batman"!
Those Rozza's sure can do some cleaver stuff.

Cheers Jantar.

And sadly the KB half-arsed legal team that spout so much on here seem unaware of this (or of what they're talking about).

And yeah, thanks Jantar, well done, couldn't be arsed posting it myself.

[twotyred]

"Holy Moist Police Batons Batman"!
Those Rozza's sure can do some cleaver stuff.
Sounds like I could of had my scrawny white arse dragged out of my own dwelling, and focibly made to wrap my lips around something authoritative.

Best, next time I just roll over like Rosa the collie, and let the nice coppa tickle, (or kick ) my tummy.
Cheers Jantar.

welcome to the globalist police state of New Zealand

[Patrick]

"Holy Moist Police Batons Batman"!
Those Rozza's sure can do some cleaver stuff.
Sounds like I could of had my scrawny white arse dragged out of my own dwelling, and focibly made to wrap my lips around something authoritative.

Best, next time I just roll over like Rosa the collie, and let the nice coppa tickle, (or kick ) my tummy.
Cheers Jantar.

Pretty sure they just wanted you to do a passive breath test and nothing more.

If ya want extras, bring donuts.

[spudchucka]

I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. Having said that:

The cop was within his rights to follow you in and ask for a breath test. He actually would have been in his rights to compel you to take a breath test. I'm surprised that he backed down without calling for backup.

I encourage you to make a complaint. If only so I can laugh when you get knocked back.

Powers of entry as per section 119 of the Land Transport Act 1998:

Powers of entry

*

(1) An enforcement officer may exercise the powers conferred by subsection (2) if the enforcement officer—
o

(a) Has good cause to suspect that a person—
+

(i) Has contravened a request or requirement or demand made under section 114 (other than subsection (1)); and
+

(ii) Has also committed or is committing an offence against section 35(1)(a) or section 35(1)(b) (which relate to reckless or dangerous driving offences), or is, or has recently been, driving under the influence of drink or a drug, or both; and
o

(b) Is freshly pursuing that person.

(2) The enforcement officer may, without warrant, in the course of the pursuit enter, by force if necessary, any premises which the person has entered, for either or both of the following purposes:
o

(a) Determining whether or not a power conferred on an enforcement officer by section 68 or section 69 should be exercised in respect of that person:
o

(b) Exercising or completing the exercise of any such power in respect of that person (as if the person were in a motor vehicle on a road).

(3) An enforcement officer may without warrant enter, by force if necessary, a building or place where a vehicle to which section 96 or section 96A or section 123 applies is being stored or kept, and seize and impound the vehicle, if—
o

(a) An enforcement officer has been freshly pursuing the vehicle; or
o

(b) It is likely that a person was about to remove, conceal, destroy, or dispose of the vehicle; or
o

(c) An enforcement officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the vehicle was about to be used in the commission of a crime; or
o

(d) Because of the time of the day or the locality, it was impracticable to obtain a warrant without creating an opportunity for the person to do any thing referred to in paragraph (b) or subparagraph (c).

(4) For the purposes of seizing and impounding a vehicle under section 96 or section 96A or section 123 in any case where subsection (3) does not apply, an enforcement officer may enter a building or place where a vehicle to which that section applies is being stored or kept only with the consent of the occupier or under a warrant issued under subsection (5) of this section.

(5) An enforcement officer may apply on oath to a District Court Judge for a warrant to enter a place referred to in subsection (4) and, if satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that a vehicle to which section 96 or section 96A or section 123 applies is being stored or kept in the building or place, the Judge may issue a warrant authorising an enforcement officer to enter, by force if necessary, any part of the building or place, and seize and impound the vehicle.

(6) It is the duty of every enforcement officer exercising a power conferred by subsection (2) or subsection (3) or under subsection (5)—
o

(a) To identify himself or herself as an enforcement officer to the pursued person and to the occupant of the premises entered; and
o

(b) To tell the pursued person and the occupant of the premises entered that the power of entry is being exercised under this section; and
o

(c) If the enforcement officer is not in uniform, to produce to the pursued person and the occupant of the premises entered on initial entry, and, if requested, at any subsequent time, evidence that he or she is an enforcement officer.

(7) An enforcement officer who enters any premises under this section may not exercise on those premises any power of arrest conferred by this Act other than a power of arrest conferred by any of sections 68(3), 69(6), and 120.

It didn't sound as if there was any fresh pursuit involved here, not sure though, care to clarify?

[Max Preload]

It didn't sound as if there was any fresh pursuit involved here, not sure though, care to clarify?

Depends on the definition of fresh pursuit, like you say. I would argue it's not a pursuit until such time as a reasonable person would have noticed that the officer was signalling them to stop - the opportunity for that in this scenario certainly never arose - he was most likely in his driveway before the officer even reacted to his turn.

I gather he was basically observed, from a distance, turning into a driveway and the officer naturally had good cause to suspect it was to avoid the checkpoint. However, the fact that he was clearly the occupant of the dwelling (opening the front door with a key sort of establishes that) at the driveway pretty much kills that good cause, IMHO. I'm sure that a decent defense lawyer could argue that successfully in court if the need arose.

[Patrick]

Depends on the definition of fresh pursuit, like you say. I would argue it's not a pursuit until such time as a reasonable person would have noticed that the officer was signalling them to stop - the opportunity for that in this scenario certainly never arose - he was most likely in his driveway before the officer even reacted to his turn.

I gather he was basically observed, from a distance, turning into a driveway and the officer naturally had good cause to suspect it was to avoid the checkpoint. However, the fact that he was clearly the occupant of the dwelling (opening the front door with a key sort of establishes that) at the driveway pretty much kills that good cause, IMHO. I'm sure that a decent defense lawyer could argue that successfully in court if the need arose.

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