Know your rights: can police access your property?

Forums › Off topic › Know your rights: can police access your property?

1 | 2 | 3

1247 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 616

#2307675 29-Aug-2019 11:21

Sure he won his case - but what did he spend chasing it to the high court - $5k???
Plus stress and time.

That's a large incentive (aka fine) to much sure do it you don't do it again.

1101

3141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1143

#2307678 29-Aug-2019 11:27

frankv:

...Would it be OK for the police to pursue *you* into your bed if your neighbour suspected you? Or said they suspected you?

Yes it should be OK
The rights of the majority come before the rights of 1 crim.

The police wouldnt be doing this for no good reason . If there was a reasonable assumption that someone had been drink driving, and they could prove it, then thats OK
I have been DIY'ed in the distant past. Its actually unlikely you get caught DIY on a single time , its just the law of averages that catch up with you .
If you get DIY'ed once, chances are youve been drunk driving for years .

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41042

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2307744 29-Aug-2019 11:57

1101:

frankv:

...Would it be OK for the police to pursue *you* into your bed if your neighbour suspected you? Or said they suspected you?

Yes it should be OK
The rights of the majority come before the rights of 1 crim.

This is your opinion. As explained before that's not how the law is interpreted by the judges. Police has to be in pursuit to be allowed inside the property. Just because someone think you have been drink driving doesn't automatically give police permission to enter the property.

1101:

The police wouldnt be doing this for no good reason . If there was a reasonable assumption that someone had been drink driving, and they could prove it, then thats OK

Again, that's your opinion. I suggest you read the previous page.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2307751 29-Aug-2019 12:14

frankv:

Geektastic:

If you are suspected of drink driving, the police should be entitled to pursue you into your own bed to test you IMV.

The police *are* entitled to be on your property if they pursue you there.

But in this case it was his neighbour that suspected him of drink driving... there was no pursuit. Would it be OK for the police to pursue *you* into your bed if your neighbour suspected you? Or said they suspected you?

Yes. My father was once door knocked by the Plod because he had been (allegedly) seen driving erratically. Since he was returning from a parents sherry evening at my boarding school, it is quite possible he was.

The first question

"Have you had anything to drink since you got home sir?"

was answered with

"Yes. about a third of a bottle of Scotch."

He hadn't, of course, but back in those days they had no way to calculate how much you had drunk when, so they had to let it slide.

Drink drivers are murderers in training. If they get door knocked, they'll get no sympathy from me.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2307752 29-Aug-2019 12:15

KrazyKid:

Sure he won his case - but what did he spend chasing it to the high court - $5k???
Plus stress and time.

That's a large incentive (aka fine) to much sure do it you don't do it again.

He also cost us, the taxpayers, a fortune in police time and in legal representation, court time etc that we all had to pay for...

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2307764 29-Aug-2019 12:22

Geektastic:

Drink drivers are murderers in training. If they get door knocked, they'll get no sympathy from me.

I've never understood why the law gives drunk drivers such a huge free pass.. If I get drunk and endanger the public with a gun, crossbow, machete, etc jail is a strong possibility, if I get drunk and injure or kill someone with one it's almost a certainty.. Yet get drunk and endanger the public or injure/kill them with a vehicle and it's time for a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket and a few months Home D.

You'd almost think the law had been written by alcoholics.. oh wait..it was..

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

rugrat

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 944

Lifetime subscriber

#2307765 29-Aug-2019 12:22

If police could test you on the word of a neighbour without pursuit, how do they know that it wasn’t drinks
had at house?

Asking for in general case, as people seem to be in support of police testing someone in their bed.

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969

#2307803 29-Aug-2019 13:37

There was a chap a couple of years back who was being pursued, gave the police the slip and made it home ahead of them, when they knocked on the door he answered while drinking bourbon. They breath & blood tested him, and not surprisingly, he was over the limit, but he successfully argued that the Police had no proof that he was over the limit while he was driving and it wasn't the drink(s) he had when he got home that did it.

This is one of the reasons that the Police very much like to have their chat with you before you get indoors.

However, I don't see much use in them testing for alcohol unless they have been watching you from the second the car pulls into the driveway. Pursuit, or no pursuit, if they don't witness you getting out of the driver's seat, then test for alcohol before you have a chance to calm your nerves with a wee dram at home, they have no case.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2307891 29-Aug-2019 15:20

1101:

frankv:

...Would it be OK for the police to pursue *you* into your bed if your neighbour suspected you? Or said they suspected you?

Yes it should be OK

Wow, you trust your neighbours a lot more than I trust mine.

pctek

807 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2307956 29-Aug-2019 17:34

tripper1000:

cruxis: More like the police should know the law.

So....... just how are the police to know weather or not the drunk driver standing on your property has the right to trespass them off of it?

Edit: spelling.

Whether. Not weather which is the stuff that happens outside, like rain or sunshine.

Cops know the law generally. They may try it, if they think they can get away with it.

But usually it means, like this, they lose in court.

weasel13

38 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 35

#2308050 29-Aug-2019 19:25

A simple solution would be to change the law, ever so slightly. The problem lies with there being no power to arrest for suspected drink driving, only a power of detention and a requirement to accompany for the purposes of an evidential breath test, blood test or both. The power of arrest only comes when the person suspected refuses to accompany, them they can be arrested.

The search and surveillance act 2012 allows for a warrantless search of a property to arrest a person if there are reasonable grounds to believe they are there. There are a couple of other requirements that come with this but discussing that will take up too much space.

If the Land Transport Act changed to allow a power of arrest for suspected drink driving then the search and surveillance act can be invoked to search and arrest that person. And to answer a previous posting re it being the neighbour that suspected him of being drunk, it is the Police that are required to have the suspicion not the neighbour.

Most Police Officers know the law, yes it should be all officers but with so many laws and anomalies mistakes do get made from time to time.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2308072 29-Aug-2019 20:09

Lias:

Geektastic:

Drink drivers are murderers in training. If they get door knocked, they'll get no sympathy from me.

I've never understood why the law gives drunk drivers such a huge free pass.. If I get drunk and endanger the public with a gun, crossbow, machete, etc jail is a strong possibility, if I get drunk and injure or kill someone with one it's almost a certainty.. Yet get drunk and endanger the public or injure/kill them with a vehicle and it's time for a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket and a few months Home D.

You'd almost think the law had been written by alcoholics.. oh wait..it was..

I agree entirely.

There is no excuse for doing it - none at all. The limit should be as close to zero as possible and the mandatory sentence for a first offence 12 months in jail without parole.

Every year, politicians line up to bemoan the number of deaths on the roads and every year they do exactly nothing about it.

raytaylor

4076 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1296

Trusted

#2308172 29-Aug-2019 23:13

I am 100% against this.

If the police have not got 100% proof that the person they are inquiring about was indeed driving the vehicle and drunk at the time then they shouldn't be on missions to create evidence.

I am also 100% against drink driving but I believe that evidence used against someone should be procured legally and be actual evidence.

In this case a reputable witness would be needed who has maintained visual contact with the defendant from the point of the defendant leaving the vehicle right up to the time that the breath test was completed so they can confirm the defendant absolutely did not consume any alcohol between those two points in time.

If there was not a witness who had maintained visual contact that whole time then I cant trust the breath test, or the officer, or the 3rd party who reported the erratic driving.

In most cases where the driver enters a private residence, there is no reputable witness who has maintained visual contact so there is no point in the police officer invading the private property to perform a breath test.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

Jeeves

301 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 90

#2308448 30-Aug-2019 13:21

Geektastic:

Lias:

Geektastic:

Drink drivers are murderers in training. If they get door knocked, they'll get no sympathy from me.

I've never understood why the law gives drunk drivers such a huge free pass.. If I get drunk and endanger the public with a gun, crossbow, machete, etc jail is a strong possibility, if I get drunk and injure or kill someone with one it's almost a certainty.. Yet get drunk and endanger the public or injure/kill them with a vehicle and it's time for a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket and a few months Home D.

You'd almost think the law had been written by alcoholics.. oh wait..it was..

I agree entirely.

There is no excuse for doing it - none at all. The limit should be as close to zero as possible and the mandatory sentence for a first offence 12 months in jail without parole.

Every year, politicians line up to bemoan the number of deaths on the roads and every year they do exactly nothing about it.

Because history has taught us that jail is the best solution for every crime, am i right?

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2308549 30-Aug-2019 16:52

Jeeves:

Geektastic:

Lias:

Geektastic:

Drink drivers are murderers in training. If they get door knocked, they'll get no sympathy from me.

I've never understood why the law gives drunk drivers such a huge free pass.. If I get drunk and endanger the public with a gun, crossbow, machete, etc jail is a strong possibility, if I get drunk and injure or kill someone with one it's almost a certainty.. Yet get drunk and endanger the public or injure/kill them with a vehicle and it's time for a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket and a few months Home D.

You'd almost think the law had been written by alcoholics.. oh wait..it was..

I agree entirely.

There is no excuse for doing it - none at all. The limit should be as close to zero as possible and the mandatory sentence for a first offence 12 months in jail without parole.

Every year, politicians line up to bemoan the number of deaths on the roads and every year they do exactly nothing about it.

Because history has taught us that jail is the best solution for every crime, am i right?

The problem only recurs if you let them out.

1 | 2 | 3