Police not knowing the rules

Forums › Off topic › Police not knowing the rules

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 15

557 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#713892 8-Nov-2012 00:15

Kyanar:
joker97: the law is open to intepretation and needs to be tested

It's not really open to interpretation at all. It quite clearly says you can make a phone call if you're stuck in abnormal traffic flow. That's it. You can't text, take photos, use the GPS, play Angry Birds, or browse the internet. The NZTA website is quite frankly wrong in that FAQ - if you take it to court it will be the actual law that they use to determine who's in the right, and "ignorance is no excuse" (even if you're ignorant of the law because NZTA are ignorant of it).

I haven't read this entire thread but if it DOESN'T say you CAN'T do x, y or z but simply omits x, y and z then there does seem to be room for interpretation and it should be tested.

It's ordinarily not OK to make a phone call in a car, but in this instance assume it is OK. Logically if it is OK to make a phone call on a phone in this situation, why is it not OK to perform another function (that is not normally allowed) on the phone?

Also, whilst ignorance is no excuse, the NZTA are a government department that is charged with (among other things) promoting safe transport. If they are giving the public information that is contrary to what the law requires, I would expect a judge to take that fact into consideration. And if that is the case and their information is incorrect, it would seem to show that there is in fact some room for interpretation (as they must have interpreted it incorrectly).

(I don't know the particular laws in this case so I don't know how they are worded, but playing devil's advocate)

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#713925 8-Nov-2012 08:16

blair003:

I haven't read this entire thread but if it DOESN'T say you CAN'T do x, y or z but simply omits x, y and z then there does seem to be room for interpretation and it should be tested.

It's ordinarily not OK to make a phone call in a car, but in this instance assume it is OK. Logically if it is OK to make a phone call on a phone in this situation, why is it not OK to perform another function (that is not normally allowed) on the phone?

Also, whilst ignorance is no excuse, the NZTA are a government department that is charged with (among other things) promoting safe transport. If they are giving the public information that is contrary to what the law requires, I would expect a judge to take that fact into consideration. And if that is the case and their information is incorrect, it would seem to show that there is in fact some room for interpretation (as they must have interpreted it incorrectly).

(I don't know the particular laws in this case so I don't know how they are worded, but playing devil's advocate)

The law enumerates what you CAN do, not what you CAN'T. There's no room for interpretation. It says "if you are stopped for a reason other than normal flow of traffic, you can make or end a phone call". Specifically says a phone call - no texting, taking photos, or whatever. And to be perfectly honest the way I see it the ticket was justified - taking a photo is ridiculously dangerous as you are not focused on the directions from the traffic controllers and it would be very easy to cause another accident by being rear-ended by the car behind you who is paying attention, or slipping a foot off the brake and edging forward into the car in front of you - it happens.

(Also, someone else here mentioned you'd be in front of a JP not a judge - I've never had to appear in court before so I'll have to take their word for it).

To address another point though, yes - you would be perfectly fine if you used an actual camera, cell phones are specified by name. And yes, I do think this is stupid. In Australia, that would get you a ticket too.

LookingUp

440 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 88

#713929 8-Nov-2012 08:27

I haven't read the whole thread, but surely the point is "flow of traffic". If the cop would walk up to your vehicle and take the time to ticket you without pulling you out of the "flow" it was hardly flowing, or likely to flow, was it?

I'd take the line that the traffic was so stopped that the cop was at no risk walking around in it, and that any reasonable person would assume that they'd only do this if it was safe, and therefore not likely to start moving again any time soon.

That said, I don't like your chances of convincing them they're being a little over zealous.

Things are LookingUp.... A photo from my back yard :-)

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#713933 8-Nov-2012 08:52

Dratsab:
johnr: I'm still waiting for a ticket from about 1992 -93 my postal address has not changed and I keep checking the letter box (Well my parents do)

Statutory limitation is 6 months so you could've relaxed a long time ago - I trust you'll now sleep a lot easier tonight :-)

It is in, fact, effectively approx. 4 months as the infringement cannot be filed in a court until at least 56 days after its issue - so approx. 2 months after the claimed offence. 6 months less 56 days is approx. 4 months.

Addressing the original post -

It will be heard in front of JPs, they may regard an offence having been committed in the strict interpretation of the law, but they will probably think (as another poster has said) that the police officer was just a dick (and they may in fact know that he actually is) - how they will balance a policeman's vindictive dickheaded action wasting their time and yours against their interpretation of the law which they may think is grey in terms of the manner in which you were stopped I would not like to say.

The first thing to do is wait for the notice (it may never appear, after all the police do claim they are overworked

), if it does appear within 4 months write in an explanation as others have said, if that is accepted (often isn't even if all the evidence is against them, they will just sit it out until the last minute before the court hearing hoping you will cave) then fine, if not worry about the next move then.

EDIT: Meant to say, your case with the JPs may get stronger the bigger the delay between the claimed offence and the issue of an infringement notice. This is because the deterrent effect of the notice is eroded if time is allowed to elapse between the claimed offence and its issue.

johnr

19282 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2526
Inactive user

#713936 8-Nov-2012 09:00

More fun placing bets if a ticket actually shows up!

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#713939 8-Nov-2012 09:05

The law enumerates what you CAN do, not what you CAN'T.

Presumably you mean this particular law enumerates exactly what you can do... with a phone? (is that how it does it, by defining phone or cellphone?)

To address another point though, yes - you would be perfectly fine if you used an actual camera, cell phones are specified by name. And yes, I do think this is stupid. In Australia, that would get you a ticket too.

I think that stupid laws should also be tested.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#713942 8-Nov-2012 09:07

John2010: It is in, fact, effectively approx. 4 months as the infringement cannot be filed in a court until at least 56 days after its issue - so approx. 2 months after the claimed offence. 6 months less 56 days is approx. 4 months.

Wrong.

"After it's issue" is the key phrase here. Police have a limitation of 6 months to issue an infringement notice, or otherwise charge under NZ traffic laws. "Filing in Court" is a later and seperate step which doesn't even occur in the vast majority of cases.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#713965 8-Nov-2012 09:30

If the law is so black and white why are we arguing here and why are there lawyers why not only have police and judges

MurrayM

2502 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 742

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#713966 8-Nov-2012 09:33

Dairyxox: Another recommendation is that you get a hands free car kit cradle to support your phone, as it means the police will probably leave you alone.

So if I get a hands-free cradle (i.e. one of those holders that stick to the windscreen) I can make calls and text as much as I like while driving, providing my phone is sitting in the cradle?

Dairyxox

1595 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 455

#713975 8-Nov-2012 09:44

MurrayM:
Dairyxox: Another recommendation is that you get a hands free car kit cradle to support your phone, as it means the police will probably leave you alone.

So if I get a hands-free cradle (i.e. one of those holders that stick to the windscreen) I can make calls and text as much as I like while driving, providing my phone is sitting in the cradle?

The exact wording of the law was quoted earlier in the thread, the gist of it is, Yes, so long as you only have to touch/manipulate it infrequently.

I'd urge you to read up on this further so you understand. 'Knowledge is power' and all that bizzo.

TinyTim

1058 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 167

Trusted

#713977 8-Nov-2012 09:45

tardtasticx:

Next thing I know, a cop comes up to me and asks for my licence, so I show it to him, he writes down a few things, asks if its my car, so and so. Then says "Expect your ticket in the mail" and I replied "excuse me? What for?" (Keep in mind, he had not said anything prior to this, other than "Can I see your licence" and "is this your car". He said "don't text and drive" to which I replied "Well actually Im not, and the car is stopped" and he just walked off. Another thing to note here, he hadnt pulled me over, he actually just walked up to me because traffic was completely stopped.

-Sam

I think your last sentence here could be significant. If you get a ticket for using a mobile while in the flow of traffic, then is an officer allowed to do all that ^ while you're in the flow of traffic? I'd suggest he should have pulled you over to the side of the road out of the flow.

And is he sure you were using a phone? It could have just been a camera. Plenty of cameras look like phones if you don't look at them too closely. You have the photo right?

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#713988 8-Nov-2012 10:12

Dratsab:
John2010: It is in, fact, effectively approx. 4 months as the infringement cannot be filed in a court until at least 56 days after its issue - so approx. 2 months after the claimed offence. 6 months less 56 days is approx. 4 months.

Wrong.

"After it's issue" is the key phrase here. Police have a limitation of 6 months to issue an infringement notice, or otherwise charge under NZ traffic laws. "Filing in Court" is a later and seperate step which doesn't even occur in the vast majority of cases.

What I said is correct.

For most infringements (I can't say for the subject one, but it is irrelevant here) there is no specified time period in which the notice must be issued.

But, the infringement must be filed in court within 6 months of the date of the offence and 56 days must elapse between the issue of the notice and its filing in court (for reasons I hope are obvious). This leaves an approx. 4 month window from the date of the claimed offence in which the notice must be issued if it is to be enforced. If it is not issued in that time the claimed offender just leaves the police to file it in the court, which (I thought obviously, but apparently not to all) they cannot do as the 56 day requirement takes them outside of the 6 months from the date of the claimed offence.

I am sure you will find this set out somewhere on Justices site or elsewhere should you take the trouble to look. In any event as your exclamation of "Wrong" indicates you are set in your view I'll leave you with your opinion, but suggest that anyone with any doubts can follow it up with Justice for clarification.

EDIT: corrected typos as had used "notice" in an instance when meant "offence"

DoggNZ

437 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 9
Inactive user

#714005 8-Nov-2012 10:30

TL;DR but I bet this wouldn't have happened if the OP was using an Android.........

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969

#714057 8-Nov-2012 11:11

I think you also need to file a warranty claim with Apple about the iPhone - obviously the RDF (Reality Distortion Field) is malfuctioning.

keewee01

1743 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 204

Trusted

#714065 8-Nov-2012 11:14

BlueShift: I think you also need to file a warranty claim with Apple about the iPhone - obviously the RDF (Reality Distortion Field) is malfuctioning.

THIS!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 15