Know your rights: can police access your property?

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

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#255769 28-Aug-2019 15:09

As per the law and rightly so regardless of if you think it is wrong or not it is always good to know your rights.

Case in point this small article here.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/115341446/what-power-do-police-officers-have-on-private-property

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

1 | 2 | 3

481 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2307350 28-Aug-2019 15:10

More like the police should know the law.

floydbloke

3523 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2307380 28-Aug-2019 15:48

I prefer to not drink and drive so that I won't find myself in that situation.

Did Eric Clapton really think she looked wonderful...or was it after the 15th outfit she tried on and he just wanted to get to the party and get a drink?

tripper1000

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2307389 28-Aug-2019 16:09

I don't consider drink-driving a right.

I don't think the result of this case would go down well with the majority of kiwi's. The only people who think this is good will be people who intend to break the law.

This situation also came up in the late 80's and resulted in lots of suspects trying to hide on private property to escape police - most frequently, someone else's property.

tripper1000

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2307395 28-Aug-2019 16:30

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.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79270 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2307397 28-Aug-2019 16:39

cruxis:

More like the police should know the law.

They do have to know the law but they don't have to tell you. If an officer doesn't mention anything and you authorise a search or other access then it's legal.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2307434 28-Aug-2019 18:14

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.

That's not the point being made. The point is Police should know the rules engagement - I.e. requirement for a fresh pursuit before breath testing on private property.

toejam316

1466 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2307439 28-Aug-2019 18:33

Sounds like this is something where a bit of nuance lacking in the law is required - given the context of a Member of Public reporting suspicious circumstance and give enough information to identify the vehicle, the destination and the occupant, I'd think the officer should be able to take a test for the purpose of evidence, within a reasonable timeframe (i.e. action taken and test completed within 30 minutes of reporting). By word of law, the officer shouldn't have been able to access the suspect, but by word of law the suspect shouldn't have been able to be there.

Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2307453 28-Aug-2019 19:10

My understanding is it has always been that the police are not required to know the intricacies of the law, just the general gist of it. It is up to the courts to know the intricacies of the law.

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.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2307461 28-Aug-2019 19:26

Lias:

My understanding is it has always been that the police are not required to know the intricacies of the law, just the general gist of it. It is up to the courts to know the intricacies of the law.

The Police have to know the law to the degree they can apply it operationally, they absolutely must know their powers. The "gist" doesn't cut it. In this case there was an argument to be had that the person had no authority to ask them to leave, or his request was ambiguous. The law is clear that unless in fresh pursuit they only have common rights to enter property, once asked to leave, they must do so immediately, unless something else gives them lawfull authority to stay. The Police have some powers to enter and remain on property, by force if necessary, without a warrant, but this isn't one of them.

Some would see this as a victory for justice, I would rather see drunk drivers not getting away with it. Sometimes the law is an ass as the saying goes.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

rugrat

3107 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2307524 28-Aug-2019 20:54

How much is involved in getting a search warrant? Or would it take to long?

If not a fresh pursuit from article the officer would have had the power if had a search warrant.

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2307528 28-Aug-2019 21:13

rugrat: How much is involved in getting a search warrant? Or would it take to long?

If not a fresh pursuit from article the officer would have had the power if had a search warrant.

I assume they would have to apply to the courts for a search warrant.

I don't think it's a search warrant they would be after though it was the taking of a breath test.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

Oblivian

7297 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2307539 28-Aug-2019 21:49

rugrat: How much is involved in getting a search warrant? Or would it take to long?

If not a fresh pursuit from article the officer would have had the power if had a search warrant.

Bit backward isn't it. And you can see how people are up in arms.

Granted assumed search warrant status under Section 18/reasonable ground of suspicion in the misuse of drugs act to stop and search your car. But here, where the majority of us would think nothing of it being pulled over on the side of the road for being suspected of putting others in potential danger and being boozed. They're all of a sudden helpless and have people getting away with it simply for making a b-line to a property and standing ground :/

You have to wonder if its a repeat offender that had pre-done their homework.

As obscure as the one towies usually bet on. (circumstances if you show up and become 'in control' of property all of a sudden the old law they use is pretty much null and can't charge)

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2307649 29-Aug-2019 10:26

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

Drink drivers are people who deserve very stiff treatment and punishment and at the moment they get off far too lightly.

Bung

6480 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2307654 29-Aug-2019 10:37

I don't think the Police have a problem pursuing someone, it's strolling along after the event that's the issue.

The guy may have saved his record but taking it to the High Court would have left him with an eye watering legal bill.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2307663 29-Aug-2019 11:00

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?

1 | 2 | 3