How to - Deal with LE.

[fortehlulz]

Side note from the Moderators of Australian Drug Discussion.

this thread has grown very rapidly in short amount of time, but we would like to remind people that the information provided here may be innacurrate. If you want qualified legal advice the best people to talk to are community legal centres or organisations such as legal Aid in your city.

another note is that there are also legislative differneces between states and also federally, very few people are qualified to give advice across all juristictions in australia (and usually they are high court justices). But this should not deter people from asking questions and doing a little of their own research into the matters discussed here
madmick19


Greetings. I am here fortehlulz... and I am here fortehlulz.

One thing I've noticed over the years is the horrendous quantity of disinformation which circulates within harm reduction communities regarding the powers, methods and priorities of police.

Well, I will endeavour to answer your questions. Not only that, but I will, hopefuly, be able to provide you with solid legislative evidence or a full explanation as to why a response is the correct one.

Have any questions you always want answered?

Hilarious examples of things which may be ambiguous include;

- If a cop says they aren't a cop, its entrapment (wrong).
- If someone smokes up/rails one with you, they can't be a cop. (wrong)
- The police can't get enough evidence to get my phone records. (hahaha... very wrong)
- X ammount is trafficking, whereas Z is only personal use. (yet to see anyone get this right)
- I'll gladly turn my pockets out and fuck off, plainclothes man thrusting what appears to be a police badge in my face and demanding I give up my shit, thank you for not charging me (more common than you'd want to think is possible - do you know what police credentials look like and how to tell an on duty detective from a half cut liar or off duty copper who wants your gear?)

Post em up, depending on demand, I'll answer them individually or if we get a recurring theme, I'll go into it in details.

"Excuse me, fortehlulz, but are you getting your lulz by being a cop and shafting us?"

Answer - Would a cop seriously answer questions, and back them up with real legislative evidence, which would be detrimental to operational security? Not likely.

"Why then, if you know so much about policing methodology and legislation, are you sharing it with us?"

Answer - forehlulz of course.

Hoping I can be of some assistance!

 

[Pistachio]

Answer - Would a cop seriously answer questions, and back them up with real legislative evidence, which would be detrimental to operational security? Not likely.

It is possible. I'm sure there are some that would because they realize the fundamentally unjust nature of drug laws.

But I think this can be beneficial and appreciate your effort. The first question, while browsing these forums, I see alot of people foolishly admit to being in possession of large amounts of drugs, sometimes with pictures, and even sometimes people admitting that they have or are intending to sell or distribute drugs. This always upsets me as it seems terribly irresponsible considering the police presence we are all aware of on these forums. How much evidence is required before the police can legally demand your personal information from bluelight and your ISP?

 

[JimiHawK*]

A member of the NZ NORML forums got raided solely due to his postings. Apparently the cops thought he was doing some major growing (i think he only got done for personal use?) knocked on his door with a search warrant and asked "Are you [forum alias]?" we have reason to believe you have drugs etc etc and quoted some of his posts lol...

 

[expothead]

I'm curious what your credentials are to be able to speak with authority on the points you mentioned.

P.S. Is your username supposed to be forTHElulz?

 

[ayjay]

^are you taking teh piss?

 

[fortehlulz]

I see alot of people foolishly admit to being in possession of large amounts of drugs, sometimes with pictures, and even sometimes people admitting that they have or are intending to sell or distribute drugs.

Here begins the first lesson - reasonable grounds/ suspicion. 'Reasonable suspicion' is something less than knowledge.

Example of reasonable suspicion - You have in your hand a green vegetable matter in an article commonly referred to as a 'gram bag' - the police member forms the opinion that, considering the manner in which you are possessing this vegetable matter is indicative that it is a drug, and he subsequently beleives this to be cannabis.

If you were to say to a police member 'Excuse me for fidgeting kind sir, but I have a trafficable quantity of a drug of dependance in my pocket', despite the fact that the police member has not seen your drugs, he has formed a quite reasonable suspicion that you do indeed have something naughty in your pockets. He doesn't need your permission to search you - he has reasonable grounds on the basis of your statement. (Want more? Refer to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal matter of R v Rondo 2001)

Such is the same if you are epically brilliant enough to discuss online 'how iz get teh mad FlIppAZ ohn satdee brah', or in person for that matter - the difference is, if your conversation on the street is not heard or recorded, it is lost to the ether. If you brag about your l33t crimez on teh internet however, your brilliance is recorded for posterity - be it by the site's DB, google bots, or the invisible proxy which you've had attached to you if you're a proper crim (that, however, is another story ENTIRELY)

The real question is, is it worth the police's time? The police force only has so many hours, tax dollars and resources to exhaust in a never ending effort to justify its need for more money... so, how do they determine what's worth chasing?

Every state has an e-crime desk, and a drugs unit. How often do you think the two overlap? Not that often, surprisingly. Drug squads target street dealers and traffickers. Contrary to popular opinion, the internet exchange of information about obscure rec drugs is not as important as catching out those flogging disco bickies or ye olde hammer and tack. However, when we get into talking about cultivate, manufacture or traffic (a broad term which needs to be examined in its own post another day) DOD, it is worth taking notice about. Because if you're discussing it online, you're giving all your info to posterity.

Consider two hypothetical case studies - Person A, and Person B.

Person A has no prior criminal history and was up until a couple of years ago, a good private school boy. He is now rumoured, however, to be involved in serious violence against other crooks. The intelligence being provided is not specific, and limited. Is he worth doing anything about? Despite the fact he may well be a bigger threat, the limited intel dooms this epic winner to the bowels of ISYS, the intel program, waiting for future information.

Person B has a prior history for possess DOD (Drug of Dependance). A couple of calls to crime stoppers are received that he is dealing a little bit of cannabis. Owing to his prior history of possess DOD, a pretext interception, ostensibly for an RBT (random breath test) of his car is arranged. After pulling the usuals off the rego plate and seeing who the vehicle is rego'd to, an IBR is requested on the fellow's name. He has priors for possess DOD. What a surprise... what's that the police member smells as he approaches the car? The scent of cannabis? Perhaps there's a cone on the back seat? This and the prior is enough to search the car... what's that, half a joint? Where's the rest mate? Won't give us permission to go tear your house apart and look through your wife's undy drawer you say? We'll go tell the Magistrate on you, how you have priors, reeked of weed, had dope in the car, and now won't let us search your house!!! You are clearly a danger to society!

(Good to see oversight and accountability work, isn't it?)

The law of the jungle is simple. Go for the easy pinch.

How much evidence is required before the police can legally demand your personal information from bluelight and your ISP?

Wanna see excellent law making at work? 'I need to see this information for the enforcement of the criminal law!' says epic win cop, wanting to know which one of his mates called him at 2am last Sunday. Section 178, Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.

Note that an authorised agency includes - the Australian Crime Commission, AFP, CrimTrac, all the various misconduct/corruption commissions and of course, the police forces of each state and others.
"Authorisations for access to existing information or documents--enforcement of the criminal law
(1) Sections 276, 277 and 278 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 do not prevent a disclosure of information or a document if the information or document is covered by an authorisation in force under subsection (2).

(2) An authorised officer of an enforcement agency may authorise the disclosure of specified information or specified documents that came into existence before the time the person from whom the disclosure is sought receives notification of the authorisation.

Note: Section 184 deals with notification of authorisations.

(3) The authorised officer must not make the authorisation unless he or she is satisfied that the disclosure is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the criminal law."

So... in answer - pretty much no evidence. At all.

 

[fortehlulz]

I'm curious what your credentials are to be able to speak with authority on the points you mentioned.

Your curiosity is noted. Thank you for your concern.

P.S. Is your username supposed to be forTHElulz?

Tehlulz is far more lulzy than thelulz. LOL.

 

[expothead]

^ showing my age again I guess. 8) I guess I also read it as some kind of powerful lulz - Lulz Forte

 

[fortehlulz]

^ showing my age again I guess. 8) I guess I also read it as some kind of powerful lulz - Lulz Forte

More a LOL duo forte!

 

[person]

If someone is that paranoid about posting on bluelight because of authority requesting ISP addresses etc, still seems fruitless (and i recall another post where admin stated cache/whatever is flushed after 2 days??..). Proxy address software and anonym redirector sites are old news like 2001 styles.

*all that good quality free gear/samples are really exhibits.
*that undercover cop who is shooting up meth in front of everyone, is actually only shooting up water.
*its old news but anyone can request a log of someones txt messages for a fee, same with the address of a licence plate.

 

[fortehlulz]

*that undercover cop who is shooting up meth in front of everyone, is actually only shooting up water.

O rly?

While similar legislation is in operation in every state, per the Crimes (Controlled Operations) Act 2004, Victoria;

Here's what the legislation is about, per S.1

"Purposes

The main purposes of this Act are-

(a) to provide for the authorisation, conduct and monitoring of controlled
operations (including operations conducted in this and one or more
other jurisdictions) for the purpose of obtaining evidence that may
lead to the prosecution of persons for offences and that involve or
may involve conduct for which participants in the operation would
otherwise be criminally responsible"

Snippity

"(c) to provide for the indemnification of participants in authorised
operations against civil liability in respect of the conduct of the
operations"

So then... what exactly does that mean someone can do in the course of a controlled operation? Probably some controlled conduct.

"What is controlled conduct?

In this Act, controlled conduct means conduct for which a person would, but
for section 28 or 35, be criminally responsible."

So let's look at the application of this shall we? Herr Plod may be authorised to do pretty much any criminal act necessary to sell themselves as not being police. Like what you ask?

- Use drugs, possess or even sell (yes, police can sell you real drugs if they want you badly enough)
- Engage in serious crimes with other offenders, including armed robbery (lucky they're indemnified against civil liability, isn't it?) and pay you your 'cut'.

But just how far does an undercover operation go, one may rightly ask. Well, it depends who's running it. It could be the local Regional Response Unit. It could be the one of the specialised units who are dedicated to this sort of work. It may even be the Australian Crime Commission - and you won't know that the latter was the case until that 'you must speak or do immediate jail time' summons arrives.

For an idea of the elaborate lengths which police will go to in order U/C you up, check out the High Court case of Clarke v The Queen from 2007. Clarke, a child tampering degenerate, was befriended at his work place, then engaged in a series of 'crimes' with a criminal 'gang'. The police got the media to run a story about it the matter which they wanted him for (a surprisingly common tactic designed to stir you into action or cause you to start talking about it, hopefully over a telephone intercept or LD (listening device), and then one of his 'gang' offered to fix the matter up, assuming he told him the truth.

While one cannot disagree that this guy deserved it - having now seen the extent to which police will go, one wonders how many innocent people will be berated into confessing to crimes they haven't committed in a similar situation.

*its old news but anyone can request a log of someones txt messages for a fee, same with the address of a licence plate.

O rly? In Australia? Anyone can get rego details or obtain text message records? Can you support that statement?

 

[space.age.sound]

OK so,

so far there has been nothing lol worthy in this thread. What's your real motivation?

 

[fortehlulz]

Clearly, your version of teh lulz and mine are different. :D

 

[Mr Blonde]

space.age.sound: I think the lolz are more for him, not us.

fortehlulz: Thanks for the posts you've made so far, good work.

 

[space.age.sound]

space.age.sound: I think the lolz are more for him, not us.

Yeah, I know.
Trying to see it from his perspective, and still not lolling.

Must just have a twisted sense of humor.

 

[anarky]

This thread is ftw. I'll contribute if fortehlulz decides to stop anytime soon.

 

[fortehlulz]

This thread is ftw. I'll contribute if fortehlulz decides to stop anytime soon.

I see that you too are South of the border [and therefore, a Mexican :D]

Take your pick on a topic and it shall be assaulted for all to see. Two heads are better than one - though teh internets does interfere with my ability to detect sarcasm, so you may be having a go :S

 

[Mr Blonde]

Do you know much about possession laws in QLD? I'm interested in what the amounts are for each level of charges for LSD, MDMA, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. Any others you know would be nice as well. :D

Also, what are the laws regarding having your car stopped and searched?

 

[johnboy]

How much evidence is required before the police can legally demand your personal information from bluelight [?]

The only personal information on Bluelight is what you post publicly and perhaps your IP address. The former is your problem. The latter, well we don't keep them on the server. It is deleted regularly.

But even supposing they did want it they can demand all they want. Inter jurisdictional requests like that are a nightmare. Sure they may make loud noises but there is little they can do.

Interested to know if fortehlulz knows of any Aus precedent for this. Is there any Aus case law that deals with websites hosted overseas? Last time I looked there was none, or at least nothing relevant.

 

[fortehlulz]

Question the first

Do you know much about possession laws in QLD? I'm interested in what the amounts are for each level of charges for LSD, MDMA, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. Any others you know would be nice as well. :D

You poor, poor bastard. QLD is among the WORST in terms of its 'black and white' legislation - in Vic, there are graduated levels between small quantity, trafficable quantity, commercial quantity and large commercial quantiy.

First... what is a drug in QLD for the purpose of state legislation?

The Drugs Misuse Regulations 1987 specifies a couple of different categories of 'Dangerous Drugs'. In Schedule 1, one will find a short list of the fun stuff - Coke, amphet, MDMA, Heroin, Lysergide, Methyamphet, PMA and PCP [obscure eh?]. Next, we have Schedule 2, a substantial list which includes benzos, steroids and similar. I won't get on to controlled substances, as these are precursors.

What is possession? Possessing is having an article in one's phsyical possession. Non exclusive possession may extend to an item being on land enjoyed by oneself and others. No line is drawn. Possess is possess.

What happens if you get pinged possessing? Well, that depends on what you've got, and how much you've got.

Verbatim, section 9, Drugs Misuse Act 1986 QLD.

"(a) if the dangerous drug is a thing specified in the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987, schedule 1 and the quantity of the thing is of or exceeds the quantity specified in the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987, schedule 4 in respect of that thing--25 years imprisonment;
(b) if the dangerous drug is a thing specified in the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987, schedule 1 and the quantity of the thing is of or exceeds the quantity specified in the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987, schedule 3 but is less than the quantity specified in the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987, schedule 4 in respect of that thing and the person convicted--
(i) satisfies the judge constituting the court before which the person is convicted that when the person committed the offence the person was a drug dependant person--20 years imprisonment;
(ii) does not so satisfy the judge constituting the court before which the person is convicted--25 years imprisonment;
(c) if the dangerous drug is a thing specified in the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987, schedule 2 and the quantity of the thing is of or exceeds the quantity specified in the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987, schedule 3 in respect of that thing--20 years imprisonment;
(d) in any other case where the dangerous drug is a thing specified in the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987, schedule 1 or 2--15 years imprisonment.
"

Schedule 3 (less fun stuff) and schedule 4 (coke et al) of the Drugs Misuse Regulations 1987 QLD cover how much is a 'particular quantity' of those drugs. As a start, this quantity for coke and smack is a whopping 2 grams, whereas the quantity for lysergide is all of 0.004 grams.

Your draconian laws really, really do suck!

Question the second;

Also, what are the laws regarding having your car stopped and searched?

The long version -
A search of anything, your vehicle or your person, must be based on reasonable grounds or a warrant, and must specifically relate to some thing or type of thing. There's no 'I'm now going to search your car becase I feel like it', there must be a pretext, no matter how flimsy. Such grounds may be found in acts related to firearms, weapons or drugs. A warrant has to be issued by a magistrate and there are all sorts of protocols involved. A 'reasonable grounds' search, however, can be on the basis of instinct which is then backed up with all manner of hilarious BS.

Example - your car is rego checked. If the rego is 'listed' (stolen, cancelled, recently expired and not yet cancelled) you have instant pretext for pulling the car over. The pretext for pulling you over may well be as flimsy as a 'random licence check' - the police want to ascertain that the person driving the car is licenced. Then will come all manner of fun and games depending on what a name check or, dependant on your state's technology is like, an MDT (mobile data terminal) check, reveals.

Your prior contacts with police, as well as other interesting information, will come up. This is not just your previous court dates - this is every time you have received a caution, been spoken to by a cop and had your name taken, been a victim - everything. Its ALL there. It doesn't go away after ten years, its always there. Got a gun licence? That'll come up. Ever resisted police? Been done for weapons? DING DING DING!

Let's say you're in an inner city area very early in the morning. Why are you there? Been out partying? How are you dressed? How's you're driving record? All of this goes to determine whether the cop will find some pretext to ruin your day.

The short version -
If they want to search your car because you looked at them sideways at the lights, they will find a way. Don't give them a reason to.