How to - Deal with LE.

[PsiloSubNaut]

I once secretly recorded a cop slandering a gay friend of mine (calling him a sissy boy and a fag etc.) who had been searched in Melb CBD and caught with 3 pills.

When i played back the recording the 3 officers got the fuck out of there and we continued on with our night

Now i always record my/friends run-ins with the blue light taxi drivers

I would go into more detail on your post slidewayz but the surfs up and i'm logging off

Suspicion is all they need so discretion pays

 

[puckboy]

^
Hah, nice work Psilo... that must have been a good feeling seeing the look on their faces when you played back the recording and basically gained the upper hand over them.

The inconsistency regarding police officers astounds me, some are really cool, friendly and understanding, while others are complete *insert derogatory insult here* type people and will try and charge you in any possible way they can.

But the differences in the way I've been treated by police on a number of occasions regarding drug-related matters is rediculous.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

You have raised quite a bit in that hypothetical Sidewayz and, like is so often in the law, there’s no black or white answer. But no, generally police don’t need a warrant to search yr car if they have ‘reasonable suspicion’ of a range of things eg that you have drugs, weapons, you have just committed a serious offence or about to etc.

What constitutes ‘reasonable suspicion’ is sort of complicated and any answer could go on for ages. For example I read a case a while back where police found drugs in a car and they admitted that they searched the car because it was driven by a young male, it was a ‘hotted up’ car that looked like it had been damaged at some stage and a rego check revealed it didn’t belong to the driver (it was a NSW case from around 2001 - I could look it up if your really wanted). They found drugs, but the driver argued it was an illegal search and he won in court, the magistrate finding that wasn’t sufficient ‘suspicion’ to do a search. I don’t have enough first-hand knowledge of cases of that kind to know how often police claim things like you have suggested e.g. “ I smelt weed”, or other examples eg “driver appeared drug affected”. However if they claimed something like that, and they found drugs, my guess is that you might be in for a tough time arguing it wasn’t a valid search. Fortehlzuz could probably tell you more, but he doesn’t seem to have been around much recently.

So as you can see there may be some repercussions if they don’t have grounds for a search and they find something, depending on why they say they did it. If they didn’t find anything there would also be some options, but unless the search caused you some sort of real issues eg they injured you, damaged your car or made your late for work and were fired etc I would think it would be a waste of your time pursuing it.

 

[chemi]

You have raised quite a bit in that hypothetical Sidewayz and, like is so often in the law, there’s no black or white answer. But no, generally police don’t need a warrant to search yr car if they have ‘reasonable suspicion’ of a range of things eg that you have drugs, weapons, you have just committed a serious offence or about to etc.

What constitutes ‘reasonable suspicion’ is sort of complicated and any answer could go on for ages. For example I read a case a while back where police found drugs in a car and they admitted that they searched the car because it was driven by a young male, it was a ‘hotted up’ car that looked like it had been damaged at some stage and a rego check revealed it didn’t belong to the driver (it was a NSW case from around 2001 - I could look it up if your really wanted). They found drugs, but the driver argued it was an illegal search and he won in court, the magistrate finding that wasn’t sufficient ‘suspicion’ to do a search. I don’t have enough first-hand knowledge of cases of that kind to know how often police claim things like you have suggested e.g. “ I smelt weed”, or other examples eg “driver appeared drug affected”. However if they claimed something like that, and they found drugs, my guess is that you might be in for a tough time arguing it wasn’t a valid search. Fortehlzuz could probably tell you more, but he doesn’t seem to have been around much recently.

So as you can see there may be some repercussions if they don’t have grounds for a search and they find something, depending on why they say they did it. If they didn’t find anything there would also be some options, but unless the search caused you some sort of real issues eg they injured you, damaged your car or made your late for work and were fired etc I would think it would be a waste of your time pursuing it.

Thanks for this great post, something I've also been interested in knowing.

I was pulled over for speeding in the highest bracket (45km+) recently and i had 1/4 sitting in the bag in passenger seat. i was sober. FYI 2am freeway etc etc

could have completely pissed myself. they didnt smell anything and i was just nice and frank about the offence and repercussions, no bs, just try to be very cooperative so i could get the fuck out of there ASAP and it was all good.

not really all good losing my license for 6 months, but i'd MUCH rather that then what it could have been...

 

[fortehlulz]

What constitutes ‘reasonable suspicion’ is sort of complicated and any answer could go on for ages. For example I read a case a while back where police found drugs in a car and they admitted that they searched the car because it was driven by a young male, it was a ‘hotted up’ car that looked like it had been damaged at some stage and a rego check revealed it didn’t belong to the driver (it was a NSW case from around 2001 - I could look it up if your really wanted). They found drugs, but the driver argued it was an illegal search and he won in court, the magistrate finding that wasn’t sufficient ‘suspicion’ to do a search. I don’t have enough first-hand knowledge of cases of that kind to know how often police claim things like you have suggested e.g. “ I smelt weed”, or other examples eg “driver appeared drug affected”. However if they claimed something like that, and they found drugs, my guess is that you might be in for a tough time arguing it wasn’t a valid search.

Sounds an awful lot like R v Rondo (2001) NSWCCA 540 (refer specifically to the judgement of Smart AJ at paragraph 53)

 

[fortehlulz]

somewhere near the beginning of the thread it was mentioned about pulling out a recording device when pulled over and asked to have the car searched.

mention that you are recording the conversation, politely decline the search.

do they then require a warrant to legally search the car without consent? or is there some other on-the-spot way that they can search the car?

No. Most search provisions where 'reasonable grounds' have been met specifically allow a search WITHOUT warrant. The crux of my posts is that where reasonable grounds are extant, permission is not sought.

this leads me to my next question, regardless of whether you were seen engaging in suspicious activities and are holding a recording device, if you politely refuse a search, will this no set alarm bells ringing? because, i would say it is a VERY rare thing for someone to refuse if they have nothing to hide, unless they just want to toy with the coppers, at which point they might decide to take either route and get an on the spot warrant (provided this is possible) OR arrest you and search the car (also provided this is possible)?

the second option seems like an easy one for them, going with any excuse, like the (non-existent) smell of weed from your car. (are there consequences if they arrest you and don't have anything to charge you with or any evidence??) And this would then satisfy them, because they could eliminate their suspicions beyond any reasonable doubt, and also fuck you right back for flexing your rights to refuse the search, when any reasonable person would be like ‘yeh ok’ cos they would have nothing to hide and would want to just get it over with.

Another amusing maxim of many an investigator. "Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing" - and while majority of people will cop an apparently unfounded search on the chin, you will set alarm bells ringing by whipping out the tape player. However, there are two distinct factors to this - the refusal of consent and the RECORDING of same. Cops out on the road, specifically those in Traffic Management (who are the most likely for the most part to be actively intercepting moving traffic) are usually there for a long, long time (its pretty much a dead end career move, but cruisy for the most part so if you don't aspire to much in policing other than a paycheque, its ideal) - they know lots of tricks and they use those tricks to their advantage.

When you refuse consent to search, you are saying to the cop 'fuck you'... usually not a good thing. When you pull out a recording device, you are saying 'your opportunity to do anything other than play this strictly by the book is finished'. Don't do the former without the latter.

Was watching “the force” on TV the other day. A couple of cops, by accident, saw, through a living room window, someone weighing out plant material. Knocked on his door, he refused entry, but the policeman said that he had suspicion and therefore a right to search without a warrant.

I guess this leads me to my final Q. Is it not just pointless to refuse the search in any case, because IF the police have enough suspicion (such as refusal to search combined with the smell of nonexistent weed) then they can anyway (and will fuck you much harder and search deeper into your car)

Its not pointless... they won't seek permission unless they need it. If they don't, they'll be straight into it.

And for the record, I saw that episode of 'The Force'... amusing because the end result for the gentleman indicated that he had prior drug convictions (he would've been eligible under WA's cautioning legislation otherwise).

 

[fortehlulz]

I was pulled over for speeding in the highest bracket (45km+) recently and i had 1/4 sitting in the bag in passenger seat. i was sober. FYI 2am freeway etc etc

[...]

not really all good losing my license for 6 months, but i'd MUCH rather that then what it could have been...

You were in a nasty position there... assuming you met the requirements for a caution, they're only given with police discretion. That discretion is far, far less likely to accompany an offence such as the one for which you were done.

 

[mepat1111]

Sounds an awful lot like R v Rondo (2001) NSWCCA 540 (refer specifically to the judgement of Smart AJ at paragraph 53)

If this isn't proof that this guy is a lawyer and not working for the cops etc. Then I don't know what is.

 

[chemi]

You were in a nasty position there... assuming you met the requirements for a caution, they're only given with police discretion. That discretion is far, far less likely to accompany an offence such as the one for which you were done.

Hey fortehlulz, thanks for your response. I always make sure to read your posts carefully.. =)

What requirements need to be met for a caution? I've had one previous speeding offence but no other charges or warnings (certainly no drug-related warnings). What do you think would have happened? It might make me feel better about losing license for 6 months !

 

[MrIbis]

fortehlulz;

I have a hypothetical situation;

Lets say someone has imported a substance - and it has been intercepted by customs, handed to AFP and so on. We'll refer to the parties as A party (the people who actually imported the substance), B Party (the people whom live at the address where the article was to be sent) and AFP

AFP then decide to raid B Party - and turn up nothing at these addresses, alas - they have the names of those actually involved, more than just the false name used to import x substance. lets also throw into the mix that x substance is lets say for example, mephedrone - not a prohibited substance, but covered under the federal analogue as an analogue of methcathinone.

Also, lets say the parcels were intercepted some 2-3 months ago - and no controlled deliveries or anything of the sort have taken place.

If AFP were to then raid the A Party whom they claim are the importers, and again find nothing, and no type of evidence to say otherwise - could the A Party be charged with any kind of offense if they did not admit to anything? Also lets say that B Party has provided no intelligence to the AFP.

Also, what by law - are they allowed to seize when turning up nothing at an address, like, computers, cell phones etc?


I figured this scenario would be important to anyone who has thought about importing drugs before.

 

[Luude]

Im sorry fortehlulz, but you stink like 5-0. the information you speel just reeks of being a cop/former cop.

I'd be weary of this fellow, sure his information is invaluable but the source of it is the concern.

 

[tyrael]

I can't see how people are saying fortehlulz's information is 'concerning' - read the thread, take it on board, be informed. Or....don't read the thread....simple.

you speel just reeks of being a cop/former cop

And if he is? What then..? This would be a negative thing?

 

[chemi]

It has been made obvious several times that he is some sort of criminal lawyer. He has referenced past cases on many occasions and his knowledge is nothing short of invaluable.

Now enough! There are so many posts questioning fortehlulz's roots and it is so incredibly irrelevant. The information he provides is great in quality and content.

 

[andyturbo]

Give the guy a break..

While i agree with Luude and personly feel he may be, or has been involved with LE, who the hell cares? If people feel worried by his thread they shouldn't read it, noone is forcing anyone too.

He does not ask questions about any members on here or try and pump anyone for personal info so why should we do different too him? His posts are interesting and very informative of current police practises as well as legislation and we should be greatful for this, whether or not his a cop, lawyer, garbage bin collector or even a lawn bowls club manager.

fortehlulz;
Also, what by law - are they allowed to seize when turning up nothing at an address, like, computers, cell phones etc?

Im interested too hear this answerd as well.

 

[phase_dancer]

FWIW, I've had communications with fortehlulz regarding another profession he has worked in. This was not the police or any similar government agency, although for reasons of privacy, I won't go into detail. I think comments by Luude and others are unfounded, but even if he did or does work for such an organisation, so what? In short, what andyturbo said.

As for his accuracy; we have other legal people popping into BL from time to time, and although they don't currently put in the same amount of time and effort as fortehlulz has over the past 12 months, I'm sure if there was some glaring inaccuracy, it would be picked up on.

I'd say thank your lucky stars someone is willing to put the time in to answer these questions. At a time when factual and informative posts form such a small percentage of overall posts here, IMO fortehlulz has made great contributions.

 

[MrIbis]

bump... please answer my question ftlz

 

[drug_FUCKED]

Is it legal for the police if you are an adult just walking the suburbs for them to pull over and ask you for ID. When you donig nothing wrong but walking to get a video. Then threaten to take me to lockup if i be cheeky... i just said what have i done. oh we doing random street checks.. they didn't even check my pockets!
I was well dressed and not ding a thing wrong.

 

[perthboy]

I think something similar has been already covered within the thread.
Vaguely I remember that they can't do something like that without having reasonable suspicion and random street checks certainly isn't a good excuse.
Did you end up showing them the ID?

 

[tyrael]

This was covered earlier. Simple answer is 'reasonable grounds'. That being said, were you a smart ass to them? If they want to find something to ping you with, they will.

 

[andyturbo]

I can answer this one. Police (in melbourne, and i assume everywhere else) have the right too ask you for ID anytime, anyplace anywhere for no reason at all. And if you fail too show it they have the legal right to take u into custody untill they have established who you are. I am 100% sure of this, it was section of study in legal studies during school that i remember. However asking too see you pockets is a different story.