PDA

View Full Version : Perth - YOUR RIGHTS REGARDING SEARCHES



KostoN
13-03-2005, 23:04
According to http://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/infoaboutlaw/aspx/default.aspx?page=police\police.xml

I can tell police NO if they do not have any reasonable suspicion.

Correct?

My car got fully searched the other day for NO reason.



I posted here because there no specific Legal Q&A for each area...

VelocideX
13-03-2005, 23:11
You can't stop them searching you on the grounds of reasonable suspicion. You can lodge an objection which they have to record.

The problem is that if they find something it's going to be pretty hard to argue retrospectively that their suspicion wasn't reasonable =\

I've gotta dash, will post more later

armadilliO
14-03-2005, 04:03
Police WILL make up their "reasonable suspicion" if they don't like the look of you (or if you're acting "silly" which could be the effects of drugs!)

"We've had reports of break ins in the area"

"Does that smell like Marijuana to you, Officer Bob?"

If you're drunk \ wasted etc... the cops will try to intimidate you (those frikking lights work well.... blue and red flashes + maglite in the face. argh)
The idea is so you don't "object"

I thought the police had to tell you what they're searching for? Not just "EMPTY YA FUCKIN POCKETS" and see what they can nail you for?

eccitude
14-03-2005, 05:15
When the police make an arrest they should:


Tell you that you are under arrest;
Tell you why you are being arrested;
Touch you and ask you to accompany them or to stay at a certain place.


How gay does THAT sound? =D

KostoN
14-03-2005, 11:42
No shit hey thats what i was thinking...hahahahaha

dialated665
14-03-2005, 15:53
Dude.. a friend of mine was driving through balingup ( magic shroom country DOWN SOUTH ) about the time that the shrooms were popping up ! this guy is pretty straight and 35 yrs old.

he was minding his own business when the cops came from nowhere and pulled him up.

They demanded to search his car and its pretty hard to tell em NO because of there intimidating nature, these cops were prepared to search cars, they had tools and all that kinda shit...

they removed the seats frount and back, stearing wheel, all the plastics covering the steering colloum, center console, basicly if it came out it did !

anyways after they had conducted the search and nothing was found, they were like "ok nothing here have a good day"

but my mate asked them to reasemble his car but they had to leave ( to enforce the law or just piss pplz off cos there so bored)

so my mate was left on the side of the road with a pile of car interior net to him, he put back in what he could to drive home, then he took his car down to the local ford dearlship (the car was a ford) and asked them to re assemble the car.

the car was reassembled and broken items were replaced, my mate asked the dealership to bill the costs to the WA police force witch was what was done...

nothing was ever heard from the police about it so i guessed the cops paid for it !

the moral of the story... i dunno just thought i'lld share this wid ya !

Cowboy Mac
14-03-2005, 16:09
^^ don't take this the wrong way, but if you use the 'spellcheck' button and which is made available when you hit http://i1.bluelight.ru/reply.gif it makes it easier for others to read as blatant spelling errors dull your posts.

onetwothreefour
14-03-2005, 17:26
^^^ blantant? ;)

anyway, interesting thread. i think it's all a matter of attempting to assert your own rights without appearing to be smug. seriously, the cops are pretty much going to do what they want regardless of what you say, but the more you talk back, the more pissed off they'll be.

try to treat them nicely, even if they're acting like cunts, and you might have it better. still, if you KNOW they're violating your rights, don't be afraid to tell them/someone.

Cowboy Mac
15-03-2005, 04:44
Originally posted by onetwothreefour
^^^ blantant? ;)
haha! ;) and the crappy bl spellcheck didn't pick up the typo. great service I am talking up here!

Fry-d-
15-03-2005, 10:12
The bluelight spell check can't even spell bluelight.....

I'd agree with 1234 about being careful how much you object though. Its important to know your rights but if you give the impression your obstructing or keeping something from the police your going to make it worse for yourself.

scuba3951
17-03-2005, 03:51
what ever you do dont say "no" say something like "im sorry sir without a warrant i feel i would be violated" or something like that.. be aware of your rights!

drinky_mcbeer
17-03-2005, 17:04
lol i know this kid and he was proud bcoz today he saw c op car and they rolled rite past him. normally they always search him. he will just be sitting at a bus stop in broad daylight with no drugs on him and not doign anything at all dodgy or illegal and hell get searched.

MaDMAn_Project
18-03-2005, 03:30
Just a sidenote...

Failure to comply with a search request is generally considered "reasonable suspicion".

Only the guilty run.

KostoN
18-03-2005, 07:09
They don't have reasonable suspicion in the first place to search so the officer cannot predict if you're going to say no...


Do you get me?

armadilliO
18-03-2005, 08:56
normally they always search him. he will just be sitting at a bus stop in broad daylight with no drugs on him and not doign anything at all dodgy or illegal and hell get searched.

Tell him not to give the cops the finger in future :P

Or loudly mention "bacon" or other synonyms for pig

scuba3951
18-03-2005, 12:15
lol yer the "fuck police" shirt probably doesnt help his case

charlesbronson
18-03-2005, 12:57
Failure to comply with a search request is generally considered "reasonable suspicion".

Mate I must disagree with you there. We happen to live in a relatively progressive (relative to Zaire maybe...) Western democracy, and one of the foundations of our judicial system is the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

Refusing to give permission to an officer, or objecting to a search that an officer intends to conduct (if you reasonably believe it is unfounded), is your legal right, and is even your civic duty if you wish to preserve what civil liberties you have left.

A police officer may not simply search you for the fuck of it, and politely refusing to be searched - which is a very reasonable thing to do considering you are a free human being and citizen - in NO WAY whatsoever constitutes evidence that you are guilty of something. Just like refusing to answer police questions without a lawyer present does not incriminate you in any way. "You have the right to remain silent", undoubtedly everyone has the RIGHT to refuse a search where they honestly believe that the officer has no grounds for conducting the search.

Reasonable suspicion laws are a bitch, they can be seen as giving officers the green light pretty much any time they want to conduct a search of person. But even their search powers are curtailed by the relevant legislation, and even REASONABLE SUSPICION has a definition and guidelines that must be satisfied by the officer conducting the search if the search is to be considered LAWFUL. Having dreadlocks and refusing a search is NOT tantamount to arousing reasonable suspicion in a cop. I'll throw a link detailing this later on if anyone would like it, I'm in a hurry atm.

And even if some cops unfairly consider refusal to be their ticket to reasonable suspicion and subsequent searches, more people who are victims of this should follow up with a complaint to the Police Ombudsman or Council for Civil Liberties in their state. Especially when they were violated and nothing was found (drugs, weapons, whatever). Police are obliged to give you their names and the police station that they work from (upon request) if they ask you for your name/address and/or search you. Yes many police do pretty much whatever they want to, but only because there is not enough objection from citizens directly affected. If not directly to them, then at the very least complaints should be collected and presented en masse by Ombudsman or CCL to some authority for investigation. That is why it is important to take the time and get some free communtiy legal aid to guide you when you think a complaint against some officers would be appropriate. This doesn't mean when they search you, and find a smokin bong under your shirt, that you should complain that they took your billy and 1/4 oz. Only when they are rude/aggressive/abuse their powers etc.


Only the guilty run.

So what, you don't find the police intimidating even when you haven't done anything wrong? I do, and I'm sure there are plenty of people younger than myself who find them so intimidating that they foolishly but understandably run on impulse when approached by the cops. In the eyes of any reasonable person, or modern legal system, this is not an automatic sign of guilt - don't be quick to judge. Such thoughts must be purged from the minds of society and hopefully police too; that way less citizens will feel at odds with the police, and they won't be seen as agressors, but protectors instead, e.g. avoid the initial shit that causes things like Macquarie Fields riots.

MaDMAn_Project
18-03-2005, 15:54
I'm not talking about your rights to deny a search they are undeniable. I am saying that when approached by an officer who requests to search you if you refuse, it is "reasonable" for the officer to be "suspicious".

charlesbronson
18-03-2005, 16:24
Again man, I disagree; if you refuse to give an officer permission to conduct a search when you think that they are doing it on unreasonable grounds, it doesn't mean that they can then argue that because you refused to consent to an unreasonable search that you are suspicious and that they may search you lawfully. That is a mad fallacy.

If you really believe that what you are saying is correct, please provide a reference that shows that your opinion has its foundations in some legislation. Otherwise explain what you are trying to say, eg "when i refuse a search, the cop says 'how come, you got something to hide?' and then decides to search me anyway," in which case the cop does not have what courts define as reasonable cause (on this basis alone) to conduct a search. Be careful because you could well be providing misleading info to people who are reading this thread.

Biscuit
18-03-2005, 16:41
Mr Bronson is spot on. And even if they do find something, you say nothing, plead not guilty and have the Court declare your search illegal. Once that happens the evidence is evidence obtained illegally and only in some circumstances will a Court rule it admissible. With the discovery declared inadmissible, the case is thrown out, as there is no other evidence upon which to justify a charge (especially if you said nothing)

A High Court case Bunning v Cross sets out the factors which may result in a Court admitting improperly obtained evidence. Two important ones are the seriousness of the offence being investigated and the other is the level of impropriety of the police in obtaining it. Given we are talking minor drug possession vs a police officer blatantly abusing civil liberties, the Court will rule in your favour.

Whether you believe it or not, an officer turning up to Court and testifying he had a reasonable suspicion is not enough - the Court will assess the reasonablenes of this suspicion based on an objective standard having regard to the actual reasons the officer in his statement (or if necessary by oral evidence during a pre-trial hearing) had for conducting the search. That "he was walking with a swagger and looked nervous when I stroked my holster" is not enough for our Courts, especially for charges of this nature.

The day it is, is the day our society is no longer one any of us should be happy about living in.

downerface
19-03-2005, 03:37
i think what madman project is getting at is that refusing a search is not suspicious to the law, but suspcious to the police officers themselves.

having 2 mates that are cops i know for a fact and nothing will change my mind that if they want to search you they can search you, at the end of the day its your word against theirs

Biscuit
19-03-2005, 03:48
I do not deny that either. That does not mean that you cannot beat them though, and beat any charge that arises from it. Granted, for those that do not have the knowledge and the finances to fund a strong defence, it is an unfair situation. I certainly agree that the power lies with the police, but it does not mean an abuse of that power will not be acknowledged by a Court and acted on accordingly.

drinky_mcbeer
19-03-2005, 06:43
charles bronson itd b great if u post that link

cheers

charlesbronson
19-03-2005, 08:46
Originally posted by Biscuit
"he was walking with a swagger and looked nervous when I stroked my holster"

hehehe :D



Hey drinky_mcbeer here is that link (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/C63026718E87AA35CA256ECF00084AC4).

(I can't recall by whom, but I think that I first accessed that page thanks to a link from a post here at Bluelight. If that's the case, then credit goes out to whoever it was that threw the link up...they know who they are)

It discusses police powers in NSW, it's a good read. Just scroll down to the sections on searches, reasonable suspicion etc. It is probably similar to the legislation in other states, but anyone who wants specific info should definitely look up laws in their own state.

Like with drug use, the best way to protect yourself from 'rights-abuse' is to educate yourself, and try to safely put the knowledge into practice when the time comes. It will certainly come in handy one day.

MaDMAn_Project
19-03-2005, 15:49
I still say that if approached by an officer who requested a search that you refused, it would not be to far a stretch of the imagination for that officer to press you "what do you have to hide" , "wait we want to ask you some questions (name, address etc.)" and if they really wanted too, search you.

"Your honor on further questioning the witness became nervous and evasive."

Especially considering the circumstances you are likely to encounter a police search request in. It's doubtful you are going to get a search request on your way to the office at 9am Monday morning in a shirt an tie.

3am on Nightclub St. is a different story...

Most police actions are geared with this in mind

I'm not talking about rights or if they can or can't, the truth is if they really want to they will.

KostoN
20-03-2005, 09:03
You only have to give them name and address nothing else...


You don't have to say a word.


Does anyone have a link to the page about the law regarding police searches for WA? Would be great so we can gather some info which would be worthwhile.

yeahdude
21-03-2005, 05:06
YOUR RIGHTS REGARDING SEARCHES:
you can all sit round talking about your gay lil rights, but reality is you don't fucking have any, if the cops an asshole and your 17. Drugs are illegal and if you have drugs or have used drugs then thats reason and considering a minority of people on this site use drugs, i don't how this isn't just another law bending thread.

KostoN
21-03-2005, 05:45
Police can't search you without a parent/guardian next to you if you're 17 :)


I fucking didn't say anything about drugs...and your post made no sense whatsoever. Only a 'Minority' use drugs on this forum....but im pretty sure a minority is only a small amount....so don't know where you got that from.

How is this law bending? Its the fucking law, you can't bend it, maybe loopholes but really you're either breaking it you're not...police have to abide by rules too, after all they don't make them, they just simply enforce them. Its just nice to know the law...you know the fucking traffic laws don't you? Would you pay a speeding fine if you got say 6 points taken off you and a $600 fine if you were positive you weren't speeding? I think not....

Get some sleep.

chugs
21-03-2005, 05:47
huh? - sounds like a responsible thread that is talking about a citizen's right. Simply because most people don't actually utilise the rights our society provides them doesn't make them gay (rights that is). If a 17 year old is too stupid to make a complaint wouldn't that make it their problem, in they're letting the cops get away with it.

Just wanted to know though - if you took the cops to court for an illegal search would costs be given if you succeeded.

Also is the onus on the cops to prove that the search was legal or is it on you to prove that it was illegal?

umm yeh?
21-03-2005, 06:59
so basically you have to let the police search you but can only get off a charge in court if the police hasnt made an officail suspicion thingy? a car i was driving last time i got done for pissy was searched and the cop found a plastic bag in the ash tray and he was like ahh wats this then but wen he put the torch onit it was disposeable ear plugs, fuk i laughed then the went through the whole vehicle and he said he was gonna give me a yellow sticker then i laughed even harder cos the car had only done 900kms

MaDMAn_Project
21-03-2005, 08:18
I think regardless of "reasonable suspicion" if you are caught in possesion of drugs you're fucked.

You'd need O.J.'s lawyer to get you off on that one.

charlesbronson
21-03-2005, 10:36
^^(MaDMAn_Project) Wrong again man. If you are caught with a baggie that has trace amounts of, say, amphetamine left in it, and that baggie was found after an illegal and unauthorised search by a police officer, then you are not fucked - because the judge will probably reject the evidence based upon the fact that legislation was violated by the police officer who obtained the evidence AND because it is such a ridiculously minor charge (if it does end up going to court...).

Think of it this way - if a police officer busted down your door and searched your house without a warrant or permission because he saw you smoking a joint on the porch the week before, and found two ounces of pot under your bed, would your possession of a prohibited substance negate the fact that he broke the law himself in finding that evidence? FUCK NO! The situation is no different with illegal searches, except that it is easier for cops to get away with an illegal search of person than an illegal search of private premises, and alot of the time this is due to people being ignorant of their rights, or lacking the confidence (or will) to use and uphold them.

Why do you think they dick people around with sniffer dogs? If it is considered reasonable suspicion to look or act a certain way, or to fit a certain stereotype, why don't they just hang around Newtown or Oxford St and walk up to people and search them when they'll most probably find drugs or some shit? Because you need reasonable cause - so they manufacture it by using unreliable dogs.....that's another issue itself anyway.

As for people commenting on the real world situation, realise that you are just making an observation, not explaining how things are legally, eg:
I still say that if approached by an officer who requested a search that you refused, it would not be to far a stretch of the imagination for that officer to press you "what do you have to hide" , "wait we want to ask you some questions (name, address etc.)" and if they really wanted too, search you.

That is probably an accurate observation of what goes on. But try to understand that we are supposed to be protected from such abuses of power because we are all presumed innocent until proven guilty... and the law has provisions in place to prevent us from being victimised by authorities for looking a certain way or being out at a certain time etc. Objections and follow-up complaints when you are a victim of scenarios as described in the observation above are the best way to ensure that the system is tightened and that police are taught that it is immoral to misuse power despite the (usually insignificant) outcome; if there is a real need for greater provision of power, then let society and government provide new framework for how policing shall be conducted. But until then, don't throw your hands in the air and decide that because you were doing something illegal, or have done something illegal, that it is ok for a police officer to overstep the boundary that is assigned to him/her by your democratic representative in parliament, because ultimately if that mentality were to become widespread then even innocent people would frequently become victims of police overconfidence.



The issue was also discussed in the April 1999 issue of Policing Issues and Practice Journal which commented:

It is extremely difficult to explain what is meant by the term 'reasonable suspicion' beyond that the suspicion must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the particular case. Case law provides some guidance but courts tend to make their assessment on a number of factors rather than any single issue. Suffice to say that you should be prepared to explain why and how you developed your suspicion that the person should be subjected to a search and what you were searching for...Whether your suspicion is reasonable or not is a matter for the court to decide.82

Let's say an officer was questioned in a court and said "Well, suspect was walking along at 3am and looked nervous - I stopped and asked him to empty his pockets and he said no, so I asked what he was hiding and when he replied "nothing", I asked him again to empty his pockets and he again refused. So I searched him....for drugs."

That is the scenario many of you paint - do you think that if the case went to court, that the judge would be satisfied with that? I hope not, but then again I wouldnt be surprised if they were :\ . Police frequently use the excuse that a crime occurred in the area not too long before they stumbled upon you, and so you are to be subjected to a search. That, along with other factors, may be considered reasonable cause, and therein lies the problem.... because often they may be full of shit. But then I guess restrictions are placed on how thorough their search may be, what kind of crime it was etc, and ultimately if it went to the courts one could investigate whether or not any incident had actually occurred in the area prior to your detainment. Or they could just say that you reeked like gunja....that is the big problem with reasonable suspicion....what VelocideX said in the second post of this thread is the case much of the time, and that is why many cops feel comfortable to act on their own unreasonable judgements.

Oops, just after I wrote the above I found this:


The article went on to say that both the NSW Ombudsman and the Police Service Code of Practice for CRIME have 'expressed the view that it is unreasonable for police officers to stop, detain and search pedestrians under s357E(a) of the Crimes Act (NSW) merely because of their presence in the vicinity of an offence'.83 Officers were also advised in the article not to search 'people just as a matter of routine', and not to use special legislative search powers 'opportunistically' - 'don't use your power to search for knives to carry out a search when your suspicion relates to drugs'.84

Anyway, I don't like people justifying police abuse of powers by saying that we should be accepting of it since we are in possession of an illegal substance. Fuck that, I think it is unreasonable to think of myself as a criminal for walking around with two pills on me, and therefore I will not accept any search that falls short of being completely legal and within the limits of powers prescribed to police in my jurisdiction without objection. Apologies for the thick post....I need a good police beating to get me into line.

Fry-d-
21-03-2005, 12:20
You don't post often but when you do you make it worthwhile :)

charlesbronson
21-03-2005, 13:22
(Thanks for posting the thought mate, I appreciate the comment ;))

MaDMAn_Project
21-03-2005, 13:40
We're not talking about house searches we're talking about personal searches and I wasn't suggesting that a bag with trace elements of anything would land you a charge.

But walking around with a bag containing trace elements of amphetamine sounds pretty suspicious, no?

I believe that "reasonably suspicious" or not if you have drugs on and you get searched you're screwed.


Let's say an officer was questioned in a court and said "Well, suspect was walking along at 3am and looked nervous - I stopped and asked him to empty his pockets and he said no, so I asked what he was hiding and when he replied "nothing", I asked him again to empty his pockets and he again refused. So I searched him....for drugs."

That is the scenario many of you paint - do you think that if the case went to court, that the judge would be satisfied with that?

I reckon if the officer had a bag of pills they found on you the judge would be very satisfied.

I'm not saying it's right, it's not, it's fucked. I'm just saying it's real and if people think they can hide behind "reasonable suspicion" they're as deluded as people who believe in entrapment.

charlesbronson
21-03-2005, 15:02
Madman, I can appreciate what you're saying, and I am on a mission to overturn your loss of faith in the system that protects your civil liberty.


I'm not saying it's right, it's not, it's fucked. I'm just saying it's real and if people think they can hide behind "reasonable suspicion" they're as deluded as people who believe in entrapment.

Again, I must vigorously dispute your unfair labelling of people who understand the legislation behind reasonable suspicion as "deluded". I will do it the professional way and cite a case.

I have selected some particularly relevant and interesting chunks from this case transcript and reproduced them below.


Local Court of New South Wales
CITATION: Police v Adrian Ping [2003] NSWLC 15
JURISDICTION: Criminal
PARTIES: Police v Adrian Ping
FILE NUMBER:
PLACE OF HEARING: Wollongong Local Court
DATE OF DECISION: 17/12/2003



1 On the 19th May 2003 at Corrimal Adrian PING (d.o.b. 27.1.1983) was arrested and charged with the offences of (1) refuse to comply with request to search (Summary Offences Act…S.28A(5)), (2) resist police in the execution of their duty and (3) intimidate police officer.

2 On that day the three arresting police were taking part in “proactive tasking”. I understand that to mean that they were directed to work in a particular area because of recorded information as the number of offences committed in that area. As they drove in their marked police vehicle, they saw four males on pushbikes riding on the footpath. They were going in the same direction as the police vehicle. The males commenced to ride faster. The police thought this happened when the males noticed the police. The males rode through the next intersection against a red traffic light. The police waited at the red light then proceeded to follow the males.

3 By the time the police caught up with the males, they had gone 1 to 1.2 kilometres further down the road. The police vehicle pulled in front of the males and stopped. The police got out and signalled the males to stop. Two rode around the police, into a park and disappeared. The other two stopped. One of those who stopped was Mr Ping. He stopped on the roadway adjacent to the police car.

4 He was asked to get off the road and go to the footpath. He said “Fuckin get out of me way”. He was asked again and said “I’m not fucken movin.” The senior of the three police officers (Senior Constable West) then approached the accused and said “Adrian can you get off the road. I’m going to subject you to a knife search, as I believe by your actions of riding away quickly when you saw Police that you may be carrying some sort of weapon, the way you are carrying on now is also reinforcing this belief”. The accused replied “Mr West I just got out of gaol and the first cop I meet is you, ya fuckin kiddin”. Senior Constable West then formally demanded that the accused comply with the request for the search.

5 The accused refused to submit to the search. During the interaction with police he said “I just wanta go” and later “Ya touch me I’ll knock ya fuckin out” . Senior Constable West said “I’m going to conduct a knife search and if there is nothing there you can go”. He went to get the metal detector and he heard the accused say to another officer “Ya come near me, I’ll knock ya out, I’ll drop ya with one punch ya cunt”.

6 Senior Constable West returned and said “Adrian I’ve given you a fair go here, you are now under arrest for intimidating that officer and I still intend to conduct the knife search”. The accused dropped his bike and commenced to run. He was grabbed, struggled, placed on the ground and handcuffed. He was subjected to the knife search and nothing was found.

7 At the end of the prosecution case, the court heard submissions as to the validity of the search. Section 28A(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1988 provides:

(1) If a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a person who is in a public place or a school has a dangerous implement in his or her custody, the police officer may request the person to submit to a search comprising any or all of the following procedures: ……

8 The definition of a dangerous implement is

“dangerous implement” includes:

(a) a knife, or (b) a firearm (within the meaning of the Firearms Act 1996), or (c) a prohibited weapon (within the meaning of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 ), or (d) an offensive implement within the meaning of section 11B but does not include anything that is of a class or description declared by the regulations to be excluded from this definition.

9 The section then goes on and sets out searching procedures. The evidence of Senior Constable West was that his reasonable grounds for suspicion were that he was working as part of “proactive tasking”, that he had some knowledge of the sort of crime committed in the area, that the accused sped off on his bicycle when he saw the police, that the accused rode through a red light and that, when stopped, the accused was aggressive and refused to be searched. In addition, Senior Constable West said that he knew the defendant and he knew that he had a prior conviction for a knife offence.

10 The court held that the officer’s suspicion was not based on reasonable grounds. It is not enough for the officer to have a suspicion. The suspicion must be based on reasonable grounds. The test of reasonable grounds is an objective test. Streat v. Bauer. Streat v. Blanco. NSWSC 16.3.1998 Smart J. at p.11. Patrolling on “proactive tasking” does not mean that a particular person, without more, could be suspected of carrying a dangerous implement. The accused and his friends may have sped off on their bicycles for any number of reasons. A reasonable suspicion that the accused was carrying a dangerous implement could not be based on the perceived flight. His behaviour when stopped was aggressive and abusive. “ Bold and irritating conduct must be distinguished from conduct which might be characterised as suspicious” (Streat v. Bauer. Streat v. Blanco at p.13). The defendants in that case refused to get out of the car for several minutes; when they got out of the car they locked it but left the engine running; they challenged the police to arrest them or let them go; when they were not arrested they walked off; they returned at the request of the police; they refused to open the car; they lay down on the ground and curled up so that it would be difficult for the police to search [ed - good on them, clever way to uphold your civil liberties without causing shit with violence or abuse]. All this was described as “bold and irritating” but not enough to found a reasonable suspicion. The defendant’s behaviour – riding off, verbal abuse, refusal to be searched – is not enough to justify a reasonable suspicion that he may be carrying an offensive implement. Although the defendant had a prior knife offence, no details were provided to the court as the circumstances of the previous offence, the nature of the implement or the date of the offence. In any event, a prior offence is not of itself enough to establish a reasonable suspicion that the accused has a dangerous implement in his possession. To use an analogy, if a house is validly searched with a search warrant and a hydroponic drug system found with many cannabis plants, that does not mean that in 6 months time a search warrant could be validly issued because of the previous use of the premises for that purpose. There would need to be new information to establish reasonable grounds to suspect that drugs were again being grown on the premises. There must be reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused was carrying a dangerous implement. There were none. The request to carry out the search and the subsequent search after arrest were not based on reasonable grounds and were unlawful. The information under section 28A of refusing to submit to the search was dismissed.

Link (http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/irl32ed/5/doc)

(To the extent of my research, I have not yet found that this ruling was overturned or appealed. I am 99% sure it wasn't, but I'm covering my tracks just incase)

Now Mr Ping not only refused politely and firmly, which is the wisest way to do it, but he told the coppa “Ya come near me, I’ll knock ya out, I’ll drop ya with one punch ya cunt :X 8o” and the charge of refusing to submit to the search was still not upheld. This case exemplifies the difference between police as law enforcers, and courts as places of justice where legislation is taken seriously. I sincerely doubt that EVEN IF they had found a knife, that it would have been admissible as evidence. Anything short of a bazooka or dynamite vest wouldn't have been upheld as lawful evidence.....

But I can't take that for granted. If you are still not satisfied, I will eventually dig up one where evidence was found and then dismissed as unlawful. If I had some meth I'd blaze away all night, memorising the case history of NSW Local Courts. But I don't, and uni starts in 9 hours.

The proof is in the pudding MaDMAn_Project.

Just thought I'd add this (from same page as above):


13 Section 138 of the Evidence Act provides:

“Exclusion of improperly or illegally obtained evidence

(1) Evidence that was obtained:

(a) improperly or in contravention of an Australian law, or
(b) in consequence of an impropriety or of a contravention of an Australian law, is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way in which the evidence was obtained.

(2)………..
(3) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account under subsection (1), it is to take into account:
(a) the probative value of the evidence; and
(b) the importance of the evidence in the proceeding; and
(c) the nature of the relevant offence, cause of action or defence and the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding; and
(d) the gravity of the impropriety or contravention; and
(e) whether the impropriety or contravention was deliberate or reckless; and
(f) whether the impropriety or contravention was contrary to or inconsistent with a right of a person recognised by the Internationl Coventant on Civil and Political Rights; and
(g) whether any other proceeding (whether or not in a court) has been or is likely to be taken in relation to the impropriety or contravention; and
(h) the difficulty (if any) of obtaining the evidence without impropriety or contravention of an Australian law”


Originally posted by MaDMAn_Project
I reckon if the officer had a bag of pills they found on you the judge would be very satisfied.


A bag with a few pills obtained by police as the result of an unlawful search would most likely be inadmissible as evidence in court, judging by the Evidence Act s 138.

charlesbronson
21-03-2005, 15:14
And also....


We're not talking about house searches we're talking about personal searches and I wasn't suggesting that a bag with trace elements of anything would land you a charge.

I was using an analogy, trying to show that whilst both personal and property searches have foundations in law, abuse of personal search powers is more tolerated than abuse of premises search powers. Even though searching premises without a warrant is by its nature far more serious, abuse of either of those police powers should not be tolerated. So why tolerate having your pockets searched unlawfully when you wouldn't tolerate having your wardrobe searched unlawfully? Furthermore, a bag with trace elements of a prohibited substance would land you with a Possess Prohibited Substance charge, or caution, depending on the drug and the officer's discretion. Had you suggested that a bag with trace elements would land you a charge, you would have been correct.



But walking around with a bag containing trace elements of amphetamine sounds pretty suspicious, no?

Not as suspicious as walking around with a 40kg bag of amphetamine under your shirt and eating pringles?? I don't get it though....it doesn't sound suspicious to me, unless it's my girlfriend doing the walking and me looking for my trace elements....

Winterborn
22-03-2005, 00:46
Charles for those of us that might be slightly confused by this criss-cross of posts been made in this thread, could you advise us EXACTLY what to do if say... caught with a bad containing some reefer.

I dont want to get caught, say nothing, waste 4 hours being detained, go to court, tell the judge not guilty and for whatever reaosn have the evidence allowed.

MaDMAn_Project
22-03-2005, 03:54
Thanks for trying to restore my faith in the system Charles and I'm really enjoying our discussion here, the point i'm trying to make is that if you are in possession of drugs and are searched otherwise loose grounds for "reasonable suspicion" become extremely plausible as you are committing an offence.

The case you presented had a search which turned up nothing. In that case I am absolutely with you on the "reasonable suspicion" not being present.

Trying to argue your way out of a possession charge in front of a magistrate using the reasonable suspicion defence while the prosecution has a bag of pills, probably isn't going to work. Magistrates take a very dim view of people who try to loophole their way out of obvious convictions. Again you'll need to call O.J.'s lawyer.

Walking around with a bag containing trace elements of amphetamine doesn't sound suspicious to you!? How so...

Winterborn heres a tasty little loophole you might like... say "I just found the pills, I don't know what they are and I'm on my way to the police station to hand them in" You will need balls of steel, not being off chops or wearing rave gear for this one though.

charlesbronson
22-03-2005, 07:21
Winterborn

Well I can give you some advice, but know that I'm no legal professional, and what I know is learnt mostly from reading up on legal advice online and in publications, as well as legislation and stuff like that. Take my advice with a grain of salt, and confirm it for yourself and with relevance to your state/territory before relying on it in practice or in a police encounter. The advice below is adapted from my understanding of NSW legislation.

Let me offer everyone my first piece of advice (I'm hoping that advice such as this is not inappropriate....but anyway) - carry any illicit drugs that you have on your person INSIDE your underwear. That way, if you are overly intimidated by police, you may (but shouldn't!) submit to/or be forced to accept a search of your person (i.e. pockets, wallet, casual frisk) and the police will not find your gear - intrusive searches, like strip searches, require actions and circumstances that greatly differ from those of casual street stop searches. For instance, they must be conducted behind closed doors at a police station and by an appropriate officer - and most importantly, I think they may only be conducted AFTER an arrest has occurred, especially since you are not obliged to (and should not) accompany a police officer anywhere unless he expressly informs you that you are under arrest and are to be taken back to a police station.

If you do this, try to make sure that you aren't carrying a large amount of drugs, because if an officer decides to be extra thorough and grab around your nuts (or whatever genitals you house in your underwear) and happens to feel a huge bulge, he will ask you to produce it and you are obliged to do so (it all might sound pretty exciting to some folks, but recall what context this is happening in...). It is unlikely that an officer would grope your nads, but be on the safe side and only carry small amounts of prohibited drugs stashed there and you have a very very low chance of getting caught AS LONG AS YOU CAN STAY CALM and not let them do anything that you think they are not allowed to.....and do not volunteer to go anywhere with them, or to drop your pants and dance for them.....

Remember, you haven't killed or hurt anyone (hopefully), you have a few pills or some powder or buds, and you want to live the only life you are ever going to get the way you want to live it. There are people in uniforms out there who are willing to fuck you over without giving much consideration to the hypocrisy and futility of prohibitive and criminal legislation that they must enforce. They are not robots, they are human beings, and although they will justify fucking you over by accusing you of doing something illegal (as will other people), you should feel morally confident in your decision to object against unfair laws by engaging in a form of civil disobedience. What I'm saying is don't feel guilty about hiding things in your undies and getting away with it..... read on:

So, read my previous posts if you want to understand laws regarding searches and arm yourself with that knowledge so that you can reduce the risk of having drugs found on you. Prevention beats cure, but let's have a quick look at what your options are if you do get nabbed with, say, 2grams of bud.

In NSW, the officer decides whether they will issue you with a caution for cannabis possession, or (I'm presuming) if they'd rather issue you with a court summons where you will face a charge of Possess Prohibited Substance or something along those lines.... A caution will involve accompanying the police officer to the station so that you may sign the formal caution document; if you refuse you will be arrested and charged I guess... Also, I'm sure police throughout the state do other things too, and you can definitely believe that there are great cops out there who will just make you trash the bud in front of them and let you go with a warning. Such cops are probably few and far between, but I'm sure they exist, and big ups to them. (Note: in NSW I'm pretty sure that the caution system exists only with cannabis offences; 'harder' drugs might attract a mandatory summons; Read up on this....)

This (officer discretion) is incentive to be respectful and courteous to the police officer, in the hope that you just get slapped a caution or less, then go home after half an hour and pack up a big party cone of some other gear to celebrate the fact that you don't live in New York or Thailand. HOWEVER, being respectful and courteous does not mean that you have to answer questions that will incriminate you further.....be careful, and remember that the cops are not your buddies; be friendly, but also keep your guard up and don't talk shit - just tell them what you are obliged to, and if you want to answer their other questions take your time and ensure that you do not incriminate yourself or anyone else. E.g.

Cop: "Where did you get the yarnhdi sonny jim?"
You: "I found it at Bonzo Park/Coles carpark/in a cafe sir, I don't usually smoke drugs/narcotics/pot etc." <--- Dead end answer, they can't ask you about who the dealer was etc.
Cop: "You sure mate? You lying to me punkface? I oughta club you to death you junkie dope fiend...."

The third line is unlikely....but here is my point: you can still be nice, friendly, and co-operative, but RESIST any pressure that they put on you in an attempt to extract answers that will fuck you up. As long as you think, try to be calm, and give short direct answers to questions, they can cry all they want that they don't believe you, but just maintain that you are telling the truth.

But this is the issue - if you know your rights, and the search was conducted unlawfully, then the evidence uncovered in the above case would probably be inadmissible in court. In such a case, if you had big brass nuts (balls of steel as MaDMAn_Project says), you could refuse signing a cannabis caution, and take the matter to court on a summons, where you would be obliged to argue that the police prosecutor doesn't have a case because the evidence of 2g of pot should be rejected as per the Evidence Act (see previous post).

What a hassle huh? Fuck going through all that hassle man, WHO NEEDS CIVIL LIBERTIES ANYWAY! IT'S ONLY OUR FREEDOM TO LIVE HARASSMENT-FREE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE! We don't need a fair justice system! In fact, if we are going to put up with unlawful searches, why don't we change the NSW Police Force name to the NSW Gestapo! 8(

But I can relate: it is a massive hassle, you need time, and money (even if you win??), and brass nuts, and it's hard to plan out this grand idea of standing up to oppression with a 3m tall cop dipping his hands in your pockets..... Although you should always think of how you would feel sitting in a court room when the judge read out "All charges dismissed, the evidence is inadmissible".... You could then rise up, high five the judge, breakdance on the courtroom floor, throw the case documents at the police prosecutor, and bust out of court like a champion..... The fact of the matter is, many people don't want any hassle, usually because they don't even know a search was unlawful because they don't understand what authority police are and aren't given by the law, and so police will continue to infringe on everyone's rights in the hope of scoring a bag of weed or pills.


All in all, I can't tell you exactly what to do. That is your decision, and you should take all things into account when you make your choice - i.e. what the cop is like, how far you are willing to take things, whether or not the search was lawful, how important not getting a caution/charge is to you, how much you like your freedom, how strongly you believe in your right to partake in recreational enjoyment of chemicals etc. Here are some more sound tips to use as a general guideline so that you hopefully don't shit your pants next time you see that heart-wrenching police car pull up to you (it always makes me feel nervous and criminal, even if I have done absolutely nothing against the law).

-- You are not obliged to answer ANY police questions except to issue them with your true name and address (traffic stop rules differ). There are circumstances where you aren't even obliged to tell them that, research more if you want to know. Say something polite and firm, like "I don't think it is wise for me to answer any questions without someone who knows more law stuff around Sir, I won't say anything more after this. I would like to go if you do not need me any longer." or "If you have no reason to arrest me, I will immediately resume on my journey through life [you Dark Lord of hassling people for jack shit, leave me alone arsehole]"

-- You are not obliged to go anywhere with police unless you are placed under arrest. Police may not detain you against your will without placing you under arrest. They must have a real reason to arrest you, and must inform you of that reason, so always ask. Wrongful/unnecessary arrest is not smiled upon by police higher command or the courts (see Mr Ping court case below), remember this if you decide to call an officer's bluff of threatening to arrest you for not co-operating with demands that you feel are unreasonable (e.g. not submitting to an unlawful search).

-- This post is too mammoth, if you need more advice, contact your local Community Legal Centre for free and expert advice and legal aid. There are also some 24hour legal advice hotlines run by such institutions - you should call them for advice BEFORE talking to police if you get the chance. Be thankful that we live in a country with people who are kind enough to donate their time and effort to educate and help people, including those who society might view as 'scum' because they are poor/suffering from drug addiction or are victims of abuse etc, because all of us deserve to be fairly treated by the police and the legal system. Let the people giving out such advice on the phone and in legal aid centres know that you really appreciate their work.

-- Also, know that you may complain about unfair treatment at the hands of police. Direct your complaints to the Police Ombudsman in your State/Territory, or to the Civil Liberties Council in your State - Civil Liberties people are champions too, if you ever seek help from them, remember to be appreciative of and thankful for their social presence.

-- Use Google to search for legal aid, advice, Ombudsmen, Civil Liberties groups, and legislation pertaining to your state.

Links:

NSW Legal Aid Hotline for Under 18s (http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/asp/index.asp?pgid=65)
--- This is for Under 18s (different laws regarding police encounters) - there are other numbers available for adults in NSW, find those numbers if you are over 18 and need advice.


Legal Aid - Western Australia (Hotline Included) (http://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/aspx/home.aspx)

charlesbronson
22-03-2005, 07:35
If you have read the above post (and others of mine), note that the advice I offer is in the context of police persecuting people, just like you and me, for posession of small amounts of prohibited substances. I object to current laws, and hence think that it is fair to offer advice as above, and I also object to unlawful police searches and abuse of power.

There are many times when it would be beneficial to society for us to co-operate with police (i.e. you don't always need to uphold your rights to their full extent just because you have them), and for this reason I would prefer my advice be limited to police enforcement of drug laws.

For more complete and objective (less opinionated) advice regarding police and you in general, visit Legal Aid and Civil Liberties websites.

BigTrancer
22-03-2005, 09:23
Thank you so much for your posts, charlesbronson!! You explained it really clearly. You're so right that it really takes massive balls (+$$) to escalate an unfavourable police-search situation to a courtroom and try to have the evidence thrown out, but it may be the only option to clear your name because there's little you can (advisably) do at the time of the search besides pray that you stashed your gear tightly in your jocks and try to give them as little as possible.

BigTrancer :)

charlesbronson
22-03-2005, 09:49
/\ /\ Cheers BigTrancer!....... haha the gear in the jocks is the ooooooonly way I reckon..... just a word of warning to everyone: don't make the mistake of forgetting that you wore boxer shorts before deciding to pack your stash away safely, only to realise three hours later when you get home that only your factory-standard equipment is to be found downstairs! 8o


Originally posted by MaDMAn_Project
Thanks for trying to restore my faith in the system Charles and I'm really enjoying our discussion here, the point i'm trying to make is that if you are in possession of drugs and are searched otherwise loose grounds for "reasonable suspicion" become extremely plausible as you are committing an offence.

The case you presented had a search which turned up nothing. In that case I am absolutely with you on the "reasonable suspicion" not being present.


No problem at all MaDMAn, and I too am enjoying our discussion!

Thanks for clarifying the point you are making. Firstly, let me say that there is nothing written into the laws regarding Reasonable Suspicion or the Evidence Act that makes provisions for the variability of what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion' based upon the results of a search executed under 'reasonable suspicion' legislation.

Put simply, the judge is OBJECTIVE. It is the job of the judge to decide whether or not the evidence is to be admitted by first deciding whether or not it was lawfully obtained. It is NOT the judge's job to decide whether the outcome of an unlawful search justifies an unlawful search which was conducted without reasonable cause PRIOR to the police officer knowing ANYTHING about the drugs on the person searched.

The judge may allow the evidence to be submitted if it was unlawfully obtained, based upon the following conditions listed below.... That doesn't mean that the search is considered lawful - it just means that what was found in the search is far more compelling and important than the officer's violation of legislation in conducting an unlawful search. Hence, the finding will be admitted as evidence. Again, regardless of what is found, the law is clear about Reasonable Suspicion, and all legislation and definitions of Reasonable Suspicion are independent of the outcomes of unlawful searches. They stand alone as State Legislation. The reasonable suspicion must exist PRIOR to the search being conducted, and the formulation of this reasonable suspicion (and any judgements about whether or not it was reasonable) only consider what motivated the officer to conduct the search, not what was found.

Let me illustrate what I mean in the above paragraph with this hypothetical example. Let's say that a police officer conducts a (unlawful) search on Mary in a busy shopping centre without reasonable cause - Mary objected and resisted against the search, but the search was still carried out; this search is unlawful, fair enough. But the search uncovers a vest of TNT sticks beneath Mary's jacket. Mary goes to court and is charged with Refusing to Submit to Lawful Search and Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism or whatever. The judge would not accept a defense team arguing that the charges against Mary should be dropped as the evidence against her was illegally obtained; this is due to the serious nature of the evidence found and the charge laid, as detailed in Subsection 3 below. Hence, the proceedings would continue regarding the Terrorism charge, but the Refusing to Submit to Lawful Search charge would most probably be dropped. The court could drop that charge and still pursue the charge based on unlawfully obtained evidence because of the serious nature of the evidence.

Here is another scenario. Leon is walking down the street and is unlawfully searched by a police officer, despite objecting and then not letting the police officer conduct the search. Leon is arrested for Refusal to Submit to Lawful Search, found with two pills on him, charged with Possess Prohibited Substance and is summonsed to court. At the courthouse, the judge establishes that Leon was unlawfully searched and the first charge is dropped. The judge then finds that the evidence that builds the police case for the second charge against Leon was unlawfully obtained, and hence it should not be admitted as evidence, also taking into account the relative triviality of the offence - the judge concludes that court decision should not be seen to support misuse of police authority for the purpose of allowing such small offences to be prosecuted, and decides that it is in the public interest to reject the evidence rather than allow it to proceed. The police no longer have evidence against Leon, charges are dropped and he is free to go - but the poor bastard loses his two orange butterflies. Case Closed.

I must reiterate that this statement is completely misleading, and incorrect:


if you are in possession of drugs and are searched otherwise loose grounds for "reasonable suspicion" become extremely plausible as you are committing an offence.

Unless the police lie about their original reasonable suspicion, and then proceed to manufacture a false testament of the 'valid' reasonable cause that led to their search, doing so confidently after discovering the drugs. This boils down to your and your witnesses word against the statements of police officers. Again, this shows why it is important to make a formal complaint after being searched unlawfully, especially when nothing is found; if enough complaints accumulate about particular police officers who are prone to misusing their authority, then their credibility will be damaged in future court cases, they will not be able to lie and incriminate people unfairly, and they will eventually be reprimanded.


13 Section 138 of the Evidence Act provides:

“Exclusion of improperly or illegally obtained evidence

(1) Evidence that was obtained:

(a) improperly or in contravention of an Australian law, or
(b) in consequence of an impropriety or of a contravention of an Australian law, is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way in which the evidence was obtained.

(2)………..
(3) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account under subsection (1), it is to take into account:
(a) the probative value of the evidence; and
(b) the importance of the evidence in the proceeding; and
(c) the nature of the relevant offence, cause of action or defence and the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding; and
(d) the gravity of the impropriety or contravention; and
(e) whether the impropriety or contravention was deliberate or reckless; and
(f) whether the impropriety or contravention was contrary to or inconsistent with a right of a person recognised by the Internationl Coventant on Civil and Political Rights; and
(g) whether any other proceeding (whether or not in a court) has been or is likely to be taken in relation to the impropriety or contravention; and
(h) the difficulty (if any) of obtaining the evidence without impropriety or contravention of an Australian law”



The case you presented had a search which turned up nothing. In that case I am absolutely with you on the "reasonable suspicion" not being present.

I'll post a more relevant case when I find one, if the above explanation is still not convincing you.


Trying to argue your way out of a possession charge in front of a magistrate using the reasonable suspicion defence while the prosecution has a bag of pills, probably isn't going to work. Magistrates take a very dim view of people who try to loophole their way out of obvious convictions. Again you'll need to call O.J.'s lawyer.

What bag of pills? A small bag of pills obtained by a police officer who just arbitrarily tackled you to the ground and put his hands in your pockets? Fucking oath a magistrate would reject that evidence! Magistrates take a very dim view of police officers who do not follow the laws that exist to prevent police from getting too confident and doing a Rodney King here in Australia, seeing as though our democracy made the decision to create those laws, they are the collective voice of the state and its people and no magistrate would piss on their significance over a bag of pills. If a magistrate were to accept police violating the laws that govern their powers, it would be tantamount to supporting police corruption. You could call OJs lawyer, just bring a pair of pants with no pockets and get the lawyer to demonstrate that "There is no WAY that this bag of ecstasies belongs to my client - he didn't have any pockets when he was caught by police!" (the glove don't fit, says OJ. remember?)


Walking around with a bag containing trace elements of amphetamine doesn't sound suspicious to you!? How so...

Ofcourse it doesn't sound suspicious to me.... I'm a bluelighter! I'm frequently in the midst of good people walking around with bags of MDMA, methamphetamine, cannabis, and whatever recreational substance is available and enjoyed. In fact, if I was on the bus or something, and saw someone with a baggie of trace elements, I'd probably be LESS suspicious of them, and unless they had a hatchet or some nasty shit like that I'd go dip my pinkie in their crystals and strike up a conversation about something meaningful like the weather. Maybe you find it suspicious because its terrible Tuesday....how many biccies did you munch on the weekend you paranoid madman?? :)

MaDMAn_Project
22-03-2005, 15:41
Thankyou for presenting your argument on "reasonable suspicion" so well. I hope that you see I was trying to show worse case scenarios in these instances. Many people take what they read here as gospel, I'd hate to see someone all pumped up with "reasonable suspicion" forgo a quick pat down by officer friendly only to be dragged off when a harder search finds the bag of 20 down his/her pants.

Just in case anyone is wondering just what the fuck is reasonable suspicion here's what they have to prove, as you see it's a pretty fine line.


(ii) reasonable suspicion eg PPRA s 27(1): ‘A police officer who reasonably suspects any of the prescribed circumstances for searching a person without a warrant exist may, without a warrant, do any of the following – (a) stop and detain a person; (b) search the person and anything in the person’s possession …’; (iii) reasonable belief eg Criminal Code s 679
- suspicion: “more than a mere idle wondering whether it exists or not; it is a positive feeling of actual apprehension or mistrust, amounting to ‘a slight opinion, but without sufficient evidence’”, Kitto J in Queensland Bacon Pty Ltd quoted in George v Rockett at CLM 534.

charlesbronson
22-03-2005, 16:19
^^^ no worries.



And yeah, it does come down to a balance of considerations of circumstances taken by an individual in every unique encounter they have with the police. It really can boil down to a question of: co-operate with any police request so as to feign innocence and hope to not get busted vs. uphold your rights and teach police officer not to abuse power but face possibility of more hassle at the hands of the police.

That is why the best time to uphold your rights and be firm with unlawful police requests is when you are actually totally innocent of any offence, and you are not carrying anything incriminating on you.


From reading that case citation you posted above, it just reaffirms how easy it is for police to claim that they validly held a reasonable suspicion prior to conducting a search. That is why the game is ultimately ruled on by the fairest of umpires; a judge with bona fide legal education, training and experience, as well as an expert understanding of relevant legislation and due process.

Perhaps throw up the source of that quote so that we may read more?

MaDMAn_Project
23-03-2005, 03:06
Here you go, it's take from a criminal law lecture, it's not massive like most law docs but it's very concise.

http://www.law.bond.edu.au/laws215/021/lectures/Lecture%20Week%202-%20Search%20Seizure.doc

Hey if you can find an example of drug evidence being inadmissable due to lack of reasonable suspicion i'd love to read it.

thydzik
23-03-2005, 15:02
nice thread

great info guys

peeker
02-04-2005, 19:25
the otha day this guy pulled a knife on some1 at a party and cops came down and searching every1 cars, in one car they found some orange tulips racked up ready to snort and the owner threw the bag under his otha mates car. they searched his car and didnt find shit then they saw the bag and placed it on him. afterwards they searched the otha guys car whos the bag was under. in the boot they found a box of stolen goods and couldnt do shit! btw the mate with the pils is getting off on personal use coz the stupid copper crushed most of the bag!

rushraver
02-04-2005, 20:17
Originally posted by KostoN
Police can't search you without a parent/guardian next to you if you're 17

Having been in this circumstance some time ago(not for drugs,but i was naughty), make sure you tell them your a minor!
They were getting into some pretty heavy questioning with me before one of them realised the situation and it all stopped immediately...Thought i'd mention that because at the time i was shitting myself and would'nt have thought to say it.

Awesome info guys, thanks so much for putting your time and knowledge (lots of it) into this thread :D