Perth - YOUR RIGHTS REGARDING SEARCHES

VelocideX

Bluelighter
Joined
May 26, 2003
Messages
4,747
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

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 13, 2004
Messages
972
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

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
184
Location
perth
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

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
474
Location
Perth
No shit hey thats what i was thinking...hahahahaha
 

dialated665

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
1,152
Location
South Western Australia
SEARCH

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

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 4, 2000
Messages
3,083
Location
Melbourne
^^ don't take this the wrong way, but if you use the 'spellcheck' button and which is made available when you hit
it makes it easier for others to read as blatant spelling errors dull your posts.
 
Last edited:

onetwothreefour

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 13, 2002
Messages
14,386
Location
Melbourne, Australia
^^^ 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.
 

Fry-d-

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 21, 1999
Messages
4,504
Location
Perth
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

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
19
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

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
832
Location
Perth
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

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
334
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Just a sidenote...

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

Only the guilty run.
 

KostoN

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
474
Location
Perth
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

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 13, 2004
Messages
972
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
 

charlesbronson

Greenlighter
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
147
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

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
334
Location
Melbourne, Australia
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

Greenlighter
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
147
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

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 27, 1999
Messages
1,648
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.
 
Top