Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cops were trespassing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cops were trespassing

    I am not sure what the law is here, nor would I be game to test it out, but ....

    Thursday, 27 December 2007

    Charges against a man accused of resisting arrest and refusing to give police his personal details have been thrown out because officers were trespassing on his property when they arrested him. The South Australian Supreme Court upheld a magistrate's decision to dismiss charges against Seaton man Alexander Dafov, who police had followed home after detecting him allegedly driving at 78km/h in a 60km/h zone.

    Police had appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing officers had authority to be on Mr Dafov's property and were not trespassing. But Supreme Court Justice Michael David upheld the decision, saying police misinterpreted the law they used to justify being on Mr Dafov's property.

    The court heard in October, 2006, police allegedly detected Mr Dafov travelling 18km/h over the speed limit on West Lakes Boulevard at Hendon. They activated their lights and sirens and followed the vehicle to a Seaton address where the car stopped.
    The officers approached Mr Dafov in his driveway and asked him for his personal details but Mr Dafov told them to "get off my property" and they were trespassing. They attempted to arrest Mr Dafov and there was a struggle.

    Justice David said the law had to state clearly if police were allowed onto someone's property and the section they relied on in Mr Dafov's case, relating to asking a driver to stop and answer questions, did not do so.
    "It means that if a person is on private property and does not consent to police presence, and the police wish to use this provision to obtain information, they need to wait until the person leaves the property to question him," he said.
    "However, one would think that in the circumstances of this case, the police could have used the vehicle's registration number to obtain the details of the vehicle's owner."

    South Australian Council of Civil Liberties president George Mancini said the judgment reflected the "private rights of the individual".

    Ozbiker - Cops were trespassing

  • #2
    Cip, you should have tried this one!!! I'll have to remember this one.... haha

    But seriously, I don't think it should have been tresspassing unless they went into his house or backyard to get him.
    Originally posted by kyliejane
    benjamin is nobodys friend. if benjamin were an ice cream flavor, he'd be pralines and dick.
    Originally posted by harns
    Good riders don't need insurance though, they can evade any situation

    BUY_MY_BIKE!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      how long do you reckon till thats changed?

      Comment


      • #4
        "However, one would think that in the circumstances of this case, the police could have used the vehicle's registration number to obtain the details of the vehicle's owner."
        I think the point is they could have gained the information using the numberplate.
        And not that you are able to run and hide in your house because you are being chased by police.

        Comment


        • #5
          10seconds
          You put the c*nt in country run

          Comment


          • #6
            I guess there would also be a line where your not stopping to try make it home would become a chase...

            Comment


            • #7
              I spoke to my brother who is a lawyer and he says that the report (like many media reports) has probably got the facts wrong.

              The most likely scenario is that the police couldn't convince the court that the person they arrested was the person speeding in the car.

              Let's look at why this person was arrested: He was arrested 'for resisting arrest'. ?! Normally, people are not arrested for doing 78kph in a 60 zone. The cops were being bully boys.

              So, what can cops do legally if they think you commited a traffic offence? Well, they can pull you up in your car and ask for your details, but they have no right to come onto your property (when you might be having a few beers in your back yard with your friends) and ask for your details - let alone arrest you.

              The right way for the cops to have gone about this incident would have been to find out who the owner of the car was, then go through the normal procedure to issue a fine etc.

              The magistrate did the right thing putting the cops in their place. It is better to have the odd felon go unpunished than to give cops powers that they would CERTAINLY abuse from time to time. Cops are only human and the law is structured to take that into account as regards how much power police have.
              Last edited by Spock; 02-01-2008, 10:54 AM.
              "Live Long and Prosper"

              Bayswater Martial Arts and Yoga Centre

              Comment


              • #8
                Corks, your thoughts?
                Work Buy Consume Die

                Comment


                • #9
                  sounds like by the time the coppers got to the house, the guy was out of the car and thus they couldn't PROVE he was the one in the car at the time.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by kwakas View Post

                    But seriously, I don't think it should have been tresspassing unless they went into his house or backyard to get him.
                    You are effectively tresspassing when you pass the letterbox of someones property uninvited fence or no fence.
                    In complete darkness we are all the same. It is only our knowledge and wisdom that seperate us. Dont let your eyes deceive you.
                    Its the little things that make the difference
                    Originally posted by IPIT on relationships
                    If either/both of you can take a dump with the other person being next to you within a week of meeting them then you're in with a VERY good chance.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Spock View Post
                      The magistrate did the right thing putting the cops in their place. It is better to have the odd felon go unpunished than to give cops powers that they would CERTAINLY abuse from time to time. Cops are only human and the law is structured to take that into account as regards how much power police have.
                      Spock I take offence to the fact that you believe that Police will CERTAINLY abuse powers they are given !! that is a MASSIVE generalisation and extremely unfair on the majority of the police force !

                      This report , even though incorrect as you have pointed out , is a classic case of some smartarse who deserved to be punished because he broke the law ! he got off because the police processed the charge incorrectly, not because they did anything wrong ! junior Police officers on the street are often caught up in the legal jargon and spin doctoring that defence lawyers use to get off a crime that HAS been comitted ! Police officers in pusuit of someone can enter any premises , including federal goverment land ! they just need to know how to process it correctly so as not be caught out on a legal loophole !

                      And letting off Felons !!!! you have got to be kidding me !!!
                      tell that to the family of the little girl raped and killed in a toilet block in Perth, when they 'let off' the criminal on a prior case because of Legal jargon which forces the police to try to do their job with one hand tied behind their back ! He stayed out of jail due to his excessive human rights and then took the life of a young girl ! tell the family of that little girl that the felons should walk free if the guy can afford a good enough lawyer !


                      That's as Stupid as you and Lolly being charged for Assault when you grabed the two people that broke into your house !!! because you didn't keep them in view %100 of the time , so it may of been two differnt people that were handed your stolen goods ! You had NO right to lay a hand on them ! and NO right to take the law into your own hands ! but I think %99 of police would of supported what you did if you ended up being charged with assault !

                      The guy speeding broke the law and should pay for it like everyone else has to !
                      Last edited by Tex; 02-01-2008, 11:16 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The guy broke the law and should be charged. But the police also broke the law in this case. Should they also be charged?
                        In complete darkness we are all the same. It is only our knowledge and wisdom that seperate us. Dont let your eyes deceive you.
                        Its the little things that make the difference
                        Originally posted by IPIT on relationships
                        If either/both of you can take a dump with the other person being next to you within a week of meeting them then you're in with a VERY good chance.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Aphex View Post
                          You are effectively tresspassing when you pass the letterbox of someones property uninvited fence or no fence.
                          actually, the federal laws state that any one has the right to access your front door without being trespassing. that's where dog owners that maul someone walking to the front door is at fault since they legally are allowed free access to your front door.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That being the case, the fellow wouldnt have had a leg to stand on.
                            In complete darkness we are all the same. It is only our knowledge and wisdom that seperate us. Dont let your eyes deceive you.
                            Its the little things that make the difference
                            Originally posted by IPIT on relationships
                            If either/both of you can take a dump with the other person being next to you within a week of meeting them then you're in with a VERY good chance.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              but the coppers didn't go to the front door, did they?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X