Tweet
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
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
Comment