A COURT ruling has cast doubt on police powers to randomly pull over motorists, the ABC has reported.

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by FlivverFord

I've been stopped many times with out valid suspicion. Maybe they stereotype me? Maybe they're bored! Both I suspect.

I do however respectfully demand to know why I was stopped, to which you'll always hear the same excuse...a random breath test!

The cops often make assholes out of themselves though, it's that little voice in their head that tells them they're better than everyone else. Well excuse me, police are humans too & I treat them as such, not some almighty powerful entity who has godly power of my free will.

If the police stop you, they must give you a valid reason. If they take your licence & sit in their car for 20 minutes without stating why, you have every right to approach them & ask them why.
If they get snippy & refuse to give a reason ( & tell you to go back to your car) you have the right to to instruct them to take your details & tell them you'll be on your way if there's nothing else (ie: if you're not under arrest).

They either offer up a reasonable suspicion or you can go, there's no inbetween!

I love when they ask where I'm going...I say "to see your wife", when they get snippy & tell you that's inappropriate, tell them their question was too. They'll send you on your way real quick!!!

Kids, this is a prime example of showing the incorrect attitude towards the police and ignoring official direction.

I hope your car gets a through going over each time you're pulled over, don't need smart ***** like you on the road.

[aussiblue]

Section 43 of the Qld legislation is also relevant

INVASION OF PRIVACY ACT 1971 - SECT 43

43 Prohibition on use of listening devices

(1) A person is guilty of an offence against this Act if the person uses a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation and is liable on conviction on indictment to a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.

Note—

If a corporation commits an offence against this provision, an executive officer of the corporation may be taken, under section 49A, to have also committed the offence.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply—

(a) where the person using the listening device is a party to the private conversation; or

(b) to the unintentional hearing of a private conversation by means of a telephone; or

(c) to or in relation to the use of any listening device by—


(i) an officer employed in the service of the Commonwealth in relation to customs authorised by a warrant under the hand of the Comptroller-General of Customs under the Customs Act 1901 (Cwlth) to use a listening device in the performance of the officer's duty; or


(ii) a person employed in connection with the security of the Commonwealth when acting in the performance of the person's duty under an Act passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth relating to the security of the Commonwealth; or

(d) to or in relation to the use of a listening device by a police officer or another person under a provision of an Act authorising the use of a listening device.

(3) A person referred to in subsection (2)(c) who uses a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to any private conversation to which the person is not a party shall not communicate or publish the substance or meaning of that private conversation otherwise than in the performance of the person's duty.

(4) The court by which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may, by its conviction, order that any listening device used in the commission of the offence and described in the order shall be forfeited to Her Majesty and delivered up, within such period as may be specified in the order, by the person who has possession of the listening device to a person specified in the order.

(5) If an order is made under subsection (4), the person who has possession of the listening device must deliver up the listening device under the order.

Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

Note—

If a corporation commits an offence against this provision, an executive officer of the corporation may be taken, under section 49A, to have also committed the offence.

(6) If a person contravenes subsection (5), whether or not a proceeding for the offence has started, a police officer may seize the listening device and deliver it up under the order.

[Franco Cozzo]

The local cops around here are quite good and have built up a good relationship with the community, but there is this new cop in town who came here last year and has been hassling everyone over minor offences and being a general anus on a power trip.

He pulled this during the fires in our area, started hassling people over minor things and threatened to pepper spray someone when they got upset.

He got sorted out at the pub though, there was a massive fight recently and he went out to it, and as soon as he walked in the door he got beaten up badly, knocked out and then his head stomped on a few times.

The other cops don't like him because he is messing up the work its taken to get the support from the community and this guy comes along and tries to undo it all with his power trip and holier than thou attitude.

I have a lot of respect for police, got to put up with the dregs of society, but they're humans like everyone else, if they want to act like morons then they can be treated like them, and this small community has already shown them that.

[Nova 8]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

In Vic at least you are required by law to give your name and address to the police when asked if you are driving a car.

From OP

A Melbourne magistrate has now ruled the Road Safety Act does not give police the unfettered power to stop motorists without suspicion.

Magistrate Duncan Reynolds ruled "there is no common law power vested in police giving them the unfettered right to stop or detain a person and seek identification details".

Without suspicion they shouldn't be pulling you over or continuing the investigation, once suspicion is gone they should let you go. If you get arrested because you match the description of a thief and they get the call the guy has been apprehended they don't continue to process you. You should be released immediately.

I got pulled over the other Thursday just gone on my way home from work because the cop thought I was on my phone, when he approached me and asked why I was on my phone I stated I wasn't and it was in my bag in the back. Upon showing him it was actually there he apologized for the misunderstanding, I said no worries and we shook hands and went our ways. No license test or breath test was done as I hadn't committed any offense or gave cause for suspicions. This is the way it should be done.

[aussiblue]

The only time I wished I had a recoding device was probably more that 10 years ago when a red headed middle aged bad tempered policeman in a paddy wagon pulled out on my left from behind a large van into my path on a roundabout (the paddy wagon was in the left hand lane the large van in the right lane so he could not see to his right and I could not see him) .

I hit the brakes and the horn and in retaliation for catching him out (he was very obviously at fault and I was lucky not to hit his wagon) he pulled me over, interrogated me about who I was, where I worked and where I was going and made me empty out my car completely while he searched through all my possessions in my car (spilling my bottle of windscreen washer liquid on my carpet staining it permanently), and eventually gave me a yellow stick for a few almost undetectable bubbles in the window tint in my passenger's side window. He also tried to argue that the visible fish oil on some of my panels was leaking engine oil; but I did subsequently find a small oil leak from the fuel pump gasket which I fixed before it went over the pits.

He had me on the side of the road for at least half an hour and all the while his young female offsider stood behind and pointedly rolled her eyes in disbelief - she was mostly impassive during the whole event except to support me when he accused me of driving erratically entering the intersection; when I pointed out that he was behind a large van and he would not have been able to see me enter the intersection she agreed that was the case and my car was not visible until they pulled out in front of me. I also got breathalysed.


He was clearly not happy with his offsider supporting me either and I wonder what passed between them after the let me go. Discussions about the incident with the DOT staff, relatives and others in the police force were along the lines of only bad police get the crap jobs driving the paddy wagon in their senior years; and I was left with a impression they had a good idea who the officer involved and he had a reputation for doing this sort of thing.

I got through the DOT vehicle inspection a week later with no faults found and complements on the condition of my car but there was a moment of panic a few days before when a front headlight failed and chasing up new headlights for a 1980 LC Lancer was problematic until I remember that many Mitsubishi trucks used the same square headlights.


In any event you take the swings with the roundabouts and rationalise it by thinking of all the times when you were young and stupid and were probably driving erratically or speeding and didn't get caught. The attitude of the woman officer also made me feel less aggrieved and victimised. If she had been active in the bullying search I would have felt much worse about it; it reinforced my view that most police are OK and just doing their job.

Just found my original post on this event when it happened here: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=92334 where I was being OCD about having the car 100% before it went over the pits.

[GREGL]

[QUOTE=aussiblue;5218717]Section 43 of the Qld legislation is also relevant[/QUOTE

Take note of the date , coincides with the height of corruption in this state ( pre Lewis). A tad out of date considering everyman and his dog records footage on an Iphone these days.

[Nova 8]

[QUOTE=GREGL;5219169]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Section 43 of the Qld legislation is also relevant[/QUOTE

Take note of the date , coincides with the height of corruption in this state ( pre Lewis). A tad out of date considering everyman and his dog records footage on an Iphone these days.

They modify the laws as they go, updating as needed. Quarantine laws are from 1901 but include the use of recording devices and mobile phones in international arrival areas.

[aussiblue]

Yes; it is indeed current legislation. See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/

[lucas2]

You can't assume privacy in a public place.

[Nova 8]

Originally Posted by lucas2

You can't assume privacy in a public place.

Considering you're allowed to take photos of almost all places available to the public eye as long as they are not of a graphic or indecent nature you are spot on. TBH it amazes me that QLD can introduce laws that surpass federal law on the matter.

http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheet...aphers-rights/

[ozpacman]

Originally Posted by Nova 8

Considering you're allowed to take photos of almost all places available to the public eye as long as they are not of a graphic or indecent nature you are spot on. TBH it amazes me that QLD can introduce laws that surpass federal law on the matter.

http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheet...aphers-rights/

It's a 1971 statute Nova so it's nothing new. My interpretation of it is that it becomes an offence only if you broadcast or publish the recording to all an sundry rather than people with a specific interest in it (solicitor etc). I've never heard of anyone being charged with it though.

I guess the intent of the legislation is to protect people against stuff like happened in the UK with the News of the world newspaper phone hacking scandal and so on.

Russ.

[Spurious]

Originally Posted by Stefan

It is obviously oblivious to you that when you give attitude to the cops you'll get it back too.

If you gave me that kind of attitude, your vehicle would be defected in 5 minutes flat....seems cops have more patience than I would have.

I doubt you'd have the balls to pull off the "I'm on my way to see your wife" line....

Obviously I'm aware of this, but I don't hunker down in fear of the boys in blue.

You can't defect a roadworthy, registered, insured vehicle.

As for the wife comment, I've said it before. The quick thinking cops immediately realize what you're doing & stop asking stupid questions.

It's not about "having the balls", it's about standing your ground, giving what you get. The main point is that if you're stopped for no reason & your vehicle is legal, why not speak your mind.
There's too many people in this world that don't.

[Spurious]

Megadeth said it best in "Symphony of destruction"....

"You take a mortal man, & put him in control, watch him become a god, watch peoples head'a roll".

I've had my share of run ins with snooty arrogant cops, that's why I have little tolerance for being stopped for no reason
If I am, then state your case, do your job & let me go.
Ask me to wait while you surf the web in your patrol car & I'm gonna' get ****ed!
Where I've been, where I'm going & what I'm gonna' do when I get there is none of your god damned business.

I got stopped for speeding years ago on my way home from work.
When I asked the cop to speed up the process of writing the ticket, he spent another 10 minutes debating with his colleague whether they should give me the ticket on the spot...or post it to me....REALLY !!!
Then started eyeballing my cars roadworthiness.

I'd been working hard all day painting the sealed up interior of a house in 35+ degree heat, I was in NO mood for crap!

THAT'S the type of cops attitude that fires me up. So what, I'm gonna be a sweetheart when they are assholes, I think not!

I have a family member who is ex- Tas police. I KNOW the type of attitude I'm dealing with when I get stopped. You either match it or hide in the corner muttering "oh please....be gentle" !

[lucas2]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Section 43 of the Qld legislation is also relevant

I don't think this applies. A conversation between you and a police officer will most likely be in a public place. Also if you are a "party" to the conversation there is no issue.

[Alan D Segal]

I'm curious as to why it is necessary for the article to mention that they were "two african men". Why not just say "two men"?

Was that part of the Police case for pulling them over? Clearly the reporter thinks so.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Alan D Segal

I'm curious as to why it is necessary for the article to mention that they were "two african men". Why not just say "two men"?

Was that part of the Police case for pulling them over? Clearly the reporter thinks so.

I'm outraged and offended by your sexist comments...why are you singleing out men?

By the way I'm being sarcastic.

People like you take political correctness to the stupid level. If they are African why not describe them as African?

[Alan D Segal]

Originally Posted by Stefan

People like you take political correctness to the stupid level. If they are African why not describe them as African?

Get with the times.

[Nova 8]

Maybe the men are not Australian citizens, citizens of some African country and driving on an African license, it doesn't really matter now does it.

Maybe they are white African men, wouldnt it be classed as racisism under all that PC BS to assume African must mean black?

[steve.zissou]

I'll link it:

may be they should have watched this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8


Cops have the hardest job in Australia (except for maybe the guys playing in the sandpit at the moment). If i get a cop thats obviously having a bad day i usually just tell him something to that effect.

Cops have guns, other cops and a significant legal resource (DPP). what have you got.

I am also a big libertarian and dont like the powers that the police and the courts now have these days - but........ you cant take it out on the cop, they dont make the law. Some times i will discuss this with a police office and in many cases they are quite conflicted about the right to peacefully go about your business and the police's need to investigate stuff.

and the court case wont change anything. A good cop can find a reason to not just stop some one any time any where, but to also bust them for something (easy when you have 100,000's of laws - hell - gillard bragged about creating 8000 pages of legislation in 2012 alone .......... but i am getting off track arnt I

[Alan D Segal]

Your Honour Nova 8 if it pleases the court I'd like to bring to your attention the following:

I contend that a reasonable person would expect the Police to know they needed a reason to pull someone over.

After all, the Police know their rights and powers pretty well. In fact a large portion of their training is on that very topic.

But, I suspect Your Honour that the police probably stopped them because they thought the driver was unlicensed, which I'm sure you'll agree isn't a bad reason on its own. But Your Honour, the devil is in the detail, or so they say.

The problem Your Honour, is I suspect that they based the decision to pull the driver over on that fateful occasion on how the driver looked, rather than how he was driving.

Of course a reasonable person would agree that if it was because he looked like a person of interest for another matter or because he was driving erratically they could be pulled over.

But if that was the case Your Honour why couldn't they just say it in the article? Nobody would care about that and we wouldn't be in this courtroom today.

But I think the elephant in the room Your Honour is that it is now it is a case where they can't say why they pulled him over. I suspect that that is because they pulled him over because of how he looked - that he looked unlicensed Your Honour.

Now we all know that that is not correct, that unlicensed driving comes in all shapes and sizes and colours and ages and has no particular look, so that is an erroneous reason to pull someone over. So they are saying it was random, which is where the problem is coming from because there is nowhere that actually permits random stops for no reason.

So Your Honour, this is either a case of a bad decision to pull someone over for no reason at all, or a reason that is not politically correct or acceptable. It is unAustralian Your Honour.

I rest my case.

At the end of the day only the police really know what went on so unless it all gets publicised further we're just guessing and talking about it for the sake of it.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by FlivverFord

I got stopped for speeding years ago on my way home from work.
When I asked the cop to speed up the process of writing the ticket, he spent another 10 minutes debating with his colleague whether they should give me the ticket on the spot...or post it to me....REALLY !!!
Then started eyeballing my cars roadworthiness.

You asked for that one.
Attitude test fail.

Originally Posted by FlivverFord

I'd been working hard all day painting the sealed up interior of a house in 35+ degree heat, I was in NO mood for crap!

And if they've had a bad day dealing with people with bad attitudes are they supposed to be nice when you're not?

If you give them a hard time they're going to give you one.

[Nova 8]

Originally Posted by Alan D Segal

Your Honour Nova 8 if it pleases the court I'd like to bring to your attention the following:

I contend that a reasonable person would expect the Police to know they needed a reason to pull someone over.

After all, the Police know their rights and powers pretty well. In fact a large portion of their training is on that very topic.

But, I suspect Your Honour that the police probably stopped them because they thought the driver was unlicensed, which I'm sure you'll agree isn't a bad reason on its own. But Your Honour, the devil is in the detail, or so they say.

The problem Your Honour, is I suspect that they based the decision to pull the driver over on that fateful occasion on how the driver looked, rather than how he was driving.

Of course a reasonable person would agree that if it was because he looked like a person of interest for another matter or because he was driving erratically they could be pulled over.

But if that was the case Your Honour why couldn't they just say it in the article? Nobody would care about that and we wouldn't be in this courtroom today.

But I think the elephant in the room Your Honour is that it is now it is a case where they can't say why they pulled him over. I suspect that that is because they pulled him over because of how he looked - that he looked unlicensed Your Honour.

Now we all know that that is not correct, that unlicensed driving comes in all shapes and sizes and colours and ages and has no particular look, so that is an erroneous reason to pull someone over. So they are saying it was random, which is where the problem is coming from because there is nowhere that actually permits random stops for no reason.

So Your Honour, this is either a case of a bad decision to pull someone over for no reason at all, or a reason that is not politically correct or acceptable. It is unAustralian Your Honour.

I rest my case.

At the end of the day only the police really know what went on so unless it all gets publicised further we're just guessing and talking about it for the sake of it.

Not impressed with what I said.... Welcome to how everyone else feels when they get PC spewed at them. Your Honour is a bit much, sir will do in future.

Wouldn't it be politically incorrect to force people to be politically correct?

As for the "Africans", I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to claim that they were pulled over to be defected at which point they assaulted police. For assaulting police they deserved to be punished either way.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by FlivverFord

Obviously I'm aware of this, but I don't hunker down in fear of the boys in blue.

You can't defect a roadworthy, registered, insured vehicle.

As for the wife comment, I've said it before. The quick thinking cops immediately realize what you're doing & stop asking stupid questions.

It's not about "having the balls", it's about standing your ground, giving what you get. The main point is that if you're stopped for no reason & your vehicle is legal, why not speak your mind.
There's too many people in this world that don't.

It's got nothing to do with fear or not speaking your mind, but simply common courtesy and respect towards another person.

[Maka]

FlivverFord, the police are human too & understand no one likes being pulled over or inconvenienced, if someone mentioned my wife in a derogatory way i would be not impressed at all & would be seeking a apology....

cheers, Maka

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by FlivverFord

Obviously I'm aware of this, but I don't hunker down in fear of the boys in blue.

There's fear, there's acceptance and tolerance, then there's stupidity and arrogance. Your post clearly showed the stupidity and you got what you deserved.

You can't defect a roadworthy, registered, insured vehicle.

You can if anything on your car is illegal, be it bald tyres or modifications deemed unroadworthy. Don't be so ignorant.

As for the wife comment, I've said it before. The quick thinking cops immediately realize what you're doing & stop asking stupid questions.

If this was said to me I'd be up for investigation by Ethical Standards for punching your lights out. You have absolutely no regard for other peoples lives or family. Again it's stupidity, arrogance and ignorance, you ooze it.

It's not about "having the balls", it's about standing your ground, giving what you get. The main point is that if you're stopped for no reason & your vehicle is legal, why not speak your mind.
There's too many people in this world that don't.

This I say to my wife and brother in law all the time, your mouths and attitudes get you in trouble far more than you realise and you wonder why people are they way they are to you. Flapping your gums at inappropriate times causes you more grief than its worth.

[GT014]

Originally Posted by FlivverFord

I've been stopped many times with out valid suspicion. Maybe they stereotype me? Maybe they're bored! Both I suspect.

I do however respectfully demand to know why I was stopped, to which you'll always hear the same excuse...a random breath test!

The cops often make assholes out of themselves though, it's that little voice in their head that tells them they're better than everyone else. Well excuse me, police are humans too & I treat them as such, not some almighty powerful entity who has godly power of my free will.

If the police stop you, they must give you a valid reason. If they take your licence & sit in their car for 20 minutes without stating why, you have every right to approach them & ask them why.
If they get snippy & refuse to give a reason ( & tell you to go back to your car) you have the right to to instruct them to take your details & tell them you'll be on your way if there's nothing else (ie: if you're not under arrest).

They either offer up a reasonable suspicion or you can go, there's no inbetween!

I love when they ask where I'm going...I say "to see your wife", when they get snippy & tell you that's inappropriate, tell them their question was too. They'll send you on your way real quick!!!

You would have to be the biggest idiot I've seen on here. With an attitude like yours, no wonder u get pulled over!

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by FlivverFord

Megadeth said it best in "Symphony of destruction"....

"You take a mortal man, & put him in control, watch him become a god, watch peoples head'a roll".

I've had my share of run ins with snooty arrogant cops, that's why I have little tolerance for being stopped for no reason
If I am, then state your case, do your job & let me go.
Ask me to wait while you surf the web in your patrol car & I'm gonna' get ****ed!
Where I've been, where I'm going & what I'm gonna' do when I get there is none of your god damned business.

I got stopped for speeding years ago on my way home from work.
When I asked the cop to speed up the process of writing the ticket, he spent another 10 minutes debating with his colleague whether they should give me the ticket on the spot...or post it to me....REALLY !!!
Then started eyeballing my cars roadworthiness.

I'd been working hard all day painting the sealed up interior of a house in 35+ degree heat, I was in NO mood for crap!

THAT'S the type of cops attitude that fires me up. So what, I'm gonna be a sweetheart when they are assholes, I think not!

I have a family member who is ex- Tas police. I KNOW the type of attitude I'm dealing with when I get stopped. You either match it or hide in the corner muttering "oh please....be gentle" !

I think I know where the problem lies. I have never been pulled over by an arrogant or snooty cop. But you have had many. Maybe its because when Ive done something wrong I just cop it.

[Evgeni]

+1 for respecting the police. They are easy targets to hang crap on, but touch wood you never get taken out by a drunk or speeding driver or have any other drama for that matter.

They will be one of the first people you will call when it all turns pear shaped.

...and they will be protecting you and your freedoms, no questions asked.

For what they do and what they put up with, they deserve alot more than what they get paid. Certainly a love job.

[Nova 8]

Originally Posted by Evgeni

Certainly a love job.

I know a lot of long term cops and sadly many of them are losing the love of the job, they are not happy with the direction the police force it taking. There is a real divide between the police and the general public and most of it can be put down to politicians, revenue raising and public access to video cameras.

[csv8]

"Queenslanders are being warned to comply quickly and fully with police orders as officers, unnerved by a stabbing attack in Melbourne, work to protect the community.

Police Commissioner Ian Stewart says the state's police will be nervous after a terrorism suspect stabbed two officers before he was shot dead outside a Melbourne police station on Tuesday night.

Mr Stewart says Queenslanders must understand the difficult environment police are operating in, amid the high terror threat level in Australia."
"I need the public to understand our police will be obviously nervous, particularly after the incident last night," he told 612 ABC Brisbane.

"Our police are going to be noticeably alert and they are going to be requesting people to be very compliant in their dealings with them.

"... so a lower tolerance to policing is something that, I'm sorry, the public needs to understand. We're in that state right now."

He said Queenslanders could expect police to carry out more pat down searches, and officers would be exercising a high degree of caution as they went about their jobs.

"I've asked my people to be hyper vigilant," Mr Stewart said.

"I've asked them to make sure they are prepared to be deployed and handle any situation as any sworn officer needs to be.

"So that means you will see officers regularly carrying their firearms and accoutrements more than perhaps the public has seen in the past."
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...24-10l7j9.html