No need to stop if ordered too by police

[SB076]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/crimin...-1226039435393

Interesting article, does this mean we no longer have to stop if directed by police to do so???? Got to say what sort of a world do we live in when you have a legal rght to disobey authority?

[Jim Goose]

I think you will find this is a mistake in law by the magistrate....

All states have a police powers act.

In QLD:

29 Searching persons without warrant
(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;


30 Prescribed circumstances for searching persons without
warrant
The prescribed circumstances for searching a person without a
warrant are as follows—

(viii)evidence of the commission of an offence against
the Summary Offences Act 2005, section 17, 23B
or 23C; or

[Airmon]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

I think you will find this is a mistake in law by the magistrate....

In QLD:

I think you'll find the magistrate has a better idea on Victorian law then you do. And quoting QLD for a Victorian case is not going to help.

All your examples are not valid either, they pertain to searching (which has no barring on this case), arresting (which the police did not do), and prevention of offences, which either a) The offence had already taken plance and could not be prevented, and b) there was no offence, the police were called because there was an argument.

But at the end of the day neither of us are lawyers or magistrates and can only speculate, if a magistrate says it wasn't illegal then it mustnt be illegal. They have to follow the law, not make decisions based on how they feel at the time. That only works for sentencing :

[Jim Goose]

52 Prevention of offences—general
(1) This section applies if a police officer reasonably suspects an
offence has been committed, is being committed, or is about
to be committed.
(2) It is lawful for a police officer to take the steps the police
officer considers reasonably necessary to prevent the
commission, continuation or repetition of an offence.

[Jim Goose]

365 Arrest without warrant
(1) It is lawful for a police officer, without warrant, to arrest an
adult the police officer reasonably suspects has committed or
is committing an offence if it is reasonably necessary for 1 or
more of the following reasons—
(a) to prevent the continuation or repetition of an offence or
the commission of another offence;
(b) to make inquiries to establish the person’s identity;
(c) to ensure the person’s appearance before a court;
(d) to obtain or preserve evidence relating to the offence;
(e) to prevent the harassment of, or interference with, a
person who may be required to give evidence relating to
the offence;
(f) to prevent the fabrication of evidence;
(g) to preserve the safety or welfare of any person,
including the person arrested;
(h) to prevent a person fleeing from a police officer or the
location of an offence;

[xtremerus]

He should have been charged with not complying with a police direction. That might have stuck.
He was not resisting as he wasn't under arrest.
IMHO

[EDManual]

nice one!

Had a great lawyer obviously!!

[The G6ET Spot]

Originally Posted by EDManual

nice one!

Had a great lawyer obviously!!

Even the layer said the outcome was surprising, so obviously he thought he was going to lose.
Not unusual when you hear of some magistrates decisions though. Sometimes they just defy belief.

Mr Hamilton's lawyer, Thomas Bevan, relied on cases from Britain and New Zealand. He said the outcome was "surprising" but made sense.

"The ruling is clear in that if you haven't been arrested then you don't have to stop," he said.

Taco Bill manager, Fonsie Julius, said he received an anonymous cheque for the outstanding $136 bill a week after the incident.

like the Taco Bill manager saying he got an anonymous cheque. They must have crossed the name off the it.

[2011G6E]

Some years back in the mid-1990's, the Transport Department here in QLD wanted to get the power to pull over motor vehicles or direct them to stop at the side of the road...this would have been in unmarked cars, by guys with no uniforms.
Womens groups, quite rightly, instructed women not to just pull over for some guy waving you down claiming to be an authority figure, and even the police didn't like the idea, saying that if a car was trying to get you to pull over and it wasn't showing the flashing blues and reds or didn't contain someone in a uniform, or if you had doubts, don't stop but proceed to the nearest place of safety...preferably a police station, but a freinds house or very public place would be OK.

As for "freedom to run from police", the best way that would come about would be if the whingers who want high speed police pursuits to be banned could get thier way. Could you imagine what car theft and robbery would be like if, as soon as they exceeded the speed limit, the police were forced to let them go?

Hell, given the light sentences car thieves get, I would prefer the **** to die in a high speed chase with police...

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Hell, given the light sentences car thieves get, I would prefer the **** to die in a high speed chase with police...

Though I agree that they deserve that, the problem is that they usually take out an innocent person, so that's not really ideal to let the pursuit carry on. This thread is about running from police on foot, would be quite different in a car.

Originally Posted by yift

i know in victoria if you are being pulled over by an unmarked police car, if you dont believe its a police car you are legally allowed to drive to the closest police station within speed limits etc without being charged.

Good chance of pursuit but if you come across a set of traffic lights and the officer gets out of the unmarked vehicle to approach you, but then you drive away when the light is green, you would be charged.

[JG65TE]

sweeeeet. i mean sweeeeeeeeeeet.

[BHDOGS]

2011g6e i agree with your last line completely truer words were never spoken

[jpd80]

This guy is very lucky and the courts should move to close whatever loophole he slipped through.
Under this precedent, no shoplifter is allowed to be detained by police.

The magistrate responsible should be punished by reducion in rank and the decision reversed.

[GT-Pete]

And to think..... If the cops had yelled the magic words 'you are under arrest' out the window.... Maybe the case would have stuck

[ryanstev]

Mr Hamilton's lawyer, Thomas Bevan, relied on cases from Britain and New Zealand.

Sorry about that.

[pottery beige]

i'll remember this thread next time i dont feel like pulling over... yup... tyre spikes and a few STAR force lads bashing my skull in sounds like a good idea.......

[Rodp]

Begs the question;

How do you arrest someone without first stopping them?

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Begs the question;

How do you arrest someone without first stopping them?

*road spikes* ...once that gear starts getting pulled out you're not on their xmas card list...

[Jim Goose]

Police powers act is generally the same in every state....

If you honestly believe police have no right to detain you, good luck to you!
The Police made the mistake of charging someone with resisting arrest, which it wasnt. However it is still LAW that you must pull over when directed by police, or when asked to stop when they suspect you have committed a crime.

there was an offence, he didnt pay his bill and walked off.

But hey, like i said, if you want to believe its legal for you to walk away when directed to stop by police when they believe you are breaking the law then go for it.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Police powers act is generally the same in every state....

If you honestly believe police have no right to detain you, good luck to you!
The Police made the mistake of charging someone with resisting arrest, which it wasnt. However it is still LAW that you must pull over when directed by police, or when asked to stop when they suspect you have committed a crime.

there was an offence, he didnt pay his bill and walked off.

But hey, like i said, if you want to believe its legal for you to walk away when directed to stop by police when they believe you are breaking the law then go for it.

so if your walking down the street, police can interigate you? why.

cant be done in nsw either, police need probable cause and have to arrest you first..
refusing to talk is not resisting arrest..

[yift]

i know in victoria if you are being pulled over by an unmarked police car, if you dont believe its a police car you are legally allowed to drive to the closest police station within speed limits etc without being charged.

[Jim Goose]

I didnt say it was resisting arrest....

How about you look up the Police powers act in your relevent state and see for your self?

In NSW:

Part 3 Powers to require identity to be disclosed
Division 1 General power to require identity to be disclosed
11 Identity may be required to be disclosed (cf Crimes Act 1900, s 563)
A police officer may request a person whose identity is unknown to the
officer to disclose his or her identity if the officer suspects on reasonable
grounds that the person may be able to assist in the investigation of an
alleged indictable offence because the person was at or near the place
where the alleged indictable offence occurred, whether before, when, or
soon after it occurred.
Note. Section 201 sets out safeguards relating to such a request.



Division 2 Powers to require identity of drivers and
passengers to be disclosed
14 Power of police officer to request disclosure of driver or passenger
identity (cf Police Powers (Vehicles) Act 1998, s 6)
(1) A police officer who suspects on reasonable grounds that a vehicle is
being, or was, or may have been used in or in connection with an
indictable offence may make any one or more of the following requests:
(a) a request that the driver of the vehicle disclose his or her identity
and the identity of any driver of, or passenger in or on, the vehicle
at or about the time the vehicle was or may have been so used or
at or about the time the vehicle last stopped before the request
was made or a direction was given under this Division to stop the
vehicle,
(b) a request that any passenger in or on the vehicle disclose his or
her identity and the identity of the driver of, or any other
passenger in or on, the vehicle at or about the time the vehicle was
or may have been so used or at or about the time the vehicle last
stopped before the request was made or a direction was given
under this Division to stop the vehicle,
(c) a request that any owner of the vehicle (who was or was not the
driver or a passenger) disclose the identity of the driver of, and
any passenger in or on, the vehicle at or about the time the vehicle
was or may have been so used or at or about the time the vehicle
last stopped before the request was made or a direction was given
under this Division to stop the vehicle.
Note. Section 201 sets out safeguards containing requirements relating to such
a request.

Division 3 Proof of identity
19 Power of police officer to request proof of identity (cf Crimes Act 1900, s
563)
A police officer may request a person who is requested under this Part
to disclose his or her identity to provide proof of his or her identity.

21 Power to search persons and seize and detain things without warrant
(cf Crimes Act 1900, ss 357, 357E, Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s 37)
(1) A police officer may, without a warrant, stop, search and detain a
person, and anything in the possession of or under the control of the
person, if the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that any of
the following circumstances exists:
(a) the person has in his or her possession or under his or her control
anything stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained,
(b) the person has in his or her possession or under his or her control
anything used or intended to be used in or in connection with the
commission of a relevant offence,
(c) the person has in his or her possession or under his or her control
in a public place a dangerous article that is being or was used in
or in connection with the commission of a relevant offence,
(d) the person has in his or her possession or under his or her control,
in contravention of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, a
prohibited plant or a prohibited drug.

How much more of the act do you want up?

[burnz]

as stated; police need probable cause.
the only thing realavent you posted is,,,

A police officer may request a person whose identity is unknown to the
officer to disclose his or her identity if the officer suspects on reasonable
grounds that the person may be able to assist in the investigation of an
alleged indictable offence because the person was at or near the place
where the alleged indictable offence occurred, whether before, when, or
soon after it occurred.
Note. Section 201 sets out safeguards relating to such a request.

and you need to read section 201..

everything else is a liability of the police, or they will be sued..

[GS608]

Originally Posted by burnz

as stated; police need probable cause.
the only thing realavent you posted is,,,

A police officer may request a person whose identity is unknown to the
officer to disclose his or her identity if the officer suspects on reasonable
grounds that the person may be able to assist in the investigation of an
alleged indictable offence because the person was at or near the place
where the alleged indictable offence occurred, whether before, when, or
soon after it occurred.
Note. Section 201 sets out safeguards relating to such a request.

and you need to read section 201..

everything else is a liability of the police, or they will be sued..

You do realise that Officers are protected by legislation and cannot be sued right?

[burnz]

Originally Posted by 5.0

You do realise that Officers are protected by legislation and cannot be sued right?

wrong, police are not above the law they cannot hide behind their badge..
ombudsman will tell you the same..

[Jim Goose]

And? Tell which bit in section 201 says you can walk off?

[burnz]

if i dont give probable cause for police i dont have to give them the time of day..
they are not a law unto them self, they do not have the power nor does the government..

[Streets]

Originally Posted by burnz

they do not have the power nor does the government..

I think you'll find they do.

[Jim Goose]

You need to re-read the act....
If you fit the description of a suspect that is all the cause they need.
They dont need EVIDENCE.... therefor they can stop you and ask questions.
This is how the eliminate you from their enquiries.
If you dont respond and walk off like someone to hide you will be arrested.
Which do you prefer?

Again, you are required to answer their questions.
They dont need evidence.
If they had evidence they would arrest you right away.
If you dont answer their questions you get arrested.

[Jim Goose]

Section 201:

(2C) If a police officer exercises a power that involves the making of a
request or direction that a person is required to comply with by law, the
police officer must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after making the
request or direction, provide the person the subject of the request or
direction with:
(a) a warning that the person is required by law to comply with the
request or direction (unless the person has already complied or is
in the process of complying), and

(b) if the person does not comply with the request or direction after
being given that warning, and the police officer believes that the
failure to comply by the person is an offence, a warning that the
failure to comply with the request or direction is an offence.

Clear now?