Cooperating with an unlawful police search?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
This is an exceedingly slippery slope.
Printable View
Cooperating with an unlawful police search?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
This is an exceedingly slippery slope.
If you have a look at the reports out of the Tauranga port customs area, I think they lose 2 or 3 containers a year from what's in the media that just get 'removed' without the official process being followed. I recall 2 of these cases coming up in the media recently, the missing containers were not located. It's a dodgy 'volume' business but the notion that the borders are more porous than the official line would like us to believe is plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunteast
I'm shocked and surprised by this..... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by No.3
I'd say that a constable trying to do a warrantless search is not polite. If they have a whine then that's them being a smart arse.
[QUOTE]Quote Originally Posted by Tahr View PostQuote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
Being polite and cooperating when it will cause no one harm is not giving up your rights. And regardless, we always maintain the ability to enforce our rights when we really do need to. No one likes a smart arse, so why be one for no good reason./QUOTE]
I think you are both correct. Me personally most days Id just say sure, look away. But if I caught an attitude or felt the motive was insincere, it would be more likely to be a no with the question Reason?
I sit in both camps here. I along with a lot of others I imagine, seen all of those kids from the states where they start arguing with the coppers about their rights and it usually makes it worse regardless of it being right. I do understand it though.
The last thing we want is it happening a lot, nearly everyone complying because they are doing nothing wrong and next thing you know a few years down the track the rules get changed on the sly because we were all doing it anyway.
The next worst thing is they don't change the rules but you get a copper expecting compliance just because, someone says no and it gets pear shaped.
I would say that the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and the Arms Act 1983 apply (re vehicles being stopped and searched). The main aspect seems to be that the person with the firearm must prove they have lawful purpose. This applies to non restricted firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
I believe the threshold for using search and surveillance act powers, is they need to reasonably suspect that you are in commission of a crime against the arms act, or that you are preparing to commit one. It's not meant to be just a piece of legislation they can use to nullify all of your rights.
Excellent article, well put together and makes for very good reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brakelie
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
The social contract is that everyone obeys the law.
You, me, the Government AND the Police.
It's not complicated.
I think, at the end pf the day, you act how you want to act, the police will act how they want to act. If it comes to it, a Judge will sort out who is right and who is wrong.
As a law abiding licensed firearms owner, there is no need to prove you have lawful purpose. You have been deemed fit and proper during the license process. End of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrfants
At great personal cost to you, and non the policeQuote:
Originally Posted by inglishill
Not necessarily. I realise my comment lacked clarity. If you know what the Police are doing is testing the bounds of what they are lawfully able to do, or are outright being unlawful, then the comment stands. It was not a 'Do as you will" comment :)Quote:
Originally Posted by imaca
[QUOTE=whanahuia;1646126]Yes, this is where I sit. As I said we can choose to waive our rights and choose to enforce them. It's contextual and its a continuum. Arguing with the Police when you have nothing to lose seems pointless and confrontational to me. And from my experience will make things worse rather than better. You need to know when to give a little, when to give a little back, and when to dig your toes in. I expect that some Police don't understand the gun laws like they should, and that most gun owners know even less. Hardly a recipe for a black and white conversation on the side of the road.Quote:
Quote Originally Posted by Tahr View Post
Being polite and cooperating when it will cause no one harm is not giving up your rights. And regardless, we always maintain the ability to enforce our rights when we really do need to. No one likes a smart arse, so why be one for no good reason./QUOTE]
I think you are both correct. Me personally most days Id just say sure, look away. But if I caught an attitude or felt the motive was insincere, it would be more likely to be a no with the question Reason?
And to add. If I was a cop on my way home from a shift of dealing with thugs, domestic violence and road deaths and some smart prick started arguing and spouting gun law to me I would want to drag them out of the car and taser them. Even if they were correct. I would make a bad cop :)
Four years down the track from being vilified for the actions of an Aussie nutter and this subject of illegal firearms in this country still riles me. The Police (as an organisation ) whilst complicit in the actions of the Aussie nutter are not my enemy and those of them on the front line have my utmost respect and will enjoy my absolute compliance provided that they do not attempt any over reach. Chris Cahill on the other hand garners zero respect from me through his campaign of lies and deceptions and I would not cross the road to piss on him if he was on fire. “Know your enemy and know yourself”.
I think the best cops are borderline crims themselvesQuote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
yes undercover drug cops a few years back got to smoke the best so they knew what it was many I have no doubt really liked it
I can tell you with a high degree of confidence, having had experience trying to get clean data from Police for work, that any data they have will be recorded by district, have different data recording standards and event codes across districts, and only be useful for making generalizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidetrack
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Police data reveals officers encountered nearly 17,000 firearms in under six years
Take out the 3600 which weren't firearms but got added in so that they can juice up their numbers, roughly 12 400
12400 divided by 6 is 2066 per year
Because police don't seem to want to separate out what exactly the word "encounter" means I'm going to go by my dictum that I use when dealing with those eedjits that tell me that they have an invisible friend in the sky and say
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
Therefore, entering into the spirit of how police like to interpret their "data" , I'm going to include all times that police have pulled over someone transporting a firearm legally
Now I don't know how many times police pull people over per year but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say more than 2066 per annum
So what all this crap reported as evidence (and this word is doing some heavy lifting here) means can be summed up in an alternative headline which could well be equally true
"Police meet the public regularly"
Aww, isn't that sweet, bless
NZ cops are third world just like our roads and health care [emoji1787]
Sent from my Nokia X20 using Tapatalk
4BGeneral conditions of firearms licence
(1)
Every firearms licence is subject to the conditions that the holder of a firearms licence must,—
(a)
when using a firearm, act in a way that does not pose a risk to themselves or others; and
(b)
produce any firearm that the licence holder is carrying to a member of the Police on demand; and
(c)
permit a member of the Police to inspect all firearms in the licence holder’s possession, the place or places where the firearms are or will be kept, and the place or places where the ammunition is or will be kept, and, for those purposes, to enter at all reasonable times upon the premises where that place or those places are situated; and
(d)
permit a member of the Police to inspect the security arrangements in any vehicle used by the holder to transport the licence holder’s firearms; and
(e)
inform a member of the Police if, after the issue of the licence, any of the circumstances described in section 24A(1) apply to the licence holder; and
(f)
inform a member of the Police if their health practitioner changes, and provide updated details of the name and contact details of their health practitioner.
(2)
Subsection (1)(f) does not apply to a holder of a firearms licence who is a visitor.
(3)
It is the duty of every member of the Police exercising any power conferred by subsection (1)(c) or (d)—
(a)
to give at least 7 days’ notice of the proposed inspection under subsection (1)(c) or (d); and
(b)
to identify themselves to the holder of the firearms licence; and
(c)
to tell the holder of the firearms licence that the power is being exercised under subsection (1)(c) or (d), as the case may be; and
(d)
if they are not in uniform, to produce on initial entry, and, if requested, at any subsequent time, evidence that they are a member of the Police.
(4)
Subsections (1)(c) and (3) are subject to section 31A if the licence bears an endorsement made under section 30 or 30B.
Hi everyone.
The answer to the question of the right to inspect is in the legislation, all online and there for everyone to read. It is not a right to search only inspect as outlined within the acted and therefore limited to inspection only.
it's clear under this section that Police must give 7 days' notice of an inspection under section 24A (3) and this specifically relates to 24B (1) (c) and (d). This act sets out the obligations of the firearms license holder and the Police.
You have the right under the legislation to be given a minimum of 7 days' notice of an inspection. If there is no associated offence and the Police are relying solely on the Arms Act then any search without a warrant within 7 days is unlawful.
I am always surprised that many hunters have not taken the time to read the Arms Act and understand where the real danger lays with in the amended act. If you look at what is now included under section 24A, fit and proper person, it lists offences against the Game Animals council Act 2013, the Wildlife Act 1953 and the Wild Animals Control Act 1977, directly relating to hunting.
If your concerned about search without warrant under the Arms Act take the time to read these 3 acts and see how much power officers and authorized person have to search without warrant.
Evert hunter should have knowledge of the 3 acts as they allow you to hunt, it actually quite interesting.
Offences against these acts can be used to revoke your firearms license. The inclusion of offences contained with the 3 acts are specifically referenced in the Arms Act and you have to ask why, when the offending which led to the legislative change had no relation to hunting. When you read these acts, they are hunter and fisher specific.
The key to understanding legislation is to read the interpretations at the start of the Act as that is the legal definition of what is included in the act, which is often different to what you and I may think.
The provisions in the 3 acts give the authorized persons and the Police a very board range of powers to search without warrant.
Happy reading.
I will concede very quickly that I have a very small sample size of experience with Police probably due to obeying the law and having never been criminally inclined.......and from my limited experiences think most of them are actually pretty deent people, and will go as far to say of the many many interactions I have had with police over the last 30 or so years, I have met only a couple that I would class as not up to standard- and considering one of them was a fromer panda from the traffic dept who became a cop by default, that is a pretty good level of staff. (That would be mostly due to attitude probably learnt from his position as a Panda...) I have not met all of them and as with all professions I am sure there will always be a few 'bad apples' amongst them.Quote:
Originally Posted by NRT
Where they fall over is they, as a govt department, are underfunded, undertrained and put under pressure to support their heirachy which has been politicised and manipulated by their administration and political managers who are all seemingly wanting to become richer and more influential and are clearly not in the Police for the same reason as 90% of their officers.....
to tell the holder of the firearms licence that the power is being exercised under subsection (1)(c) or (d), as the case may be;
Before they search you they have to tell you the above. The cop I dealt with didnt, just thought he was going to open the door without saying anything and search the car. Whos fault would it of been if he opened the door and got attached to an unfriendly dog thats just doing his job. Theres still a proceedure they have to follow they cant just walk up to your car open it up and search it.
They can't 'search' under those clauses. They can give you 7 days notice minimum to 'inspect' under those clauses.Quote:
Originally Posted by blip
+ Arms Regulations 1992Quote:
Originally Posted by gmm
ok not sure exactly but Im pretty sure they have to inform you of what act they are invocing to justify searching you, If they do that I dont think you can refuse the search. Ive been searched before and they told me what act they were using.Quote:
Originally Posted by inglishill
Yeah their usual workaround is to say it was under suspicion of drugsQuote:
Originally Posted by blip
I smelled cannabis, sarge
Then when they find nothing it's "Oh well, maybe his brakes smelled funny" and you can try complaining to the joke Po Complaint pseudo-Authority of guaranteed toothlessness and that will get you precisely nowhere
Best bet is filming them on ya phone and using an app like Periscope or similar where the footage goes straight up on the web
I have copies of letters from Minister of popo saying that filming "in the ordinary course of their duties" is completely legal and you can find them online if you wish
Sticking it straight onto Farcebuk or the Gram will get a stronger response in your favour than the official legal channels and that is truly the sad thing about our situation as regards how low the police have sunk in their dealings with us "online trolls"
To the poster who thinks our roads and police are 3rd world I call bullshit
That would be mud track for main highway and an armed roadblock that pulls you over to shake you down for whatever they can steal off you and if you think NZ has either of those things going on I'd say put down the pipe brother