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

[csv8]

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

Two African men were stopped by police in Ascot Vale last year, one man was charged with assault when the situation escalated.

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".

"Nor, is s.59 of the (Road Safety) Act a statutory source of such power," he said.

The lawyer representing one of the men, who is fighting assault allegations, Tamar Hopkins, says the decision will have ramifications.

"At present, we understand they're (police) told to go out and stop as many cars as they can," she said.

"This ruling says you can't do that. You must stop cars when there is in fact a reason. Random stops are in fact not lawful."
http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au...ou-ov/2384572/

[Blueford260]

What about RBT's?

Is that now unlawful?

[Maka]

A spanner has just been thrown in the works. The implications of this magistrates ruling in Victoria will be far reaching, very interesting!

cheers, Maka

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by Maka

A spanner has just been thrown in the works. The implications of this judges ruling in Victoria will be far reaching, very interesting!

cheers, Maka

he's a magistrate not a judge

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by Blueford260

What about RBT's?

Is that now unlawful?

All good

Stops for the purpose of random breath testing are not impacted by the court ruling.

"There is a specific statutory power for police to conduct stops for this purpose," Ms Hopkins said.

[Maka]

Originally Posted by xxx000

he's a magistrate not a judge

Fixed

cheers, Maka

[Maka]

Originally Posted by xxx000

he's a magistrate not a judge

A pedantic quick google lol -


Key Difference: A Judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone, with a panel of judges or a jury, depending on the jurisdiction. Magistrate is considered as an officer of the state, but could also refer to a judge.

http://www.differencebetween.info/di...istrates-and-j


cheers, Maka

[xxx000]

one you refer to as your worship and the other as your honour

[Dave4118]

Police already can't lawfully detain any persons/vehicle without suspicion of an offence, however can lawfully detain for the purpose of exercising a power such as RBT/licence check...

Ie this is not new and will change nothing.

[lucas2]

Police will just do an RBT then ask the questions they wanted to later.

[Falcon Coupe]

If you're doing nothing wrong and have a reasonable attitude the situation shouldn't escalate.

A co worker recently got pulled over for having dreadlocks and failed a drug test. He lost his job and license. They may have saved a life in doing so with him operating 52' knuckle booms with public close by and driving to the city every day.

I'm all for random checks.

[LoudPipes]

Given the way the possibility of terrorist acts is currently being pushed at us, if there is a glitch in the law I’m sure the Government will quickly legislate to fix/change it.

[simon varley]

"i'm sorry sir - we thought your tyres were worn." it's not going to be hard to find a real reason to pull anyone over. Just chill and pass the attitude test.

[NTF6]

Originally Posted by Maka

A pedantic quick google lol -


Key Difference: A Judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone, with a panel of judges or a jury, depending on the jurisdiction. Magistrate is considered as an officer of the state, but could also refer to a judge.

http://www.differencebetween.info/di...istrates-and-j


cheers, Maka

Supreme Court = Judge = Your Honour
Local Court/Court of Summary Jurisdiction = Magistrate = Your Worship

[Nova 8]

I generally don't bother to cause a hassle when pulled over by cops but if they are doing so without a legal right then people are well within their right to refuse to give information and lodge complaints if within the bounds of the law. It always annoys me when I see people saying just go along and let them do what ever and if you cause issues you deserve what you get. What happens if they wanna search you at random on the street just because, or your home, never know who has illegal firearms or drugs.

Yours rights are there, don't give them up just to make someone else's life better/easier.

[supershifty]

I have previous DUI convictions amassed over 30 years. I've been randomly pulled over by a following police car and they simply ask me my name/address/birthdate and for a breath sample - no licence/rego/tyre kicking check, they've obviously already ran my plates and have all the info they need.

I don't mind, I've got nothing major to hide from the law - I think it's good proactive policing on their behalf.

Cheers!

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Dave4118

Police already can't lawfully detain any persons/vehicle without suspicion of an offence, however can lawfully detain for the purpose of exercising a power such as RBT/licence check...

Ie this is not new and will change nothing.

If the Police didn't have any power at all under law to detain people suspected of committing an offence, then crime would be out of control. I.E. grabbing someone suspected of committing burglaries in an area wouldn't happen, the cops would have to witness someone committing an offence.

[Dave4118]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

If the Police didn't have any power at all under law to detain people suspected of committing an offence, then crime would be out of control. I.E. grabbing someone suspected of committing burglaries in an area wouldn't happen, the cops would have to witness someone committing an offence.

Agreed, it would completely cripple operational policing capability. Who cares if they pull you over, they just wanna know whos who in the zoo.

[csv8]

This is Queensland...https://www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and...being-stopped/
https://caxton.org.au/pdfs/Police%20...r%20Rights.pdf
Interesting.. if you record the conversation with the police when pulled over and you play it too someone else..its a fine of up too $4k !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bathurst-racer]

Originally Posted by xxx000

one you refer to as your worship and the other as your honour

Not in NSW at least. That went out a couple of years ago.

[Spurious]

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!!!

[Nova 8]

Originally Posted by simon varley

"i'm sorry sir - we thought your tyres were worn." it's not going to be hard to find a real reason to pull anyone over. Just chill and pass the attitude test.

In this case once the cops see the tyres are not worn you should be allowed to leave immediately and they shouldn't hold you longer as you haven't done anything wrong.

[Stefan]

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!!!

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....

[ozpacman]

Originally Posted by csv8

This is Queensland...https://www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and...being-stopped/
https://caxton.org.au/pdfs/Police%20...r%20Rights.pdf
Interesting.. if you record the conversation with the police when pulled over and you play it too someone else..its a fine of up too $4k !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That one's news to me. I'd be interested to know what statute it would fall under.

Russ

[ozpacman]

Originally Posted by FlivverFord

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!!!

Yeah right - and then your alarm went off!!

[aussiblue]

Interesting.. if you record the conversation with the police when pulled over and you play it too someone else..its a fine of up too $4k !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where's that; I couldn't find it in those links? You aren't confused with the rules that applied to scanners before police two way radio was encrypted are you; where it was legal to listen but not legal to record? There are of course laws that restrict covert recording everywhere (see http://www.privacy.org.au/Resources/PLawsST.html#Qld so you are best to advise those concerned that the conversation is being recorded or have a legitimate reason for incidental recording (i.e. the dash cam I always use was left on). Overt recording in true public places is generally OK but some presumed public places such as corporate owned shopping malls are private places. Similarly some shires have bylaws preventing photography and other recoding in certain public places (i.e. often shopping streets closed to vehicle traffic).

[aussiblue]

And most states have specific laws that give police power to undertake a RBT so this case ruling if sustained (you would think there might be an appeal) will not stop RBTs.

[aussiblue]

This it what it actually says at https://caxton.org.au/pdfs/Police%20...r%20Rights.pdf

You are entitled to record your own face to face conversations with other people (including police) without telling them. However there are strict limitations on playing such recordings or showing transcripts of such conversation to other people.

Unlawfully playing these recordings is an offence and the potential penalty is 2 years jail or a $4,000 fine. You should always get legal advice before deciding to play these conversations to other people.

It's Section of 45 of the Queensland Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 and is about covert recording.

45 Prohibition on communication or publication of private conversations by parties thereto (1)

A person who, having been a party to a private conversation and having used a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to that conversation, subsequently communicates or publishes to any other person any record of the conversation made, directly or indirectly, by the use of the listening device or any statement prepared from such a record is guilty of an offence against this Act 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 where the communication or publication—

(a) is made to another party to the private conversation or with the consent, express or implied, of all other parties to the private conversation, being parties referred to in section 42(2)(a); or

(b) is made in the course of legal proceedings; or

(c) is not more than is reasonably necessary—


(i) in the public interest; or


(ii) in the performance of a duty of the person making the communication or publication; or


(iii) for the protection of the lawful interests of that person; or

(d) is made to a person who has, or is believed, on reasonable grounds, by the person making the communication or publication to have, such an interest in the private conversation as to make the communication or publication reasonable under the circumstances in which it is made; or

(e) is made by a person who used the listening device to overhear, record, monitor, or listen to the private conversation under section 43(2)(c) or (d).

(3) In subsection (2)—

legal proceedings includes—

(a) proceedings (whether civil or criminal) in or before any court; and

(b) proceedings before justices; and

(c) proceedings before any court, tribunal or person (including any inquiry, examination or arbitration) in which evidence is or may be given; and

(d) any part of legal proceedings.

I suspect if the recording shows that police were acting either illegally or beyond power, your lawyer will advise it would be considered in the public interest and you would be entitled to play it to him and others possibly including the media.

[outback_ute]

Originally Posted by Nova 8

I generally don't bother to cause a hassle when pulled over by cops but if they are doing so without a legal right then people are well within their right to refuse to give information and lodge complaints if within the bounds of the law.

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.

[aussiblue]

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.

Yes in all states I think and you also have to obey and lawful direction from a police officer. In WA it has been shown that "lawful direction" does not include a direction to turn off a recording device in a public place (it was unlawful of police to direct a 3rd party recording an arrest on their smartphone and then try and enforce that direction).