Qld Police Will Try Anything  

MJM

Well answered.

oovro

Fucking hell. I think you missed my sarcasism in my comment. Hence why i put "lol" in the comment.

Fuck, how do threads go so far off topic all the time. Oh thats right, this is boostcruising. People can't do or say anything without some fuckwits taking shit seriously or just trolling to get their post counts up.

176OES

Its all good, I was the one shit-stirring you, and even I knew you were taking the piss

oovro

Yeah i can take a joke but when people take it to a stupid level thats just.... well stupid.

VTR

Whilst perhaps you were joking the dichotomy of Commodore to Calais as explained by other members was quite entertaining.

oovro

lol yeah i'll give em that.

oovro

I suppose i could say if you took a shit and i took a shit does that make it the same shit because its all shit.

176OES

no, because the corn to peanut ratios between said shits would be entirely different

oovro

Maybe 1 of the said shits had climate control where the other shit didn't i suppose. That would then indeed make them different.

oovro

Anyway back on topic again. Spoke to a Sarge last night and he said its not against the law. He said she must have been a new recruit trying to impress the others.

176OES

My advice is, if you got her details, lodge a complaint. Hopefully it will help pull her into line if she is a newbie.

oovro

No didn't get her name. The other officers might have let her know that she was wrong, hence why they drove off without saying anything after being on the phone for 15 minutes.

Street Tuned

It is becuase of facist reasons like this I have no respect for the police what so ever.


From time to time I can understand they are only doing their job (like say at powercruise) but when they try to make up their own laws, and basically just try to fuck with peoples day because their ego doesn't let them walk away. I mean even if you did need paper work who gives a shit, there is advertising everywhere why try and single one small businessman out?


They certainly earnt their title "Pig" that night. I wonder how these people look at themselves in the mirror in the morning knowing that for a living they just go around and fuck with hard working an innocent peoples day.

khubner

aparently some time ago some cars were branded with pig on the back

in this manner P.I.G
Pride
Integrity
Guts

oovro

Yeah should have been Pretty Insenitive Girls.

11SLI

What the fuck do you expect from Boostcruising LOL

purepunani

Where in my post did i say a Calais isn't a commodore? We all know a calais is a commodore with some flashy grilles. The Stateman/Grange type vehicles have a longer wheel base and yes, are set upon a different chassis.

And without a doubt i see the chev lumina and vauxhalls, as commodores. If you put a picture of either infront of me, i would call it a commodore.

I was just merely trying to point out that the "i chuck a shit" analogy is with lack of a better phrase: half assed.

HSV

Actually the calais comment was in regards to 00VRO's earlier comment, not yours.

oovro

Ok, I think everyone needs to pump their brakes a bit. This isn't a "It's not a Commodore it's a Calais" thread. It's about the QLD police service and their bullshit trying to pinch motor enthusiast's with anything they can even if it means trying to make their own rules.

dohboy

Thats just GAY!!!

Lazer_Spec

they followed me home

xxxxgold

Did they 'pull you over'?

There is a grey area (well it's not really a grey area, but i detest the term 'loophole') in the PPRA regarding the circumstances in which police can inspect a vehicle. Police can inspect a vehicle -

- If the vehicle is stationary on a road.
- Has been stopped under section 60
- Has been moved under section 61.

Section 60 is the relevant section and states -

- A police officer may require the person in control of a vehicle, other than a train or a vehicle being pulled by an animal, to stop the vehicle for a prescribed purpose.

Did police require you to stop the vehicle, or did you stop of your own violition? It would be reasonable to assume that since the vehicle was located in your driveway that you were either not in control of the vehicle, or you had stopped of your own accord. In either of these cases, police have not stopped you under section 60 of the PPRA and as such, cannot require you to submit your vehicle for inspection.

DC KUSTOMS

Well it looks like every person with a workshops sticker on their car is guilty then. So reps cars, business owners personal vehicles and tradesmen are criminals too. Typical cops trying their luck..

MJM

Bahahaha I was having a laugh to mate...yep, this is boostcruising.

fullysicman

Actually she was almost right. she would have to prove that you were there trying to solicit business. ie come and speak to me for cheap .............

TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT–ROAD RULES) REGULATION 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

293B Restriction on driving or stopping vehicle on road

(1) A person must not drive or stop a vehicle on a road for the purpose of soliciting employment or business from the vehicle, unless the person–

(a) is permitted to drive or stop the vehicle for the primary purpose of business advertising under a permit issued under the Traffic Regulation 1962, section 126(1)(; or

( is engaged in roadside vending under a permit or other authority given to the person under a local law.

Maximum penalty–20 penalty units.

(2) In this section–

road includes a shoulder of a road, a median strip, a painted island or a traffic island, but does not include another road-related area.

fullysicman

xxx gold are you sure about this????

see sections 54 -55 of the

POLICE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2000

54 Power of inquiry into road use contraventions

(1) It is lawful for a police officer to make any reasonably necessary inquiry, investigation, inspection, examination, or test for establishing whether or not an offence against the Road Use Management Act has been committed.

(2) Also, it is lawful for a police officer to arrange for someone else to make any reasonably necessary inspection, examination, or test for establishing whether or not an offence against the Road Use Management Act has been committed.

57 Power of entry for ss 54-56

(1) For sections 54 to 56, a police officer may enter a place and stay on the place for the time reasonably necessary for the purpose of the entry.

(2) However, the police officer may use reasonably necessary force to enter the place only if the entry is authorised by a police officer of at least the rank of inspector.

xxxxgold

I'll agree that there is a certain degree of ambiguity in many areas of the PPRA, but in this instance there is one distinct difference.

In regards to vehicle inspection powers under the PPRA, police may inspect a vehicle to ensure that it complies with a Transport Act whereas the section you quoted allows only for inspections (amongst other things) to establish whether or not an offence has been committed.

Removing all variables for a moment, if a vehicle is sitting in your front yard completely unattended, police may only inspect the vehicle under section 54 of the PPRA for the purposes of determining whether an offence against the Act has been committed, it cannot be inspected to ensure it complies with a particular Act. An example may be looking for damage that may have been caused in an accident where the driver fled the scene etc.

In the example you quoted, based on the wording of section 54 of the PPRA, you could make a tenuous argument that police could inspect the vehicle even though the vehicle wasn't stopped under section 60 of the Act. The reason for this is that the police witnesses you driving on a road immediately before you entered the property and as such may argue that they may inspect the vehicle under section 54 as they 'reasonably suspect you have committed an offence under the Road Use Management Act' (the alleged offence being one of driving a defective vehicle).

You then have to ask yourself, given that powers of vehicle inspection (for the purposes of compliance) are clearly set out in section 63, what is the intended scope/interpretation of section 54?

In cases like this, where there is doubt over the interpretation of a particular section of an Act, the Magistrate will examine each (seemingly) relevant (perhaps even contradictory) section carefully. In this instance they would ask the somewhat rhetorical question 'why is it that section 54 seemingly allows for a vehicle inspection wherever and whenever police deem appropriate, but yet section 63 which deals exclusively with vehicle inspections (as opposed to section 54 which is very broad) details somewhat limited inspection powers?'.

The intended interpretation can therefore often be 'discovered' by examining the legislature as a whole. Section 63(1)( - has been stopped under section 60, would be completely superfluous if section 54 was interpreted as meaning police could inspect a vehicle to ensure compliance with an Act at any time/place. Therefore the Magistrate would almost certainly rule (and common law backs this theory up) that as police had no power of inspection under section 63, that the accused must be acquitted as there is considerable doubt as to the 'correct' interpretation of section 54.

Pattax

Is this that commodoore with a FMIC + P plates?

fullysicman

Gold I was refering to the specific example given by laser-spec. The police followed him home and he stopped in his driveway. He has not been stopped for a prescribed purpose under 60 as he stopped on his own. However police have every right to inspect the vehicle 54 Power of inquiry into road use contraventions

(1) It is lawful for a police officer to make any reasonably necessary inquiry, investigation, inspection, examination, or test for establishing whether or not an offence against the Road Use Management Act has been committed

The police would argue that they were about to pull ole mate over under 60 but he ends up stopping before they could effect that power. They want to speak to him about a possible road use contravention etc etc. I think a magistrate would lean the other way but hey they are a world unto themselves anyway. To me the authority is there and it would be a 50/50 call.

Otherwise there would be open slather of people who think that all they need to do is make it to their driveway and they are safe....

xxxxgold

I understand what you are saying and on face value it would appear as if you are correct, but it all comes down to interpretation (again).

Section 63 deals with 'compliance inspections'.
Section 54 deals with inspections to determine whether an offence has been committed.

In Lazer_Spec's case, initially it would have been a compliance inspection, which under section 63 would not have been permitted in this particular case.

If we look at it another way, if section 54 was intended to be 'all encompassing', there would be absolutely no need for section 63 as section 54 would have all eventualities covered. So obviously section 63 has been retained/included for a specific purpose which is obviously distinct from s54.

It is therefore my belief that section 63 is the (sole) relevant section in regards to inspections to ensure vehicular compliance with the Act and common law suggests that this is indeed the case. I am not aware of any decisions that have been disturbed on appeal but i'll do a bit of digging to see if i can find some relevant case law.

fullysicman

Do you think you are reading too much into it.

I think that 63 relates to vehicles found being driven or stopped on a road where a driver is present.

I think that 54 gives police the power to conduct any reasonably necessary inquiry, investigation, inspection, examination, or test for establishing whether or not an offence against the Road Use Management Act has been committed.

Are you saying that because "laser_spec" made it to his driveway the police cannot act any further???

Remember that 54 makes no mention of being stopped on a road. With the driveway of the house being private property, than police would enact 54 to allow them to continue their duty.

54 to me is a general power when dealing with issues not directly related to the stopping of vehicles under 60.

The example may police have received information that Little Johnny is driving his vehicle to and from work with bald tyres, no brakes and a large fluffy dice on the mirror.

They then go to see Little Johnny and his car is parked in the driveway. 57 gives them power of entry to the place

place includes–

(a) premises; and

( vacant land; and

© a vehicle; and

(d) a place in Queensland waters; and

(e) a place held under 2 or more titles or owners.

54 then gives them power to make any reasonably necessary inquiry, investigation, inspection, examination, or test for establishing whether or not an offence against the Road Use Management Act has been committed.
ie they can then inspect the vehicle etc etc

Again I totally agree with the interpretation of different Acts etc but I think you would be hard pressed to find a magistrate to say Police were not entitled to speak with and inspect Little Johnny's car.

I also think 63 was put into the PPRA to allow police to conduct the defective vehicle inspections. Hence the "compliance inspections" a bit like RBT. Not everyone is a suspect drink driver but 60 allows police to stop everyone.

Touge Torana

they probably think the less money we have
the less mney we'll have to spend on our cars to make em go faster
personally I'll just add it onto my next job
along with the fuel tax, new tyre levy and resto charges I already charge.
customers are usually like wtf is this?
I just say -thank the cops

Ralli

^^ Agree with this statement.. I know a few police officers that aren't pure idiots



Couldnt have said it better myself......

xxxxgold

Once again i can certainly see where you are coming from and i am not for a moment suggesting that your interpretation is 'incorrect', i am merely suggesting that if i were to be retained on a similar matter, i would explore (the more cynical among us might suggest that 'exploit' is a more accurate term...) the possibility that sections 54 and 63 of the PPRA are mutually exclusive in an interpretive sense. I can only go by the decisions i have seen made by the Magistracy personally, so i do not profess to have all the answers in this instance. The cases i have witnessed may not in fact be indicative of the view of the Magistracy as a whole and i have simply witnessed a skewed sample.

The problem in this instance is there appears to be very little directly relevant case law. I can't say that i have searched extensively, but i am yet to find a single comparable judgment which was appealed to give an indication as to whether the decision would be overturned in a superior court, or left undisturbed. Until such time (or until i dig a little deeper and find something relevant, but cut me some slack, i am on holiday ), we are at best making an educated guess.

oovro

Well here is an update for you. I parked in a 10min car park for a little longer than 10 minutes today. As i returned to my car to move it the same female officer and 1 of the same male officers were writing me up for parking there longer than i should have. No problem with that as i was there longer than i should have been. I asked the officer how she went with her enquiries on the the matter from Sunday night. The male officer said that there was no law saying that i couldn't have my buiness sticker on my car. I said that i knew that but i just wanted to make sure she knew. She didn't say much. I told them to have a nice day and went on my way.