i got fined for doing someting illegal, BAWWW.
In the brisneyland community:
_somuchlofi is quite miffed at having the cops search his bag because he is wearing sunglasses. That's not really the stupid.
The stupid is his surpise at getting fined for being fined for possessing alcohol. He's 17, and technically a minor (the legal drinking age in Australia is 18).
"Low and behold we both had quantities of alcohol on us, and being minors, he thought a fine was in order. $225, confiscation of booze and a lovely infringement notice later and we were sent packing."
Luckily, most people who have replied think he should suck it up and deal with it, because he was doing something that was against the law. However, we do have some stupid in the form of bundahberg 's post:
brisneyland
"Ensuring the civil rights and basic freedoms of australia is more important than one individual crime."
Kudos to naughty_fairy 's posts, re: reality.
(i hope this is not fail)
edit: Shit, locked! No wai! I swear it was open before I posted. :| Sorry.
Here's the original post
_somuchlofi posts:
Last night a friend and myself were stopped and searched on our way to Indooropilly due to the "suspicious nature of wearing sunglasses".
The Incident occurred when we were approximately 50 metres away from the entrance to our local train station and I guess it was just a case of poor timing on our part. The officer on question was doing a 'routine' drive in an unmarked Comodore due to a 'recent spate of incidents in the area". I thought the person in the car was simply looking for directions but as we approached it, realised it was an officer and our little exhange began.
He began by questioning my motives for wearing sunglasses, my response was direct and to the point: "We're heading to an 80's party". Fact of the matter is, we've finished our work for the year and we were heading out to enjoy ourselves, dressed in an array of tacky 80's wear. My habit of wearing sunglasses every wear i go probably didn't help the situation.
None the less, this wasn't good enough for him and he then proceeded to search our bags and alike. Low and behold we both had quantities of alcohol on us, and being minors, he thought a fine was in order. $225, confiscation of booze and a lovely infringement notice later and we were sent packing.
My issue is this, we weren't loitering, we were in transit from one private property to another and both bottles of drink were unopened and supplied to us via the appropriate channels.
Were my 'suspicious' sunglasses enough justification to search me?
Did the officer correct in carrying out a search?
And as both bottles of alcohol were unopen was he correct in issuing the fine?
I'm not all that aware of my rights in this situation, and I doubt the word of two 17 year olds is going to hold much weight against a police officer.
The way I see it, my options are as follows:
a) Cope it sweet, its a life experience and a downer on an otherwise good night.
b) Cry foul (as I am doing here) and hope that it helps in some way
c) Appeal the fine and run the risk of having a criminal conviction recorded against me if I am found guilty.
d) Go down the 'an abuse of my civil liberties" path and see where that takes me.
I don't have issues with the police force, hell from what I've heard its a lot better than what it used to be. But what does grind my gears is the nature of Officers that get their kicks from issuing petty tickets like this. As this was our first time and unaware of the laws surely he could have given us a pat on the back, a stern talking to and confiscated the alcohol. If two lads are dressed in 80's gear and walking at a furious pace towards a train station, I doubt armed robbery is on their mind. But hey, thats just me.
What makes this even worse is that an associate that i know of, was found in possession of quite a large amount of fireworks and charged with possession of explosives. His penalty, and slap on the wrist and told not to do it again. Minor in possession of alcohol, $225, possession of explosives, nothing, drunk and disorderly, only $75. Here I was thinking it would be a $30 fine max.
Any advice, opinions or past stories would be greatly appreciated.
And here is the thread I was talking about.
Starts off with bundahberg saying (in a different thread - he replied to the wrong poster)(I'm assuming bundahberg is a he):
From the benefit of four years of UQ law school, i'll tell you some info regarding your situation:
A police officer cannot arrest you (prevent you from leaving) unless there is REASONABLE suspicion of criminal activity
the most they can do is demand name and address without reasonable grounds to suspect.
Furthermore, searching you was wrong, he had no right to. Especially, as you are a minor, he should have told you you had a right to your parents being there or a lawyer.
Did he force you to show your bags or did you do it voluntarily?
If he made it clear you were not free to go, then thats false arrest.
If you want to kick up a stink (and I would) you will not be tried as an adult. If the facts youve given are clear, and you did not volunteer to be searched, no magistrate would convict you.
Even if you DID lose (and you wont) your record would vanish in a short period of time (child criminal records are removed after five years- but there is no way in hell youd get a conviction recorded)
You know what? you could even sue the police force for deprivation of liberty (false arrest) and you would win.
He then says later:
Seriously, abuse of civil liberties path.
do a search for the casse 'bunning v cross' a west australian case where a guy got off on drink driving even though he was pissed as because the police guy conned him into breathalysing without reasonable suspicion that he was drunk. and the magistrate said that was unfair
naughty_fairy replies:
oh my god...
Just what we want...people who do the wrong thing getting off. Do you support drunk drivers getting off on technicalities as a matter of principal? Supposed you've applied for a clerkship with Terry O'Gorman?
This really pisses me off, they where doing something wrong and I highly doubt from both the situation, and their choice of heading in this post - they were little Sonny and Johnny just going for a quiet night out, being polite to Mr big bag police man and getting screwed over big time by them.
Good on the cops, I for one, like to know the cops are doing the rounds questioning people - how do you, or anyone, for that matter know there wasn't an incident early in the area and these two didn't look like they fit the bill for the offenders? That is reason enough to question them. That IS what the cops do and I, like many others I'm sure, are glad cops are out in the area doing this sort of thing.
Also: "You know what? you could even sue the police force for deprivation of liberty (false arrest)" sorry he wasn't arrested. As for legal aid - don't waste tax payers dollars on this. Seriously.
It's pity the couple of officers who are in this community can't give us the actual facts. I'd be VERY interested in the OP decided to take this posters advice (maybe they can represent them yes?) and give us a follow up on how that goes.
bundahberg says:
Ensuring the civil rights and basic freedoms of australia is more important than one individual crime.
It's really the most important thing and if people start to forget we have these rights, and that government only has authority because -we allow it-, then Australia will not be the beautiful and free country we want it to be
The law, thankfully, is strong in limiting police authority to what is fair and just. This helps all of us. Most police do their job fine.
furthermore, we only have the OP's facts to work on. You can assume another side of the story, but only the OP really knows and would treat any reply in the context of that knowledge.
edit2: YAY, META! Lolz, I love how George Bush gets brought up about a post concerning Australian law.
edit3: DAMN YOU HTML I'LL CUT YOU
_somuchlofi is quite miffed at having the cops search his bag because he is wearing sunglasses. That's not really the stupid.
The stupid is his surpise at getting fined for being fined for possessing alcohol. He's 17, and technically a minor (the legal drinking age in Australia is 18).
"Low and behold we both had quantities of alcohol on us, and being minors, he thought a fine was in order. $225, confiscation of booze and a lovely infringement notice later and we were sent packing."
Luckily, most people who have replied think he should suck it up and deal with it, because he was doing something that was against the law. However, we do have some stupid in the form of bundahberg 's post:
brisneyland
"Ensuring the civil rights and basic freedoms of australia is more important than one individual crime."
Kudos to naughty_fairy 's posts, re: reality.
(i hope this is not fail)
edit: Shit, locked! No wai! I swear it was open before I posted. :| Sorry.
Here's the original post
_somuchlofi posts:
Last night a friend and myself were stopped and searched on our way to Indooropilly due to the "suspicious nature of wearing sunglasses".
The Incident occurred when we were approximately 50 metres away from the entrance to our local train station and I guess it was just a case of poor timing on our part. The officer on question was doing a 'routine' drive in an unmarked Comodore due to a 'recent spate of incidents in the area". I thought the person in the car was simply looking for directions but as we approached it, realised it was an officer and our little exhange began.
He began by questioning my motives for wearing sunglasses, my response was direct and to the point: "We're heading to an 80's party". Fact of the matter is, we've finished our work for the year and we were heading out to enjoy ourselves, dressed in an array of tacky 80's wear. My habit of wearing sunglasses every wear i go probably didn't help the situation.
None the less, this wasn't good enough for him and he then proceeded to search our bags and alike. Low and behold we both had quantities of alcohol on us, and being minors, he thought a fine was in order. $225, confiscation of booze and a lovely infringement notice later and we were sent packing.
My issue is this, we weren't loitering, we were in transit from one private property to another and both bottles of drink were unopened and supplied to us via the appropriate channels.
Were my 'suspicious' sunglasses enough justification to search me?
Did the officer correct in carrying out a search?
And as both bottles of alcohol were unopen was he correct in issuing the fine?
I'm not all that aware of my rights in this situation, and I doubt the word of two 17 year olds is going to hold much weight against a police officer.
The way I see it, my options are as follows:
a) Cope it sweet, its a life experience and a downer on an otherwise good night.
b) Cry foul (as I am doing here) and hope that it helps in some way
c) Appeal the fine and run the risk of having a criminal conviction recorded against me if I am found guilty.
d) Go down the 'an abuse of my civil liberties" path and see where that takes me.
I don't have issues with the police force, hell from what I've heard its a lot better than what it used to be. But what does grind my gears is the nature of Officers that get their kicks from issuing petty tickets like this. As this was our first time and unaware of the laws surely he could have given us a pat on the back, a stern talking to and confiscated the alcohol. If two lads are dressed in 80's gear and walking at a furious pace towards a train station, I doubt armed robbery is on their mind. But hey, thats just me.
What makes this even worse is that an associate that i know of, was found in possession of quite a large amount of fireworks and charged with possession of explosives. His penalty, and slap on the wrist and told not to do it again. Minor in possession of alcohol, $225, possession of explosives, nothing, drunk and disorderly, only $75. Here I was thinking it would be a $30 fine max.
Any advice, opinions or past stories would be greatly appreciated.
And here is the thread I was talking about.
Starts off with bundahberg saying (in a different thread - he replied to the wrong poster)(I'm assuming bundahberg is a he):
From the benefit of four years of UQ law school, i'll tell you some info regarding your situation:
A police officer cannot arrest you (prevent you from leaving) unless there is REASONABLE suspicion of criminal activity
the most they can do is demand name and address without reasonable grounds to suspect.
Furthermore, searching you was wrong, he had no right to. Especially, as you are a minor, he should have told you you had a right to your parents being there or a lawyer.
Did he force you to show your bags or did you do it voluntarily?
If he made it clear you were not free to go, then thats false arrest.
If you want to kick up a stink (and I would) you will not be tried as an adult. If the facts youve given are clear, and you did not volunteer to be searched, no magistrate would convict you.
Even if you DID lose (and you wont) your record would vanish in a short period of time (child criminal records are removed after five years- but there is no way in hell youd get a conviction recorded)
You know what? you could even sue the police force for deprivation of liberty (false arrest) and you would win.
He then says later:
Seriously, abuse of civil liberties path.
do a search for the casse 'bunning v cross' a west australian case where a guy got off on drink driving even though he was pissed as because the police guy conned him into breathalysing without reasonable suspicion that he was drunk. and the magistrate said that was unfair
naughty_fairy replies:
oh my god...
Just what we want...people who do the wrong thing getting off. Do you support drunk drivers getting off on technicalities as a matter of principal? Supposed you've applied for a clerkship with Terry O'Gorman?
This really pisses me off, they where doing something wrong and I highly doubt from both the situation, and their choice of heading in this post - they were little Sonny and Johnny just going for a quiet night out, being polite to Mr big bag police man and getting screwed over big time by them.
Good on the cops, I for one, like to know the cops are doing the rounds questioning people - how do you, or anyone, for that matter know there wasn't an incident early in the area and these two didn't look like they fit the bill for the offenders? That is reason enough to question them. That IS what the cops do and I, like many others I'm sure, are glad cops are out in the area doing this sort of thing.
Also: "You know what? you could even sue the police force for deprivation of liberty (false arrest)" sorry he wasn't arrested. As for legal aid - don't waste tax payers dollars on this. Seriously.
It's pity the couple of officers who are in this community can't give us the actual facts. I'd be VERY interested in the OP decided to take this posters advice (maybe they can represent them yes?) and give us a follow up on how that goes.
bundahberg says:
Ensuring the civil rights and basic freedoms of australia is more important than one individual crime.
It's really the most important thing and if people start to forget we have these rights, and that government only has authority because -we allow it-, then Australia will not be the beautiful and free country we want it to be
The law, thankfully, is strong in limiting police authority to what is fair and just. This helps all of us. Most police do their job fine.
furthermore, we only have the OP's facts to work on. You can assume another side of the story, but only the OP really knows and would treat any reply in the context of that knowledge.
edit2: YAY, META! Lolz, I love how George Bush gets brought up about a post concerning Australian law.
edit3: DAMN YOU HTML I'LL CUT YOU