Speeding fine...what to do??

I would. I'd also use the option of being able to appeal if need be, which
tends to have far better results in my limited experience.

 

I've been recorded with and without my permission in the past. On one
occasion, without my knowledge, as I was being leniently written down, he
flipped the book over so I could see the recorder and winked. I presume so
I didn't incriminate myself any further!

 

Says it all, doesn't it. We mere mortals are fucked.

Rex

 

....and, every now and again, they can recall other stuff too. :-(

regards,
CrazyCam

 

I can't be bothered reading the link in your post. The original post
made no reference to a cop with a video camera stuck in his pants.

As for the other posting by Martin, what you say is true about the
media, but the again, they're not trying to introduce the evidence
into court. They're just trying to make money by getting you to watch
the news so they can sell the advertising time slots at a higher rate.
As they say, never let the truth interfere with a good story. Who
cares how they get the info, as long as they get it.

Lucky our legal system isn't run like the media!

 

Under Law, you also have the right to say nothing at all.

Try and video/audio record that.

How many people have been told they are being recorded recently? How
many cars do you think they have/will have fitted out? I think you
will find that is for highway patrol, general duties, and some
unmarked cars for uniformed patrols.

Detectives don't uaully do traffic stops unless you do something
blantanly silly in front of them, so I doubt their cars will be fitted
out with them.

 

DaZZa said....

I'm no lawyer, but that act doesn't appear make an existing practice
legal. Rather, it mandates it. Anyway, that's how I read it.

I am of the view that it's never been illegal to record conversations
whether in NSW or any other state.

 

Greg wrote:

Do you have any proof of this assersion?

regards,
CrazyCam

 

I think you'll find under the NSW jurate, that you swear you will not
lie. You also have to make reference about where you get your evidence
from. So if it is not in their notebook, it will look very suspicious.
Especially with the amount of detail someone would put in copying it
from a tape.

And his partner would have to lie to cover him too. Not many people
willing to do that these days. Especially with ICAC about.

Is it really worth them losing their job over 1 single speeding fine?
Especially considering they are detectives and are usually out
catching child molesters, killers, rapists and thieves?

People are too paranoid these days!!!

 

See previos post to James.

Ahhhhh... yes he does. In his statement to the court. He must make
reference to as to where the evidence in his brief has come from.

Any body who says I refer to memory, and can remember so much
verbatim, at least 8 months after the act (because that is how long
roughly it will take to get to court) would look very suspicious. And
they can't lie. etc etc...

 

Greg wrote:

Why can't they lie, does their nose grow longer?

If you believe 100% of police evidence in courts, you must be a police
person yourself, and, a very gullible one.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Greg wrote:

Just because many of us are paranoid doesn't mean that people aren't
picking on us.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Quiet sure from memory it is under the Listening Devices Act 1984 No
69, Part 2, s5(1)

Although, section 5 does give the exceptions too, and I can't see
anything listed under a summary or traffic offence.

 

Yes, yes, yes, I see it says "In car" but we are still talking abiut
the detective who supposedly had a recorder in his pocket.

And, just in case someone thinks he can do it whilst he is sitting "in
his car", he can't. And, not many police question you whilst sitting
in their car.

 

Whatever you say. The original statement I objected to was the statement
that it is illegal for police to record someone in NSW without their
consent.

This claim is absolute bullshit, at least in the case of traffic stops
with the conditions as set out in the act, and has been since early
December.

If you think that the in car video and audio system can only record the
police speaking while they are in their, you are sadly mistaken.

You only have to watch one of those really bad "America's wildest police
video" type shows to see the technology involved - and consider that
most of the clips shown on those type of shows are more than 5 years
old, then have a little think about how far audio and video technology
has advanced in 5 years to realise otherwise.

Whatever you reckon. Next time you get pulled over and decide to argue
the point in court, don't be surprised to see the cops involved pull out
a tape of the entire thing, video _and_ audio.

DaZZa

 

Did you miss the bit where I said he listens to the tape and from that creates
notes in his notebook. It's the only thing I wrote so I'd thought I'd made it
simple enough for even the most comprehensively challenged to understand.
It's not necessary for him to copy it all down verbatim, he only needs to make
notes of the bits which provide the evidence required for the conviction in
court. I believe it is normal procedure for a cop to refer to his notebook to
refresh their memory when giving evidence in court. I even think that because
they constitute evidence they even have to lock them up at the end of shift
and have them archived when they fill.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

That was no guts johno not nuts

 

Coppers tell lies as a matter of course, I have contested about 10 speeding
fines over the years in court and found that very few coppers under cross
examination will tell the truth.

The truth is what you can prove, not what really happened.

Boxer

 

Is only a theory at the moment. But if you know of any good scientists
who could help me prove it.....

 

Nope, cop refers to notebook to make statement. Cop tells that the
statement was written from notes in notebook. Cop gives atement
verbally verbatim. Cop may ask to refer to notebook. Defence then may
look at notebook and cross examin anything within it. So, cop tries
not to pull out notebook if can be avoided.

So simple, as you say.

Magistrate "you have a very good memory mr officer, how do you
remember so much?"
defence lawyer "I put it you officer you illegaly recorded my client
and made notes from that recording. Can we have a copy of that tape
please?"
Copper " ummm... errrr....."
Magistrate "case dismissed"

Listening Devices Act 1984 makes it illegal to record without
knowledge or consent. Therfore, you cannot make notes from an illegal
process and produce it as evidence in court.

Argue all you like. Same as you cannot break into someones house to do
a search to find evidence.

Try, and try again.