Covert Search Warrant Laws for NSW Police

[minux]

NEW South Wales Police are to be given covert search warrants, allowing them to search a property without informing the owners for up to three years.
The warrants will be issued through the Supreme Court and limited to investigations of suspected serious offences punishable by at least seven years jail.
These offences include the manufacture of drugs, computer crimes, the sale of firearms, homicide and kidnapping.
Premier Nathan Rees said NSW would be the first jurisdiction in Australia to adopt the covert search warrants, and would be borrowing from Commonwealth anti-terrorism legislation.
"If you are a serious criminal in NSW you should not sleep easy," Mr Rees said.
"These laws will enable our police force to inspect your home without you knowing."
The new powers will allow for the owners of the covertly searched property to be kept in the dark for up to six months.
However, NSW Police may apply before the court to delay that notification for 18 months, and up to three years in some exceptional circumstances.


A little concerning...to say the least

[50LTRv8]

So do we get to charge them with break and enter?

[CANYONERO]

Hmmmm. Very worrying. big brother is watching and changing the rules to suit himself......

but i suppose on the other hand, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about but hell, i like my privacy within my own home.

[Stressball]

So do we get to charge them with break and enter?

Do you get to charge them for that when they raid your house to find your pot plantation? No. Because they have a warrant. The only way this is different is, they don't tell you until after they've done it.

It is a bit dodgy, seems a bit overkill... Besides which, what would the point in this be? I mean, if you get a bunch of cops turn up at your house and go through thoroughly enough to actually find something, they're going to leave marks. You're going to know they have been there. This serves no purpose.

'Anti-terrorism' is such a bullshit term. The removal of civilian's rights in order to hopefully find terrorists is not anti-terrorism. It's just an invasion of privacy. This isn't quite there yet though I guess. In this case at least they still need the same authorisation as they do now, at least that's my understanding of it?

Government-endorsed invasions of privacy are kind of a touchy area. On one hand they can supposedly track terrorists better or whatever other reason they think will be believable, on the other hand they could, in some extreme circumstances, be doing this by taking rights from the citizens. Consider the USA's 'Patriot Act', for example. Ability to use wiretaps, look at your library and bank records, get personal information that is not available under the freedom of information act, all in the name of finding terrorists. Oh yeah, by the way, they don't need a warrant to do any of this. They are invasions of the USA's constitutional civil rights, but the act was pushed through.

Just as a note on the patriot act; it was printed in it's final form at 3am. It was several hundred pages long, and it weighed 3+Kgs in ink and paper. It was voted in by 11am that same morning. Some people there must read like Lilu from The Fifth Element

[badaz]

Well I guess if you have done nothing wrong it doesn't effect you. If you are into un-lawful acts that will come to the attention of police then you might have something to worry about.

[Stressball]

Well I guess if you have done nothing wrong it doesn't effect you. If you are into un-lawful acts that will come to the attention of police then you might have something to worry about.

That's true, in this case. I think the concern over this news is more that, if they are doing this now, what could they do in future, how far will they push the boundaries? At the moment, you need to be a reasonable suspect in some serious crimes to get this warrant put out on you. What if that requirement were to be removed from the equation; any 'questionable' character at all could be raided without their knowledge. This could mean anybody. Anyone who speaks out publicly against certain government policies, or someone who goes to the effort of bringing something the government has done into the public eye... They would be open to having their property raided, their things looked through, everything they own could be scrutinised.

That's why this is concerning for some people. It's not this alone so much as it is what could come in future.

[soop]

What if you have done nothing, and they get it wrong?
Its not as if it's never happened before.

We're going to end up in a nation wide prison at this rate.

[minux]

Well I guess if you have done nothing wrong it doesn't effect you. If you are into un-lawful acts that will come to the attention of police then you might have something to worry about.

It is not a case of if you are doing nothing wrong it is all good, it is the fact they can just enter on a suspicion. I was unaware a suspicion was enough to reach warrant. Not only that, with how corrupt so many officers are how many items will go missing and how many items will be "placed" for the next warrant?

[soop]

If an officer has a personal issue against you, whats to stop them dragging you into this kind of thing?

[TVR-190]

Ok, looks like i'm gonna have a splurge on security, double deadlocks and 1 of those big timber things to go across the door.

Ya its a bit worrying that they can do that. NSW government sucks....

[Grennan]

Seems people dont understand the ramifications of such a thing. If police can enter your home whenever they feel like it, on a whim, theres no end to what they could possibly do.

When I first saw the film V for Vendetta I said to those watching it with me - thats where were going to end up soon. Well, we are certainly heading in the right direction.

[Stressball]

When I first saw the film V for Vendetta I said to those watching it with me - thats where were going to end up soon. Well, we are certainly heading in the right direction.

You ever read Orwell's book, 1984? Fantastic book, and I think he's right. He predicted that everything in that book would become a reality by 2050.

[faroogoo]

They can execute a search warrant when your not home now,guess they just wont inform you from now on.

[VLDavo]

wtf is this to save the cops arses when they dont actualy find anything of an incriminating nature or is it to be able to plant bugs or cameras ..

i dont see anything wrong with the old fashioned way of serving a warrent i mean u either did something wrong or didnt . and if they have enough evidence to go to a judge and say sign this warrent then y do they need to go snoop around a private home

[Grennan]

You ever read Orwell's book, 1984? Fantastic book, and I think he's right. He predicted that everything in that book would become a reality by 2050.

Yeah I have. I used to be heavily interested in stuff like that, its really scary to read it and then look at your own society and see glimpses of the book.

[Scooter79]

I don't see what everyone is so worried about. Even with these new laws it's not like an officer can just walk into your home at random. They still have to apply for the warrant through the courts and give reason for applying for the warrant. Only then can a search be executed. Seems to be lots of paranoid people on here

[minux]

I don't see what everyone is so worried about. Even with these new laws it's not like an officer can just walk into your home at random. They still have to apply for the warrant through the courts and give reason for applying for the warrant. Only then can a search be executed. Seems to be lots of paranoid people on here

Its not paranoia, but why does it NEED to be done covertly? What is wrong with the current process?

[Scooter79]

Its not paranoia, but why does it NEED to be done covertly? What is wrong with the current process?

Maybe they need to plant listening devices? Maybe those pesky little terrorist have documents stashed away somewhere implicating them in something illegal but at the same time police don't want them to know they're onto them? Just two suggestions.

[cxcxcxvcvcvc]

meh dosen't bother me, cops can roll on up night or day, i have nothing to hide

[Benboy]

No crime, No criminals, No receivers, No dealers means no need for Police. If there is a justifiable need for Police to have increased powers it means that there is no let-up in regard to the above crime, criminals etc. Bring it on.

[cracker]

what happens if they enter your home and are seriously injured?
say i keep my 5 red nose pitbulls inside allday, and mr plod jumps into my house because he thinks iv cultivating a certain herb in my back room, whos fault is it if his mauled? or my dog is shot? they are theoryical deadly dogs but iv taken the measure of keeping them locked up
theres no end to the amount of unforsense hazards that i could have in my house that some unsespecting policemen could hurt them selves on.

not that i have anything to hide, or have 5 rednose pitbulls, but i dont really want someone looking for something that isnt there, if i saw some bloke jump into my sidewindow i wouldnt hesitate to smack them with a baseball bat or throw/hit them with any heavy large blunt object that i may have to my disposal. but then am i then charged with attacking an officer? when all i was doing was defending my self for that dude in black who just jumped in through my house.

seems like a load of shit to me anyway.

[Calaber]

what happens if they enter your home and are seriously injured?
say i keep my 5 red nose pitbulls inside allday, and mr plod jumps into my house because he thinks iv cultivating a certain herb in my back room, whos fault is it if his mauled? or my dog is shot? they are theoryical deadly dogs but iv taken the measure of keeping them locked up
theres no end to the amount of unforsense hazards that i could have in my house that some unsespecting policemen could hurt them selves on.

not that i have anything to hide, or have 5 rednose pitbulls, but i dont really want someone looking for something that isnt there, if i saw some bloke jump into my sidewindow i wouldnt hesitate to smack them with a baseball bat or throw/hit them with any heavy large blunt object that i may have to my disposal. but then am i then charged with attacking an officer? when all i was doing was defending my self for that dude in black who just jumped in through my house.

seems like a load of shit to me anyway.

Any injuries sustained during a warrant search are covered under OHS, which means that the officer's medical treatment etc will be covered by his employer's insurance. If your bull mastiff bites off his nuts, whilst he is searching your property, and the injury is sustained ON or IN your property, you should be ok. aYou might be accused of keeping a savage dog but if it can be shown that the dog was kept property restrained within your property and is not able to escape to endanger the public, again, should be ok.

This legislation is typical of what is happening in NSW. We have a Government that is absolutely desperate to hold office and is doing everything it can to convice the public that it is doing something worthwhile. No doubt, the police will benefit from the new laws, and in theory, so should their effectiveness in dealing with certain classes of criminal. Current laws do not facilitate certain police operations. Remember though, that police MUST have strong evidence and need to convince a magistrate that the evidence is sufficient for him to approve the warrant.

As has already been said, though, if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from an unwanted visit from your friendly cops.

[cxcxcxvcvcvc]

if i saw some bloke jump into my sidewindow i wouldnt hesitate to smack them with a baseball bat or throw/hit them with any heavy large blunt object that i may have to my disposal. .

haha doubt they would jump through the window unless they saw something very serious going on inside! I believe this measure is to be able to catch people off guard in the act of a crime! For e.g police are in the local area out on patrol and receive a call that there is a local drug/arms deal going down then the new law allows them to step up and go straight on site without the hassle of obtaining a warrant! wherein with the old system criminals can get away by the time all the legal jargon is approved, sure it does give the cops a bit of free reigns but maybe this is whats needed to sort out the scum for a change

[Julie]

I have mixed emotions about this, one side of me feels its a good thing and let them do whatever they need to take down the scumbag crims. Another side of me iis worried that it won't just be the bad guys that suffer, but the good guys too. Serious crimes only they say... hmmm when they mentioned computer crimes that was a bit worrying, I mean come on in this day and age who hasn't done the dodgy and downloaded something they ought not be.........

[ClairBear]

It is not a case of if you are doing nothing wrong it is all good, it is the fact they can just enter on a suspicion. I was unaware a suspicion was enough to reach warrant. Not only that, with how corrupt so many officers are how many items will go missing and how many items will be "placed" for the next warrant?

My concerns exactly. This is very scary and open to abuse. I can just see criminals being victimised under this law, with the police just popping round and searching the home to harass them as they won't need a reason. Even criminals have rights surely? You may have once been on the wrong side of the law, but you don't deserve to have the cops at your door on and off over the next couple of years just because they can! This is incomprehensible.