WTF? Wife was fined for something that a cop accused her of THINKING about doing.

[Calaber]

This might have already been said earlier in this thread but I CBF reading three pages of comment and opinions.

I see that Minux has already touched on recording laws, so far as Victoria is concerned, and the recording of conversations is something that WILL vary from State to State.

In NSW, police have been issued with portable recorders for years but when they pull a motorist over, they have to advise the motorist that they wish to record the conversation and ask the motorist if he/she has any objections. If the motorist objects, the recorder is turned off and the conversation cannot be recorded further.

So.....if police have to follow these rules, imagine what they are likely to say if you try to record them. If you attempt this, you might well find yourself in further strife.

Dash cams with inbuilt voice recording are another issue but I suspect the same rules would apply and if you used the camera to record a conversation with a police officer, even though the camera may be facing through the screen, it could constitute an illegal recording. However, the actual recording of the incident leading up to the police interception would not be illegal and could be sufficient to prove your case in your favour if court is involved.

My advice would be to tread this road very carefully, regardless of how you feel about being booked or spoken to. Witnesses are definitely the best bet if they are present.

 

[lease1]

This might have already been said earlier in this thread but I CBF reading three pages of comment and opinions.

I see that Minux has already touched on recording laws, so far as Victoria is concerned, and the recording of conversations is something that WILL vary from State to State.

In NSW, police have been issued with portable recorders for years but when they pull a motorist over, they have to advise the motorist that they wish to record the conversation and ask the motorist if he/she has any objections. If the motorist objects, the recorder is turned off and the conversation cannot be recorded further.

So.....if police have to follow these rules, imagine what they are likely to say if you try to record them. If you attempt this, you might well find yourself in further strife.

Dash cams with inbuilt voice recording are another issue but I suspect the same rules would apply and if you used the camera to record a conversation with a police officer, even though the camera may be facing through the screen, it could constitute an illegal recording. However, the actual recording of the incident leading up to the police interception would not be illegal and could be sufficient to prove your case in your favour if court is involved.

My advice would be to tread this road very carefully, regardless of how you feel about being booked or spoken to. Witnesses are definitely the best bet if they are present.

Not quite correct for NSW. Legislation was introduced back in 2004 allowing Police in NSW to record the conversation on video and audio of motorists without their consent.

New candid camera for NSW police - National - www.smh.com.au

108D Person to be informed that conversation will be recorded

(1) A police officer who records a conversation between the police officer and another person under this Part must inform the person (either immediately before recording of the conversation commences or as soon as practicable after recording has commenced) that the conversation will be recorded using police in-car video equipment.

(2) This section does not apply to the recording of a conversation inadvertently or unexpectedly or incidentally to the recording of another conversation.

(3) Recording of a conversation does not require the consent of the person and the authority conferred by this Part is not affected by any objection or refusal to consent by the person to the recording.

 

[sporty custom]

thats funny as #### your word against a cop pmsl carma id say has cought up with ol jesterarts

 

[Jesterarts]

1. Before posting, consider if what you are posting is adding something intelligent. I know this may be a challenge, but give it a bash.
2. Its not my word against a cops given I didn't recieve the infringement.
3. Not sure how "Carma" has "cought" up with me? Please refer to item 2 and the over arching statement in item 1.

 

[Torborg]

Honestly guys everyone can go on about cops being pricks and going on power trips etc
but if you had to deal with even 1/5 of the **** they do then you would understand.

In saying that it does seem that this officer was just being a bit of a twat and deserves to get his head pulled back into line

Of course its a minority of police that are the problem. I don't think anyone is disputing that. What about those who are on a power trip? Should their word be taken over mine, and if so, why? Personally, I think police should be required to have video/audio/speed camera evidence if I'm going to get a fine or conviction for any traffic offense. In this day and age, the idea of my word vs theirs should be obsolete.

 

[Torborg]

Hate things like this.

Fact is - Your word versus theirs, and their word is taken over solid evidence in many cases.

Legally, they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you commiteed those offences, but the magistrates often take officers word as 'proof'. Thats why their magistrates and not judges.

If you feel really strongly about it, go through the magistrates courts rigmarole, proclaim your innocence, make the officer state you did it under oath, but expect the magistrate to find against you. Then challenge it in the state court, where the burden of evidence will go back on the police, and a jury will be involved. Then you can rightfully say - where is the evidence that I actually did these things. Unless the officer can provide substantiated evidence, you win and can claim costs.

Which is why so often that fines that go to state court are thrown out.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the onus is actually on you to prove your innocence for traffic offenses. In other words, its guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Jesterarts]

I believe that is the case. You cop the infringement and then if you wish, you can take it to court and try to prove your innocence.

I mean it makes sense, as otherwise the courts would be clogged with all the traffic infringement people and half the police force would be in court all the time presenting their evidence agaist the accused speeders, etc.

 

[Torborg]

Cheers. It would be a brave act to take it to court then. It's what we'd all like to do in an ideal world. I'm not doubting your story, just hoping your wife has more than personal conviction to prove her case.

Guilty until proven innocent only makes sense in a world without video cameras. Seriously though, we're living in the 21st century. Video evidence should be essential for claims of going over double lines and similar infringements. As for speeding claims, they're easily proven unless the reliability of the speed camera is in doubt, and the onus of proof should ALWAYS be on the one making the charge AFAIAC.

 

[Reaper]

So rang the station. Spoke with the issuing officer who was a different one to the officer who was a jerk to my wife.

Now they are adamanet that she crossed the likes because they saw her and were like "OMG, is she going to overtake?"

Hmm... our word against 2 cops. Strikes me as one we're not going to win.

Unfortunately without any vision of the situation or similar, your not going to win. The police will close ranks in these sorts of situations and will back each other. All they have to say to the magistrate is they observed her move towards the centre of the road, crossing the lines. Bang - she is gone. Weather she did or not is irrelevant without conclusive evidence. You *may* have a chance if the van had a dash camera and your wife's car was in shot however it's an outside chance. Guaranteed that if the vision did show such a thing, said evidence will be "accidentally" deleted or lost when they were getting it for you.

I'm often on the side of the police but after seeing 2 incidents close hand with people close to me, when it comes down to covering their backsides, the police will lie etc just like most of the rest of society.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the onus is actually on you to prove your innocence for traffic offenses. In other words, its guilty until proven innocent.

No, the onus of proof is exactly the same as any other offence. Unfortunately the judiciary usually regards things like speed cameras and the like as foolproof evidence that the offence occurred and then the onus falls back on the defendant to demonstrate that the camera is defective. Same goes for 2 police witnesses vs 1 motorist.


Reaper.

 

[hi_ryder]

when i first moved to australia i was traveling on a couple back streets to get to safeway early in the morning. it was like 830 am and the sun was right in my eyes along with reflecting off the wet pavement cause it had just rained. i ended up turning into one of those no turn down this street between 730 and 930 school zone ones. i wasnt familiar to the area and there was no possible way to see that sign in the glare, not only that a tree branch partially covered the sign. a motorcycle cop was camped out and he got me.

cost me like 130 bucks. i tried telling him theres no way to see the sign in the glare even with sunnies on, plus the tree. he wasnt having any of it, but i thought for 100 plus bucks it would cost more to fight it... my missus has been in law for over 25 years, she was like its not worth it, and paid the fine that day.