[Procrastastudy]

Originally Posted by fasttalkerchat

If they do that they must give you the name of the legislation under which you are being searched. If they do not have a warrant and search you wrongfully anything they find cannot be used in court. In the case of People v. O'Brien, DPP v. Kenny this happened, although it should be noted that this was a search of property and not of a person.

You're comparing apples and monkeys.

[fasttalkerchat]

Originally Posted by Finnbar01

Yes, they will tell you the legislation that they are searching under. They do not have to tell you there and then what their reasonable cause is to search you in the first place. It would be impossible for you to prove they searched you unlawfully.

If you take it to court or make a complaint they would have to outline their "reasonable suspicion" or so I assume.

[Procrastastudy]

Originally Posted by fasttalkerchat

If you take it to court or make a complaint they would have to outline their "reasonable suspicion" or so I assume.

Under what legal theory would you take this to court?

[fasttalkerchat]

Originally Posted by GCDLawstudent

You're comparing apples and monkeys.

A search not carried in accordance with the law resulted in what was found being thrown out of court. I think its fairly relevant, albeit not airtight.

[Procrastastudy]

Originally Posted by fasttalkerchat

A search not carried in accordance with the law resulted in what was found being thrown out of court. I think its fairly relevant, albeit not airtight.

You're confusing something (I'm not sure what) and Article 40.5 of The Constitution. Even applying the broadest principles there is nothing unconstitutional about being searched on the street or in your car.

[BrianBoru00]

Absolutely staggering the amount of people criticising the garda here.

Theres several threads already on gardai taking 20 minutes to come to the scene of a burglary or accident when the station is only 2 minutes away - This kind of ****e is one of the reasons.
If your in a strange place out for a drive at midnight, then your obviously not in that big a hurry yet you want to Flag down a garda rol patcar to ask for directions??????

You ve been stopped 5 times recently ...Is it the same garda that stopped you all 5 times? If yes, maybe you have a case, If not maybe the way you drive or your car are suspicious.
How suspicious? maybe your car has darkened windows, a loud exhaust. Maybe its a stereotypical "boy racer" car......

[fasttalkerchat]

Originally Posted by BrianBoru00

You ve been stopped 5 times recently ...Is it the same garda that stopped you all 5 times? If yes, maybe you have a case, If not maybe the way you drive or your car are suspicious.
How suspicious? maybe your car has darkened windows, a loud exhaust. Maybe its a stereotypical "boy racer" car......

He drives a van. Hardly a joyriding boy racer!

[Procrastastudy]

Originally Posted by fasttalkerchat

He drives a van. Hardly a joyriding boy racer!

Outside a closed petrol station late at night. If it had been a boy racer he probably wouldn't have had an issue. Instead he was in a the type of thing you might load swag into.

[fasttalkerchat]

Originally Posted by GCDLawstudent

Outside a closed petrol station late at night. If it had been a boy racer he probably wouldn't have had an issue. Instead he was in a the type of thing you might load swag into.

Oh come on! Driving a van at night outside a petrol station is not reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime.

[Procrastastudy]

Originally Posted by fasttalkerchat

Oh come on! Driving a van at night outside a petrol station is not reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime.

This is where we differ.

[Fenian Army]

So driving a van at night doing a U-Turn at a petrol station and waving down the law to ask for directions looks criminal?

Glad I don't live in your police state.

[underachieved]

Again with respect no one has said the op committed any crime. What i am sayining is that the guard was right to check him out because he and his pal were travelling in a rural area late at night in a van, entered a closed petrol station forcourt which as far as i know is owned by someone ie private property when the garage is closed and no one around.

the guard checked the ops documents obviously saw they werent locals and asked them what they were up to????

OUT IN MY VAN WITH MY MATE ON A MIDNIGHT DRIVE is to anyone with common sense an odd answer???? he searches it finds a 100 scratch cards and asks the driver about them. when the driver has the recipt the guard let them go.

Failing to repatriate the insurance cert is the problem. easily solved via the telephone difficult to solve on an internet forum.

as for flagging hm down. i am sure the guard was telepathic and instanty knew the op was a good guy and wasnt trying to bluff him etc either that or he did his job and asked questions.

[fasttalkerchat]

Originally Posted by fasttalkerchat

Oh come on! Driving a van at night outside a petrol station is not reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime.

Originally Posted by GCDLawstudent

This is where we differ.

This is not a personal attack but what I will say is if you aim to enter the legal profession in a few years I would advise you to seriously consider what you have said here. Consider its wider implications and consider your opinions on social norms, freedoms and law enforcement responsibilities.

[Procrastastudy]

Originally Posted by fasttalkerchat

This is not a personal attack but what I will say is if you aim to enter the legal profession in a few years I would advise you to seriously consider what you have said here. Consider its wider implications and consider your opinions on social norms, freedoms and law enforcement responsibilities.

No thats fair enough thats not a personal attack thats an attack of an opinion - sorry it all got a bit heated these threads aways do!

You have to bear in mind that while you may believe I have a skewed view, you have to accept the possibility that it's your view, for what ever reason, that is skewed. It's also possible we are both wrong.

Some people believe that the law is an ass because most of the time it tows a line that suits no one completely. It's why I firmly believe in the adversarial system of government and of the courts. Although lets not give either of our opinions much credit on the objectivity front.

As for not entering the legal profession due to one's own personal views - I wouldn't worry about that too much. Its politics you want to be worried about! I'm not sure what leads you to believe that the majority of the legal profession are what you might refer to as liberal though!

[comeback_kid]

Originally Posted by underachieved

Again with respect no one has said the op committed any crime. What i am sayining is that the guard was right to check him out because he and his pal were travelling in a rural area late at night in a van, entered a closed petrol station forcourt which as far as i know is owned by someone ie private property when the garage is closed and no one around.

the guard checked the ops documents obviously saw they werent locals and asked them what they were up to????

OUT IN MY VAN WITH MY MATE ON A MIDNIGHT DRIVE is to anyone with common sense an odd answer???? he searches it finds a 100 scratch cards and asks the driver about them. when the driver has the recipt the guard let them go.

Failing to repatriate the insurance cert is the problem. easily solved via the telephone difficult to solve on an internet forum.

as for flagging hm down. i am sure the guard was telepathic and instanty knew the op was a good guy and wasnt trying to bluff him etc either that or he did his job and asked questions.

what kind of criminal waves down a cop car looking for directions ?

we wont need 007 to bring them to justice , thats for sure