Gardai 'suspicion' vs right to privacy

Time Magazine

Based entirely on this.

Let's take the guy at his word: walking home from school, asked for his name and addressed, refused, ended up in a cell.

I appreciate that the easiest way out of this scenario would have been for the chap to just give his name. And I also appreciate the benefits of letting the Gardaí question people they suspect over this or that.

However I feel quite strongly that people have the right to be left alone if they so desire it. Can a member of AGS simply demand a person's name and address? Must they form a reasonable suspicion? If the latter, how is Joe Citizen to know the state of mind of the cop? Can he say "On what grounds do you want my name?"

What's the standard practice here? I do not like the scenario whereby the burden of proof is on the citizen to conclude that the cop has yet to form a reasonable suspicion.

McCrack

Im amazed at some of the answers there, one poster I recognise to be a serving Garda from other posts who is very off the mark.

On a strictly legal basis a person walking in a public place is under no obligation to talk to anybody (inc. a Garda). A Garda is entitled to approach anybody in a public place (as is any other person) to talk to that person but that person is under no obligation to talk back.

If the person fits a description of a suspect and decides to stay mute the Garda would be entitled to arrest that person to establish his/her identity and possible involvement.

The only exception to this is a driver of a vehicle is obliged to stop on demand by a Garda and give their name/address and/or license.

I mean I would need to know what this person was arrested for to comment further.

Trojan911

Topic covered here some time ago....

But in answer to your question, yes a member of AGS can stop a person but that person is not obliged to stay unless he/she is being detained for a reason to which grounds must be provided. See here also....

Reloc8

Its not uncommon to here of situations where S. 24 of the Criminal Justice Public Order Act 1997 is engaged to justify an arrest where on the account given by the arrested person none is warranted.

What is described by the OP in the linked thread was unlawful subject to proof and whether the Garda had reasonable cause to believe an offence under the Public Order Act 1997 had been committed by the OP.

Our man in Havana

Can section 8 (failure to comply with the directions of a Garda) be invoked to force a person to reveal their name and address?

Reloc8

Not really but sort of. The power to demand a name and address and arrest for failure to provide under the Public Order Act arises where the member with reasonable cause suspects a person has committed or is committing an offence under any of Section 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 or 19.

Section 8 allows him to tell somebody to desist from acting in a manner contrary to Section 4, 5, 6, 7 or 9 and to move away from a place peacably/in orderly manner. The same powers arise if a person is loitering in a public place in a manner which gives rise to a reasonable apprehension for the safety of persons/property or the maintenance of the public peace.

So any of the offence sections can be invoked, given good grounds of course, to require the name and address. Frequently S. 4 (so drunk as to be a danger to yourself or others) or S. 5 (offensive conduct - having a wee etc.) is invoked.

Cróga

Have you not got a right to silence? If not, isnt it a contradiction then if the Garda arrests you for being silent and then reads you your miranda rights saying "you have the right to remain silent"? lol

blackcoat

we all have loads of rights but its not always ideal to excercise them! some people rarely invoke their right to silence (though it would be better for some others if the did...:)). but when a garda comes along they feel they need to cause a bit of hassle.

personally, id feel very reassured to see a garda actively seeking out and preventing crime.
the same people who are giving out about them asking for details are the same people who are all too quick to call the guards lazy, incompetent etc.ent etc.

if one asked me my name and address, id disclose that info immediately.
its if he just drove by someone who matched the description of a suspected criminal that id be worried!
and no, it wouldnt bother me one bit where he got his 'reasonable suspicion' from. it is not infringing my rights in any way to ask me my name and address and unless ive something to hide or am just a moron, id give them to him.

Cróga

blackcoat wrote: »

if one asked me my name and address, id disclose that info immediately.
its if he just drove by someone who matched the description of a suspected criminal that id be worried!
and no, it wouldnt bother me one bit where he got his 'reasonable suspicion' from. it is not infringing my rights in any way to ask me my name and address and unless ive something to hide or am just a moron, id give them to him.

Lots of people have something to hide - their privacy! I dont think the problem is with Gardai requesting details, not for me anyway, but we are not obligated to give them. We can deny their request. If I came up to you and ask you for your details would you give them to me? No? Then why would you give them to a Garda who is just another man wearing a costume. They took an oath to uphold the peace and to serve the people not to intimidate or use violence by locking people up in a cell for reserving their rights.

Whitewater-AGS

Cróga wrote: »

Have you not got a right to silence? If not, isnt it a contradiction then if the Garda arrests you for being silent and then reads you your miranda rights saying "you have the right to remain silent"? lol

Yeah you have the right to keep your trap shut and say nothing but thankfully their are certain sections in law where you have no choice but provide name and address such as section 24 P.O.A 94 and even better if you continue to refuse to provide details its a trip straight to court and if you still refuse you'll most likely spend a few days in jail until you do.

Cróga

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

Yeah you have the right to keep your trap shut and say nothing but thankfully their are certain sections in law where you have no choice but provide name and address such as section 24 P.O.A 94 and even better if you continue to refuse to provide details its a trip straight to court and if you still refuse you'll most likely spend a few days in jail until you do.

This is something you agree with? If someone who is walking down the road peacefully, a Garda (just a man wearing a costume) comes up requests their name and the guy denies the Garda drags him off the street, locks him up and uses intimidation to extract his details, then brings him in front of a Judge (just another man) and sentences him to spend a few days in jail. Do you think this is right? How do they get the authority to do this?

section 24 P.O.A 94 is from a statute/act of parliament right? Unlike the government employees, the people on the land are sovereign so how can a statute apply to a man walking down the street? Isnt it true the Garda would NEED his name and address for the statute to apply to him? Because the details - name and address - is the person and statutes only apply to persons? This is why the Gardai use intimidation on folks in cells when interviewing them right? Because without these details they cant do anything to the poor fella.

So lets say it gets the court, and the guy still refuses to give his name and address how then does the court get subject matter jurisdiction over the guy to send him to jail? Even if they send him to jail without his consent or intent, are they going to put an unknown man in jail especially if there was no complaint against him by another man? No corpus delecti? Isnt it true at the jail, its like booking into the hotel, the guy would have to sign his name which is pretty much them asking the man to create joinder between the person and himself to give them permission to put him in jail?

Where does the Garda oath come in? Isnt this oath to the people? To keep the peace and uphold the constitution?

" I hereby solemnly and sincerely declare before God that _ I will faithfully discharge the duties of a member of the Garda Siochana with fairness,integrity,regard for human rights,diligence and impartially,upholding the Constitution and the Laws and according equal respect to all people, While I continue to be a member, I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all my duties according to Law, and I do not belong to, and will not remain a member form, belong to or subscribe to , any Political party or secret society whatsoever." Garda Siochana Act 2005

I see uphold the Constitution and the Laws which means to obey the Constitution and keep the peace right? No where do I see enforce the law, so where do they get the power to enforce statutes on people? Is it through the consent of the people? Is that why Gardai ask questions like ,after quoting a statute, "do you under-stand?"(stand under).

Is their oath to the government? Or to the people? Are they bound to the Constitution? - take notice of Article 41.1.1

"The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it is a moral institution which has inalienable and invincible rights which are more ancient and higher than any human statute."

So if their oath is to the people and they have to uphold the Constitution how can they enforce statutes when the Constitution doesnt allow it?
peace

Reloc8

Cróga wrote: »

Have you not got a right to silence? If not, isnt it a contradiction then if the Garda arrests you for being silent and then reads you your miranda rights saying "you have the right to remain silent"? lol

Yes you have the right to silence. If you choose to exercise it there may be consequences on foot of your choice. The Offences Against the State Acts provide far more strictly for the provision of information including personal details and one's movements and allow for arrest on failure to provide.

Equally Section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 provides in broad terms that once cautioned that the section applies a failure to mention a fact later relied upon in defence allows a judge/jury to draw 'such inferences as are proper' against the accused based on that failure.

No right is unlimited/absolute. Even if the right to silence comes close, it is perfectly acceptable that there are consequences (potentially) for choosing to rely upon it.

PS the caution on arrest here is in terms stating that you don't have to say anything but if you do say something it can be taken town and used in evidence.

blackcoat

Croga i understand what you're getting at but in this situation i have to completely disagree with you.

a garda is not just a man 'wearing a costume'. its not the same as me asking you for your details. he/she will have a good reason for doing so and it will most likely be related to upholding the law. in the same way the gardai should respect the public we should respect the job they do and understand that he more than likely has good reason for taking the time to ask your details. suddenly deciding to excercise your right to silent is, in my opinion, totally unnecessary in such a situation and a needless waste of garda time/your own time.

'protect your privacy' - your name and address is hardly confidential informaton. sure most of us are in the phone book!

Whitewater-AGS

Croga and his oaths again I should have known better:rolleyes:

LionelNashe

blackcoat wrote: »

a garda is not just a man 'wearing a costume'. its not the same as me asking you for your details. he/she will have a good reason for doing so and it will most likely be related to upholding the law. ......

Here's a question. If the garda has a good reason, then the law says he/she can ask for name and address. But if the punter wants to know what the reason is, does the garda have to explain the specific reason, or is it enough for the garda to quote the law and say that he has reasonable cause, without being specific?

Reloc8

If the Garda wants to exercise his various powers, be they to request information, search, direction to leave an area or arrest etc, he must state his power and the basis for it, and explain any consequences of a failure to comply with his direction/request.

If the power in question under statute requires the garda to state the reason for his/her actions then yes they have to do so or the subject of the action is not bound to comply with it. Of course, anecdotal information suggests that if it is just yourself and a garda present there may on (veryveryveryveryveryvery rare occasions) be a level of eh informality to certain processes which do not meet legal requirements and which bear no relation to the evidence given by the prosecution in due course as to what was said and explained etc. in the event a charge is laid.

freefromgov2009

McCrack wrote: »

Im amazed at some of the answers there, one poster I recognise to be a serving Garda from other posts who is very off the mark.

On a strictly legal basis a person walking in a public place is under no obligation to talk to anybody (inc. a Garda). A Garda is entitled to approach anybody in a public place (as is any other person) to talk to that person but that person is under no obligation to talk back.

If the person fits a description of a suspect and decides to stay mute the Garda would be entitled to arrest that person to establish his/her identity and possible involvement.

The only exception to this is a driver of a vehicle is obliged to stop on demand by a Garda and give their name/address and/or license.

I mean I would need to know what this person was arrested for to comment further.

a guardian of the peace cannot ask you for a license no matter who you are , every time a guard asks anyone for a license he is acting outside of the scope of his office, he is now a revenue collector for the corporate state, or a policy inforcment officer, think of the words here,police = policy guarda = gurdian, so every time you come accros a guard start by sayin "under god so help me god we now have a binding contract that is your oath" he swore an oath to protect you , why is he standing enforcing legislated rules of a corporation, he is being a traitor to every irish man , the very people who gave him his oath, they need to be told the truth aswell, they are being tricked, even a judge in a high court case last month didnt even know about the original constitution if ireland, so he stopped the case and sent for a copy. how come a judge didnt know of the excistance of the most powerfull document in the history of the state, why have the gov stopped printing it, heres why, because it says stuff like this,LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it is a moral institution which has inalienable invincible rights which are more ancient and higher than any human statute. higher than any man made statute, that one phrase destroys every act and staute they have , time for the law society members to think outside the box , they are being feed lies

Whitewater-AGS

freefromgov2009 wrote: »

a guardian of the peace cannot ask you for a license no matter who you are , every time a guard asks anyone for a license he is acting outside of the scope of his office, he is now a revenue collector for the corporate state, or a policy inforcment officer, think of the words here,police = policy guarda = gurdian, so every time you come accros a guard start by sayin "under god so help me god we now have a binding contract that is your oath" he swore an oath to protect you , why is he standing enforcing legislated rules of a corporation, he is being a traitor to every irish man , the very people who gave him his oath, they need to be told the truth aswell, they are being tricked, even a judge in a high court case last month didnt even know about the original constitution if ireland, so he stopped the case and sent for a copy. how come a judge didnt know of the excistance of the most powerfull document in the history of the state, why have the gov stopped printing it, heres why, because it says stuff like this,LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it is a moral institution which has inalienable invincible rights which are more ancient and higher than any human statute. higher than any man made statute, that one phrase destroys every act and staute they have , time for the law society members to think outside the box , they are being feed lies

Hmmmm dont suppose you know croga:rolleyes:

Maximilian

freefromgov2009 wrote: »

a guardian of the peace cannot ask you for a license no matter who you are , every time a guard asks anyone for a license he is acting outside of the scope of his office, he is now a revenue collector for the corporate state, or a policy inforcment officer, think of the words here,police = policy guarda = gurdian, so every time you come accros a guard start by sayin "under god so help me god we now have a binding contract that is your oath" he swore an oath to protect you , why is he standing enforcing legislated rules of a corporation, he is being a traitor to every irish man , the very people who gave him his oath, they need to be told the truth aswell, they are being tricked, even a judge in a high court case last month didnt even know about the original constitution if ireland, so he stopped the case and sent for a copy. how come a judge didnt know of the excistance of the most powerfull document in the history of the state, why have the gov stopped printing it, heres why, because it says stuff like this,LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it is a moral institution which has inalienable invincible rights which are more ancient and higher than any human statute. higher than any man made statute, that one phrase destroys every act and staute they have , time for the law society members to think outside the box , they are being feed lies

No more of this paranoid conspiracy nonsense. This forum is not your personal soapbox. Go here if you want to espouse your um.. unconventional views.

You have been warned.

KC JONES

Cróga wrote: »

Lots of people have something to hide - their privacy! I dont think the problem is with Gardai requesting details, not for me anyway, but we are not obligated to give them. We can deny their request. If I came up to you and ask you for your details would you give them to me? No? Then why would you give them to a Garda who is just another man wearing a costume. They took an oath to uphold the peace and to serve the people not to intimidate or use violence by locking people up in a cell for reserving their rights.

+1

sparkling sea

Cróga wrote: »

I dont think the problem is with Gardai requesting details, not for me anyway, but we are not obligated to give them. We can deny their request. If I came up to you and ask you for your details would you give them to me? No? Then why would you give them to a Garda who is just another man wearing a costume. They took an oath to uphold the peace and to serve the people not to intimidate or use violence by locking people up in a cell for reserving their rights.

If a Gardai requests details it is easier to opt to give the details.

However you can't get away from the fact that the Morris tribunal uncovered major levels of corruption in the police force, so why would it be unreasonable to be worried and not want to give details.

KC JONES

sparkling sea wrote: »

If a Gardai requests details it is easier to opt to give the details.

However you can't get away from the fact that the Morris tribunal uncovered major levels of corruption in the police force, so why would it be unreasonable to be worried and not want to give details.

You could also ask the garda his name/station he is from/super's name and why he wants the details.Just be polite no need to be abusive

Cróga

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

Croga and his oaths again I should have known better:rolleyes:

You need to have an oath of office to work in any government office. The people in government are men & women on the land, but because they have extra duties they have to take an oath to uphold the rights of the people who gave them this authority/ status. If you dont have an oath then you're not working in government.

Are the HSE a private company or an organ of the state? I ask this because none of their employees have an oath of office yet they seem to believe they have the authority to take peoples kids.

That leads me to this question, does registration give up ownership? For example registering a kid, car, house, land... etc

Taltos

G-whiz.
I was brought up by my folks to respect the gardai so maybe I am not seeing all the shapes and convolutions put out by others here.

But seriously - why would someone not answer that question?
Even to a civi like me someone who refused to answer would immediately set alarm bells ringing and I think a fair response was taken here.

Personally I think the garda in question deserves some sort of award - I just hope social welfare have been informed as clearly this young fella is missing clear parental guidance, that or he is the spawn of the Idiocy theory - opposite to Darwin.

Cróga

Taltos wrote: »

G-whiz.
I was brought up by my folks to respect the gardai so maybe I am not seeing all the shapes and convolutions put out by others here.

You say how you where brought up and then criticise someone because they where (apparently) brought up differently to you. What the hell? Ego problems?

Did your folks raise you up to trust strangers?

But seriously - why would someone not answer that question?

Some people like to exercise their god given inalienable and invincible rights and sovereignty. Maybe you should try it sometime instead of acting like a slave or do you like your slavery so much?

Cróga

sparkling sea wrote: »

If a Gardai requests details it is easier to opt to give the details.

What details? What if you dont have these "details"? Are you a number?

Cróga

Maximilian wrote: »

No more of this paranoid conspiracy nonsense. This forum is not your personal soapbox. Go here if you want to espouse your um.. unconventional views.

You have been warned.

Are you saying the Irish Constitution Article 41.1.1 is conspiracy nonsense? If you are not referring to all of the post, can you please point out what you think is conspiracy nonsense?

Taltos

Cróga wrote: »

You say how you where brought up and then criticise someone because they where (apparently) brought up differently to you.

Get what you mean - disrespectful to the law. - Different yah...

Cróga wrote: »

What the hell? Ego problems?

Well I have been accused of having a god complex, being unbelievable handsome and having the wit of a dull spade. Pot - kettle much

Cróga wrote: »

Did your folks raise you up to trust strangers?

In the Ireland I grew up in I was reared to be welcoming and yes to offer some bit of trust to all but also to be careful.
Quite a bit of a difference though from a random stranger and a garda with identification.

Cróga wrote: »

Some people like to exercise their god given inalienable and invincible rights and sovereignty. Maybe you should try it sometime instead of acting like a slave or do you like your slavery so much?

Don't believe in god, and don't believe in a sovereignty in Ireland. Maybe where you live there is a King or a Queen - but here we have a lawless government who are controlled by the banks.
I am open to being convinced otherwise however I do not think I shall be singing Gawd Save the Queen tonight boss.

Cróga

Taltos wrote: »

Get what you mean - disrespectful to the law. - Different yah...

Have you got proof of claim he was disrespectful to the law or is that just your opinion? The Garda was quoting a statute which isnt law its a legislative rule of a society which the guy didnt understand (stand under).

Well I have been accused of having a god complex, being unbelievable handsome and having the wit of a dull spade. Pot - kettle much

lol good for you

In the Ireland I grew up in I was reared to be welcoming and yes to offer some bit of trust to all but also to be careful.
Quite a bit of a difference though from a random stranger and a garda with identification.

I see a Garda as a stranger, so could he have. Regardless he doesnt have to give any details to anyone if he doesnt want to.

Don't believe in god, and don't believe in a sovereignty in Ireland.

Either do i (well not a man in the sky).... when I said God take it as in nature, universe, whatever. THe source in which you were created from. We are all sovereign. We were born that way. If you dont believe that that's fine for you. I know i was. Do you believe someone can tell you what to do without your consent?

Maybe where you live there is a King or a Queen - but here we have a lawless government who are controlled by the banks.

Dont know where you're getting a King or Queen being sovereign. I always thought they were the least sovereign as they hold status. If you're talking about the Queen of England she just represents the peoples sovereignty, according to her. I dont know and dont really care for kings and queens anyway. I dont recognise them. I know im sovereign. I know the government recognises that aswell according Article 41.1.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann.

peace eh?

Taltos

Cróga wrote: »

I see a Garda as a stranger, so could he have. Regardless he doesnt have to give any details to anyone if he doesnt want to.

True - you are right he doesn't have to.
But then he gets to have a nice little trip to the station while they sort out who he is - and more importantly who he is not - ie the crim that more than likely the garda was looking for in the first place.

In terms of the disrespect. As before I was raised to have and show respect for the gardai. Personally I do not know how they deal with the venom they receive on the streets - and any garda I have ever met and have talked to - in the pursuit of their duty has been very civil and polite. Well except for that one motor-cycle cop who was in my blindspot when I swerved to get past a parked truck. Man he scared me big time.

You do not have to be disrespectful in a direct way to get the message across. I have been known to be disrespectful to someones face while still doing what they asked for. But I am guessing in this case being asked for your name, possibly more than once and then "politely" declining to come to the station as a result may have had the same effect.

Maybe the garda over-reacted - but maybe and I believe the garda did exactly what was expected of him/her in the pursuit of their job. Detain a suspected criminal until they could determine that in this case they detained the wrong person. Pity - it could be the person they were looking for was just around the corner - however being obstructed from continuing in their search they'll never know.

Taltos

Seriously - that one garda - scared the bee-jabus out of me. Would have reached for my inhaler except I don't use one.

Doug Cartel

Taltos, the first post said to assume the guy being questioned was telling the truth when he said he was questioned for no reason.

If a guard asks you name and address, the respectful thing is not to simply give your details, the respectful thing is to be polite when asking what his reason is for asking you, and to consider his reply fairly before you decide if it is reasonable.

darragh666

I dont mind giving my details to a garda if he has reasonable suspicion. The garda in the OP sounds like he abused his position but other than that I think there are legitimate reasons for an garda to detain someone for refusing to give details. We cant expect the state to fulfill its obligation to protect the citizens without giving the garda some powers. Its all about balance.

Taltos

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Taltos, the first post said to assume the guy being questioned was telling the truth when he said he was questioned for no reason.

If a guard asks you name and address, the respectful thing is not to simply give your details, the respectful thing is to be polite when asking what his reason is for asking you, and to consider his reply fairly before you decide if it is reasonable.

Ok - makes sense.
But were we to also assume that this guy did indeed ask that? Or did this guy instead just disregard the officer in question.
I think asking why you are being asked is quite reasonable - but I see no mention of it in the original post nor in the assumptions at the start of this thread.

blackcoat

taltos i completely agree with you.
but you have to understand that some people, for whatever reason, be it because they were brought up with no manners or because they just like a bit of confrontation and misplace their need to make a stand, have no respect for the gardai who are simply doing their jobs and will, clearly, kick up a fuss when a garda makes a simple request of them even though he could simply be doing so because the person matches the description of a criminal.
personally id be delighted to see the gardai being so proactive. if they werent doing it the same people would be complaining about them not doing their jobs.
some people just dont like guards and trying to reason with them is like talking to a wall. except worse because a wall wont reply with some of the absolute nonsense some people on here talk.

Doug Cartel

Taltos wrote: »

Ok - makes sense.
But were we to also assume that this guy did indeed ask that? Or did this guy instead just disregard the officer in question.
I think asking why you are being asked is quite reasonable - but I see no mention of it in the original post nor in the assumptions at the start of this thread.

The original, original post says that the guard threw him in the back of the car without giving him a reason when he simple refused to give his name.

The original post for this thread says to take the poster at his word.

Just because the guy didn't have the best manners in the world did not give the guard the excuse to exceed his powers.

Furthermore this thread is not about whether or not the poster was or wasn't "polite" enough. It's about what demands exactly a guard can make of you on the street.

KC JONES

blackcoat wrote: »

is like talking to a wall. except worse because a wall wont reply with some of the absolute nonsense some people on here talk.

why not talk to a wall then?
Some cops abuse their 'powers' even when they do not have them

KC JONES

Doug Cartel wrote: »

The original, original post says that the guard threw him in the back of the car without giving him a reason when he simple refused to give his name.

The original post for this thread says to take the poster at his word.

Just because the guy didn't have the best manners in the world did not give the guard the excuse to exceed his powers.

Furthermore this thread is not about whether or not the poster was or wasn't "polite" enough. It's about what demands exactly a guard can make of you on the street.

+1 well said

Doug Cartel

Small abuses of power are rife in policing, as often both the police and civilians are unclear as to exactly how far their powers and rights extend. Just look at the fiasco with confiscating cameras in the UK.

blackcoat

KC JONES wrote: »

why not talk to a wall then?

because some people, even if they disagree with you, are able to open their minds enough to at least see where youre coming from or are well able to express their own opinion and it makes for excellent discussion sometimes.

some people.....

KC JONES

blackcoat wrote: »

because some people, even if they disagree with you, are able to open their minds enough to at least see where youre coming from or are well able to express their own opinion and it makes for excellent discussion sometimes.

some people.....

still think you should try the wall;) Happy new year

blackcoat

KC JONES wrote: »

Happy new year

you too.

Tom Young

Ok, people this thread is about as far off point as it needs to be.

The last three posters should be on notice that I intend to act on your entries and actions in relation to other posters.

Thanks,

Tom