Garda's right to search

Makeveli

Hey guys just want to ask a couple questions after being stopped by the garda last weekend, me and two friends were walking out of an estate and an unmarked car driving around the coming opposite the estate drove across the road(into the right hand lane) and pulled up beside us , the driver shouted over at us and instantly started asking us questions like where we were going and what we were doing.


He asked one of my friends where he was from,my friend said just up the road and the guard shouted "your address". Another garda then jumped out of the car and told us to empty are pockets at this stage there was about 10 cars in front of the garda car watching. So we got searched and they drove on.


What i want to know is do the garda have the right to ask your name and address without giving a reason?
Do they have the right to publicly embarrass you by searching you on the main road in front of 10 cars again without giving a reason?
One of my friends actually got a text from someone saying theyd seen him get searched.

Ive read up a bit about my rights in the last couple of days and know that you dont have to consent to a search or give your details to a garda unless they provide a valid reason something i will definitely be asking for if this happens again.

I honestly wouldnt have minded that much if about 5 minutes later a marked guarda car pulled up beside us again, the guard in this car was much more polite and actually laughed when i told him wed been searched 2 minutes ago and asked if we were sure they were guards.

castie

Makeveli wrote: »

What i want to know is do the garda have the right to ask your name and address without giving a reason?
Do they have the right to publicly embarrass you by searching you on the main road in front of 10 cars again without giving a reason?
One of my friends actually got a text from someone saying theyd seen him get searched.

Ive read up a bit about my rights in the last couple of days and know that you dont have to consent to a search or give your details to a garda unless they provide a valid reason something i will definitely be asking for if this happens again.

Sorry whats the question???

MagicSean

Gardai can ask you anything. You don't have to answer though unless they make a lawful demand on you.

JustAddWater

MagicSean wrote: »

Gardai can ask you anything. You don't have to answer though unless they make a lawful demand on you.

Exactly... But if you don't answer they'll either think your hiding something or trying to be smart. Either way, they won't be happy with you and you'll bring more attention to yourself

They did nothing technically wrong
It's for the benefit of us all in the end. They might actually find someone they're looking for or find some stolen goods etc by random searches.
Chalk it up and move on....

chopser

JustAddWater wrote: »

Exactly... But if you don't answer they'll either think your hiding something or trying to be smart. Either way, they won't be happy with you and you'll bring more attention to yourself

They did nothing technically wrong
It's for the benefit of us all in the end. They might actually find someone they're looking for or find some stolen goods etc by random searches.
Chalk it up and move on....

It didn't benefit the op who was just out walking around to be harrassed by the Guards. I had v.similar happen to me not to long ago on a country road where I was obviously just out for a stroll.

It can be quite distressing to have two Garda jump out and start interrogating you on the side of the road. So no the op is right to ask on here if they were within their rights to do so.

Makeveli there are numerous threads about your rights on here if you do a search. Although I wouldn't believe most of what you read.

ResearchWill

JustAddWater wrote: »

Exactly... But if you don't answer they'll either think your hiding something or trying to be smart. Either way, they won't be happy with you and you'll bring more attention to yourself

They did nothing technically wrong
It's for the benefit of us all in the end. They might actually find someone they're looking for or find some stolen goods etc by random searches.
Chalk it up and move on....

According to the OP the Guards searched them with out warrant or without invoking a statutory power to search. That is not just technically wrong but it is an illegal search.

Why is in mine or anyone's benefit to allow innocent people to be stopped and searched at will. To be searched by AGS could cause anxiety and embarrassment. they can only search in certain circumstances and must inform you under what power they are searching.

castie

ResearchWill wrote: »

According to the OP the Guards searched them with out warrant or without invoking a statutory power to search. That is not just technically wrong but it is an illegal search.

Why is in mine or anyone's benefit to allow innocent people to be stopped and searched at will. To be searched by AGS could cause anxiety and embarrassment. they can only search in certain circumstances and must inform you under what power they are searching.

Technically they did not search them.
They requested they empty their pockets.
Refusal was an option at that point but they complied.

Would be interested to know what constitutes a search and if there has to be physical contact involved before you can claim it.

Mr. Presentable

If there were two (un)marked Garda cars in the same area (an "estate") there must have been good reason. OP, I suspect an incident had occurred and they were ruling you out of involvement in it.

Imagine if your mother's house had been burgled. You'd want them to check everyone hanging around the area.

With respect of your rights, they are entitled to ask, you are entitled to refuse, but if they suspect a crime they may be entitled to arrest. Easiest thing, and costs you nothing, is just to go along with them and be polite whatever their demeanour.

ResearchWill

castie wrote: »

Technically they did not search them.
They requested they empty their pockets.
Refusal was an option at that point but they complied.

Would be interested to know what constitutes a search and if there has to be physical contact involved before you can claim it.

To quote the OP "Another garda then jumped out of the car and told us to empty are pockets at this stage there was about 10 cars in front of the garda car watching. So we got searched and they drove on." The important words there are "told us to empty are (sic) pockets" and "So we got searched". I take that as a search. The use of the word told instead of requested leads me to believe the OP felt he had no other option but to empty his pockets.

In my opinion there does not need to be physical contact to be a search the necessary test is are you doing it without the belief that you have to.

To take the contention about physical contact to its logical but absurd conclusion, If a guard told you to strip naked, would that account to a search as long as there was no physical contact.

castie

ResearchWill wrote: »

To quote the OP "Another garda then jumped out of the car and told us to empty are pockets at this stage there was about 10 cars in front of the garda car watching. So we got searched and they drove on." The important words there are "told us to empty are (sic) pockets" and "So we got searched". I take that as a search. The use of the word told instead of requested leads me to believe the OP felt he had no other option but to empty his pockets.

In my opinion there does not need to be physical contact to be a search the necessary test is are you doing it without the belief that you have to.

To take the contention about physical contact to its logical but absurd conclusion, If a guard told you to strip naked, would that account to a search as long as there was no physical contact.

Take your point on the physical contact bit.

Its not clear if the OP decided that emptying their pockets was the search or if the garda did anything else.

Being asked to do something by anyone is a request whether its a garda or not. It does not matter if they believed they had no choice.

MagicSean

ResearchWill wrote: »

To quote the OP "Another garda then jumped out of the car and told us to empty are pockets at this stage there was about 10 cars in front of the garda car watching. So we got searched and they drove on." The important words there are "told us to empty are (sic) pockets" and "So we got searched". I take that as a search. The use of the word told instead of requested leads me to believe the OP felt he had no other option but to empty his pockets.

In my opinion there does not need to be physical contact to be a search the necessary test is are you doing it without the belief that you have to.

To take the contention about physical contact to its logical but absurd conclusion, If a guard told you to strip naked, would that account to a search as long as there was no physical contact.

I think you are jumping the gun a bit there. I don't think the op included the whole dialogue.

ResearchWill

castie wrote: »

Take your point on the physical contact bit.

Its not clear if the OP decided that emptying their pockets was the search or if the garda did anything else.

Being asked to do something by anyone is a request whether its a garda or not. It does not matter if they believed they had no choice.

Legally it matters a lot, in cases involving arrest, the state of mind of the person is very important. Being asked to do something is yes a request, "would you please empty out your pockets?" may very well be a request you believe you can say no to. On the other hand "Empty your pockets now!" is a different statement, and one you believe you have to obey. I base my statements on the work told, an example my boss told me to answer the phone, is very different to my boss asked could i answer the phone.

ResearchWill

MagicSean wrote: »

I think you are jumping the gun a bit there. I don't think the op included the whole dialogue.

I base my view that he was searched on 2 things the first was the OP used the word told, secondly the OP uses the word search a number of times, he makes it clear he believed he was searched. I can only comment on what the OP said. If he asked the question was the following a search that would have been different. He has clearly said he was searched.

MagicSean

ResearchWill wrote: »

I base my view that he was searched on 2 things the first was the OP used the word told, secondly the OP uses the word search a number of times, he makes it clear he believed he was searched. I can only comment on what the OP said. If he asked the question was the following a search that would have been different. He has clearly said he was searched.

I know what you are basing it on. I'm just saying that it is very little info to base anything on.

@Op - There's something I would like to clarify. A garda does not ever have to give you a reason or explain himself to you. He can ask you to do something or he can demand you do something under a lawful aithority. If he asks, you can refuse. If he makes a lawful demand, you can't legally refuse. He does not have to quote legislation or explain the law to you other than to tell you he is making a lawful demand and what the consequences will be if you do not obey.

There's a common misconception put out by the likes of Tir na Saor that you have the right to question or argue with a lawful demand made by a Garda. This should only be done if you have a strong understanding of the law and are prepared to be arrested and brought to court to argue it. Otherwise you should comply and, if you feel you have been trated unfairly, complain to their supervisor or the Ombudsman or pursue a civil case.

Makeveli

castie wrote: »

ResearchWill wrote: »

To quote the OP "Another garda then jumped out of the car and told us to empty are pockets at this stage there was about 10 cars in front of the garda car watching. So we got searched and they drove on." The important words there are "told us to empty are (sic) pockets" and "So we got searched". I take that as a search. The use of the word told instead of requested leads me to believe the OP felt he had no other option but to empty his pockets.

In my opinion there does not need to be physical contact to be a search the necessary test is are you doing it without the belief that you have to.

To take the contention about physical contact to its logical but absurd conclusion, If a guard told you to strip naked, would that account to a search as long as there was no physical contact.

Take your point on the physical contact bit.

Its not clear if the OP decided that emptying their pockets was the search or if the garda did anything else.

Being asked to do something by anyone is a request whether its a garda or not. It does not matter if they believed they had no choice.

Sorry for being unclear the search consists of us emptying are pockets then being fully patted down by the guard that had jumped out if the car. In all honesty I didn't feel I had a choice, now I know I do. I understand that their just doing there job but the way they went about it was wrong I felt like Id commited a crime for just walking down the road .

RustyNut

MagicSean wrote: »

Gardai can ask you anything. You don't have to answer though unless they make a lawful demand on you.

JustAddWater wrote: »

Exactly... But if you don't answer they'll either think your hiding something or trying to be smart. Either way, they won't be happy with you and you'll bring more attention to yourself

Taking the above into account,if someone is "asked" for their details and preferring not to give them they give false details to avoid confrontation. Have they committed an offence?

castie

RustyNut wrote: »

Taking the above into account,if someone is "asked" for their details and preferring not to give them they give false details to avoid confrontation. Have they committed an offence?

I dont know the legislation on this but yes it is an offense to provide a garda with a false name and address.

A few years ago a guy living close to me gave my name and address when stopped by the gardai. I got the summons and said it was not me to the garda mentioned and he agreed. Shortly after he spotted the guy who it was and arrested him for that offense and also for providing the false name and address.

Garda in question worked with someone I played rugby with and thats how I found out what happened subsequently.

Mr. Presentable

RustyNut wrote: »

Taking the above into account,if someone is "asked" for their details and preferring not to give them they give false details to avoid confrontation. Have they committed an offence?

If I lie to the Gardai and give a false identity, is that an offence? Is that your question?

RustyNut

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

If I lie to the Gardai and give a false identity, is that an offence? Is that your question?

No.
If a lawful demand is made then quite rightly you are obliged to give your correct details and not to do so is an offence.

However in a situation where a Garda is not in a position to make a lawful demand and you have no obligation to answer,you decide to give false details for whatever reason is that an offence?

McCrack

OP what are are you?

Your options are make a complaint to the Garda Ombudsman and/or consult a solicitor to assess whether there would be sufficient grounds to sue.

angeline

OP the guards have a right to know who is around the area and are entitled to ask your details. Perhaps something had happened. I would suggest that when asked for an address, giving an answer such as 'up the road' is not being very helpful.....

ANSI

MagicSean wrote: »

@Op - There's something I would like to clarify. A garda does not ever have to give you a reason or explain himself to you.

wrong

MagicSean

ANSI wrote: »

wrong

How so?

ANSI

MagicSean wrote: »

How so?

look it up

MagicSean

ANSI wrote: »

look it up

Look what up? Have you actually got anything useful to add? I'd be very impressed if you could find a statute that requires a Garda to explain himself before executing his search. All he need do is ask permission or state the statutory authority.

Marcusm

MagicSean wrote: »

Look what up? Have you actually got anything useful to add? I'd be very impressed if you could find a statute that requires a Garda to explain himself before executing his search. All he need do is ask permission or state the statutory authority.

I'd say that stating the statutory authority clearly was explaining himself.

By the by, anyone here seen the story of the 15 year old photographer in Romford, Essex involving a run in with police at a military parade. It's quite a good demonstration of how a policeman should not act even when confronted with a know it all who is clear on his rights. I say know it all as the kid was irritating in repeatedly asking the policeman to explain himself but ultimately the kid was right in most if not all respects. Describing Tge kid as "crazy, gay, stupid" hasn't won the cop any friends. Nor was pushing him down some steps and ultimately asserting a right of arrest under the Terrorism Act. To rub salt into the wound it seems to have been an inspector with a number of others hacking him up. Full apologies made, compensation paid and presumably a reduction in rank or dismissal to follow. Policing is by consent rather than force, I guess.

MagicSean

Marcusm wrote: »

I'd say that stating the statutory authority clearly was explaining himself.

I did mention that in my original post but ANSI appears to disagree.

ANSI

MagicSean wrote: »

Look what up? Have you actually got anything useful to add? I'd be very impressed if you could find a statute that requires a Garda to explain himself before executing his search. All he need do is ask permission or state the statutory authority.

which is explaining himself. Above you stated

A garda does not ever have to give you a reason or explain himself to you

which is not true

The garda cannot do what they like sad as this is for many of them

ANSI

MagicSean wrote: »

I did mention that in my original post but ANSI appears to disagree.

I was responding your statement

A garda does not ever have to give you a reason or explain himself to you

and that is what i disagree with. If a garda stops you on the street and does not give a reason you are free to go. And you do not have to give name unless he can supply a reason for asking

ANSI

Marcusm wrote: »

I'd say that stating the statutory authority clearly was explaining himself.

By the by, anyone here seen the story of the 15 year old photographer in Romford, Essex involving a run in with police at a military parade. It's quite a good demonstration of how a policeman should not act even when confronted with a know it all who is clear on his rights. I say know it all as the kid was irritating in repeatedly asking the policeman to explain himself but ultimately the kid was right in most if not all respects. Describing Tge kid as "crazy, gay, stupid" hasn't won the cop any friends. Nor was pushing him down some steps and ultimately asserting a right of arrest under the Terrorism Act. To rub salt into the wound it seems to have been an inspector with a number of others hacking him up. Full apologies made, compensation paid and presumably a reduction in rank or dismissal to follow. Policing is by consent rather than force, I guess.

Caling some one crazy because they know their rights is just a cop out

MagicSean

ANSI wrote: »

I was responding your statementand that is what i disagree with. If a garda stops you on the street and does not give a reason you are free to go. And you do not have to give name unless he can supply a reason for asking

Perhaps if you'd read my whole post instead of the first line you could have saved yourself some stress.

ANSI

MagicSean wrote: »

Perhaps if you'd read my whole post instead of the first line you could have saved yourself some stress.

you are the one who is stresed cos i pointed out you were wrong. i am not obliged to read the everything you write. you were wrong when you said the garda do not have to explain themselves at all. simple as.i do not intend to argue it further as have better things to be doing

Offy

ANSI wrote: »

you are the one who is stresed cos i pointed out you were wrong. i am not obliged to read the everything you write. you were wrong when you said the garda do not have to explain themselves at all. simple as.i do not intend to argue it further as have better things to be doing

Well said, this happens a lot in legal discussions and imo it gives us common folk a dim view of legal people. AGS members have a right to search whom ever they like but they must follow procedure for it to be lawful, as Ive said before and I say again if AGS members/solicitors/judges wont obey the law then why should any of the rest of us? This "we are better than ye" attitude of so many legal professionals is counter productive but because of their attitude they dont seem to care. The downside is that ordinary people like me who try to obey the law are unwilling to help any AGS members/solicitors/judges that try to bully us. A lot more crimes could be solved if they were to change this attitude.
You are wrong on this occasion MagicSean, be a man and admit it then move on. We all get it wrong on occasion.

MagicSean

ANSI wrote: »

you are the one who is stresed cos i pointed out you were wrong. i am not obliged to read the everything you write. you were wrong when you said the garda do not have to explain themselves at all. simple as.i do not intend to argue it further as have better things to be doing

This is what I said

MagicSean wrote: »

A garda does not ever have to give you a reason or explain himself to you. He can ask you to do something or he can demand you do something under a lawful aithority. If he asks, you can refuse. If he makes a lawful demand, you can't legally refuse. He does not have to quote legislation or explain the law to you other than to tell you he is making a lawful demand and what the consequences will be if you do not obey.

and you quoted one sentence from it and said I was wrong. You've been unable to give anything to refute my post. I'm glad you don't wish to argue it further. I get tired arguing with people who don't have a clue what they're talking about and can't accept when they are wrong.

ANSI

Offy wrote: »

Well said, this happens a lot in legal discussions and imo it gives us common folk a dim view of legal people. AGS members have a right to search whom ever they like but they must follow procedure for it to be lawful, as Ive said before and I say again if AGS members/solicitors/judges wont obey the law then why should any of the rest of us? This "we are better than ye" attitude of so many legal professionals is counter productive but because of their attitude they dont seem to care. The downside is that ordinary people like me who try to obey the law are unwilling to help any AGS members/solicitors/judges that try to bully us. A lot more crimes could be solved if they were to change this attitude.
You are wrong on this occasion MagicSean, be a man and admit it then move on. We all get it wrong on occasion.

you're
obviously a person who is not foooled by cop talk. Notice how he tries to defend it by his quote. The first sentence of his quote negates and contradicts the rest:rolleyes:

im invisible

Dey see me trollin'

source

ANSI wrote: »

Offy wrote: »

Well said, this happens a lot in legal discussions and imo it gives us common folk a dim view of legal people. AGS members have a right to search whom ever they like but they must follow procedure for it to be lawful, as Ive said before and I say again if AGS members/solicitors/judges wont obey the law then why should any of the rest of us? This "we are better than ye" attitude of so many legal professionals is counter productive but because of their attitude they dont seem to care. The downside is that ordinary people like me who try to obey the law are unwilling to help any AGS members/solicitors/judges that try to bully us. A lot more crimes could be solved if they were to change this attitude.
You are wrong on this occasion MagicSean, be a man and admit it then move on. We all get it wrong on occasion.

you're
obviously a person who is not foooled by cop talk. Notice how he tries to defend it by his quote. The first sentence of his quote negates and contradicts the rest:rolleyes:

You cannot take 1 sentence from a post and base an argument around it.

That is misrepresenting the argument made by the first person then trying to refute the misrepresentation.

You seem to be the only one taking this standpoint on magicsean's post.

If taken as a whole the post says the exact opposite of what you're saying it does.

Oh also: magicsean is correct, a member doesn't have to quote chapter and verse of statute, they just have to inform the person that they're making a legal demand and what the consequence of noncompliance are.

An Udaras

If a guard is of the opinion he needs to search an individual, that individual has the Right to request under what Act he/she is being Searched?

Same applies as if you are being Detained or free to leave..The person effected may request the Act/Power being enacted and whether they are free to leave.

Same applies as if a demand has been asked for your Name & Address..The person effected may request the Act/Power being enacted

Any Guard or other persons statutorily empowered to enforce the law i.e. Airport Police,Customs etc... Are free just like any person to have a conversation or ask any question they want of you BUT unless you are under Caution or a lawful demand has/is being made under an Act you do not have to say anything unless you wish to.

My advise would be to always co-operate with the Law Enforcement Agencies of the state but there is no harm in a person effected knowing under what Act is being utilized.

An Udaras

An Udaras wrote: »

Any Guard or other persons statutorily empowered to enforce the law i.e. Airport Police,Customs etc... Are free just like any person to have a conversation or ask any question they want of you BUT unless you are under Caution or a lawful demand has/is being made under an Act you do not have to say anything unless you wish to.

My advise would be to always co-operate with the Law Enforcement Agencies of the state but there is no harm in a person effected knowing under what Act is being utilized.

I agree about co-operating with AGS, but I find a part of your post is a bit confusing.

If I read it correctly, you're saying "you don't have to say anything unless you're under caution..."? If I am correct, what happened to "No Comment"??

An Udaras

In some instances when dealing with a member of Gardai,Airport Police or Customs etc.. They may caution you that

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence, if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you may later rely on in court....

I should have really said you do not have to say anything then or in any interaction with a person unless you wish too or in a situation where a lawful demand is made of them of you under statute.

It may draw suspicion if you decide not to speak in my opinion but that a choice for each individual. Apologies if off topic MOD.

MagicSean

An Udaras wrote: »

In some instances when dealing with a member of Gardai,Airport Police or Customs etc.. They may caution you that

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence, if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you may later rely on in court....

I should have really said you do not have to say anything then or in any interaction with a person unless you wish too or in a situation where a lawful demand is made of them of you under statute.

It may draw suspicion if you decide not to speak in my opinion but that a choice for each individual. Apologies if off topic MOD.

Isn't that the English caution?

Stacks Mad

Just a quick question on a similar note a friend of mines house was raided by the Drugs Squad and tiped the place upside down and found nothing , leaving his mother and sister in a bad way. I didnt say any thing at the time as it wasn't my place to say/do anything but did they require a search warrent to enter the house??.

Sorry if I hijacked the thread , it was just a similar issue.

ANSI

Stacks Mad wrote: »

Just a quick question on a similar note a friend of mines house was raided by the Drugs Squad and tiped the place upside down and found nothing , leaving his mother and sister in a bad way. I didnt say any thing at the time as it wasn't my place to say/do anything but did they require a search warrent to enter the house??.

Sorry if I hijacked the thread , it was just a similar issue.

read this and download the pdf

Finnbar01

MagicSean wrote: »

Isn't that the English caution?

Do you know the wording of the Irish caution?

MagicSean

Stacks Mad wrote: »

Just a quick question on a similar note a friend of mines house was raided by the Drugs Squad and tiped the place upside down and found nothing , leaving his mother and sister in a bad way. I didnt say any thing at the time as it wasn't my place to say/do anything but did they require a search warrent to enter the house??.

Sorry if I hijacked the thread , it was just a similar issue.

A waraant or permission

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Do you know the wording of the Irish caution?

Yes

Stacks Mad

ANSI wrote: »

read this and download the pdf

Thank you answers my question.

Finnbar01

MagicSean wrote: »

Yes

Are you allowed to posted it up here..... I'm just interested, as never had the pleasure of having it read to me.

Finnbar01

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Are you allowed to posted it up here..... I'm just interested, as never had the pleasure of having it read to me.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/arrests/right_to_silence_in_criminal_cases.html

You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but anything you say may be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence.