Reasonable Cause: Definition? Timeframe for dissipation?

jimjohnson

Hi everybody. I'm not sure I should make this formal given that it's a legal discussion but I'll go ahead and write it naturally anyhow.

The summary of the story is:

Roughly 2 months ago I was stopped and found to be in possession of 2 small bags of grass (25 bags as they are known because they are €25). This was fine, I accept what I do and don't dispute it.

However, last week I was stopped on my way home from a friend's house whilst acting in full accordance with the law and minding my own business, when I was subsequently stopped and asked my name, in response to which, the gard in the passenger seat of the car that these 2 DS gards where travelling in, sprung into action and began to search me (and go through my phone) while the other gard distracted me with questions. Some "evidence" of drug dealing may or may not have been found on my phone (this is open to dispute as nothing in there related to any actions of mine) but this is irrelevant to my situation because my argument is that my basic human rights were violated that night because I was not suspected of any particular crime and I was not doing anything to warrant a suspicion in the first place. The rights I'm referring to are: my right of passage, my right to privacy and my right to be presumed innocent.

However, upon consulting with a gardai inspector after making a complaint, I've been told that under the misuse of drugs act, they can search using reasonable cause. Does the fact that I was found in possession of marijuana 2 months ago constitute reasonable cause in this case, bearing in mind that there are no other mitigating factors?

P.S. I was not found in possession of anything on the night in question. I don't want to wait until I'm facing actual harassment to put up a fight. I find it hard to believe that reasonable cause can last this long, that seems like far to much power to me.

Also, I've tried hard to find a satisfactory explanation of exactly what "reasonable cause" means. It appears to me to be a built-in loophole in the law to support the gardai on their ultimately vague conquests.

Pro Hoc Vice

Really!

If you want legal advice go to a solicitor, I assume you have one on the other charge. Aske him about the misuse of drugs Act. Also get used to bring regularly stopped, it's the joys of getting a name, a charge and maybe conviction has the habit of raring people, is it fair maybe not, is it nice more than likely not, is it legal aska solicitor.

Cody Pomeray

jimjohnson wrote: »

Also, I've tried hard to find a satisfactory explanation of exactly what "reasonable cause" means.

I'm glad I read all the way to the end, because this is clearly a theoretical question, and the only question we can really answer.

Reasonable cause / reasonable suspicion are the same thing.

DPP v Finnegan [2008] IEHC 347 is a good reference.

I accept the term is delphic, and I even accept that it is deliberately so, since it must have regard to the natural human code of common sense by which we all must live, or else look foolish. It is sufficient if a Garda forms an opinion which is honestly held, which is without mala fides, and which has due regard to all the circumstances of the case as they are known to him.

Whilst maintaining an appreciable distance from the particular circumstances of your OP, I would simply add that if any person is approached by the Gardaí and asked for their name, then they are probably insane or the subject of some suspicion. It can hardly be anything more than a practical exercise to recall the self-evident fact that you were asked for your name before you gave it.

The critical point in the sequence, approaching this like a non-legal problem, is that moment when you were asked your name. That moment is anterior to everything else.

Santa Cruz

You have in the recent past been found in possession of controlled substances. You either grew it yourself or obtained from a dealer/friend. In any case you are in the system now, known to the Gardaí and liable to be stopped and searched.
The time difference here is what would make it reasonable or not. I would say that they have reasonable cause. However if in two years time, without any subsequent criminal activity (Yes criminal activity) it would not be a reasonable cause

Cody Pomeray

Santa Cruz wrote: »

The time difference here is what would make it reasonable or not. I would say that they have reasonable cause. However if in two years time, without any subsequent criminal activity (Yes criminal activity) it would not be a reasonable cause

Reasonable cause has nothing to do with the time in any case like the OP.
where are you getting that crazy time line?

amen

Learn what a security code is for too.

If the phone is locked with a security code do you have to provide it or is a search warrant required ?

What about a diary or accounts book ?
I'm just curious.

jimjohnson

Hi all, thanks for the replies.

Ok, here's another angle.............. (and let me be honest, I'm acting the bollocks here and I don't expect to win, I just want to put up a decent fight because my ethical code is fully intact, I have committed no crime, at least in my eyes).

Is a phone considered "part of a search" or must something be found on my person before reasonable cause is obtained to search my phone?

Also, the time dissipation thing. It just doesn't seem fair that they can take an hour of my time any time they so please based on finding me with 2 juicy big bags of green however long ago it may be (in this case 2 months but for how long for?).

Yeah, I have a security code but I didn't have anything on me at the time and therefore I forgot to switch off the phone. However, there was nothing that incriminated me (if you want to call it incrimination) on the phone.

I know people are saying talk to a solicitor and I actually must do that, but I have no charge yet. In the mean time, I hope to find someone experienced who has fought this type of situation before.

jimjohnson

In my opinion, reasonable cause is the antidote to human rights, if indeed it gives the gardai as much power as would appear.

Cody Pomeray

jimjohnson wrote: »

Is a phone considered "part of a search" or must something be found on my person before reasonable cause is obtained to search my phone?

As a matter of fact, and not advice, a mobile phone is a chattel.

If a Garda may, with reasonable suspicion, search the outside of an individual's body, that indivdual's right to bodily integrity notwithstanding, then I hardly see why a Garda might not lawfully search their chattels.

I have no idea how this applies to you, it is a purely logical inference that a child could make.

Also, the time dissipation thing. It just doesn't seem fair that they can take an hour of my time any time they so please based on finding me with 2 juicy big bags of green however long ago it may be (in this case 2 months but for how long for?).

Again, what I am about to say is not legal advice. It is something you could realize yourself if you would think about it.

When you were asked your name, it is reasonable to infer that the Gardaí did not already know your name. That is why they asked you for it.

It stands to reason that some suspicion had entered the minds of the Gardaí when they saw a young man in your specific condition and circumstances in the night, for whatever reason.

It appears to be a matter of common sense that you were the subject of some reasonable suspicion before you answered your name at all, i.e. when you were a stranger to the Gardaí.

jimjohnson

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It stands to reason that some suspicion had entered the minds of the Gardaí when they saw a young man in your specific condition and circumstances in the night, for whatever reason.

It appears to be a matter of common sense that you were the subject of some reasonable suspicion before you answered your name at all, i.e. when you were a stranger to the Gardaí.

Actually mate, and with all due respect, when I say I was behaving in full accordance with the law, I mean it. Unless, you consider walking home from a friends house "suspicious".

I am not an ignorant fool and if I appear ignorant it's only because I'm learning, or at least trying to learn.

My specific condition you refer to was sober and walking.

The gardai did not begin to search me until they heard my name. No suspicions had arisen before that. Therefore, this reasonable cause, whatever it may amount to is my problem right now.

My issue surrounding the phone is that there was no contraband found on me to justify the search of my phone. Surely a person's private communication is sacred until it's search is truly justified?

If I'd had my diary on me, would they have had grounds to read it? I don't have a diary by the way, it's just an anecdote.

Cody Pomeray

jimjohnson wrote: »

Actually mate, and with all due respect, when I say I was behaving in full accordance with the law, I mean it. Unless, you consider walking home from a friends house "suspicious".

The reasonableness of a suspicion cannot be impugned by later discovering that the suspicion/ opinion was misplaced. It is sufficient that the suspicion is reasonably held at the time of the engagement when a Garda asks a person to stop and answer questions, such as their name.

And yes, a man walking alone at night in a particular area might arouse suspicion, especially if there has been a crime reported, or if the area has a reputation for a drug problem. It depends on the particular circumstances.

jimjohnson wrote: »

The gardai did not begin to search me until they heard my name. No suspicions had arisen before that.

But they didn't just hear your name. You told them, after they approached you looking for it. Gardaí don't do a census of men in the night. If they want you're name or otherwise approach you, it's probably because of some suspicion having been aroused.

Once the suspicion arises, one of those old fashioned balance scales appears. On the one side is everything you say and do to undo the Garda's suspicion. On the other side is everything you say and do to add to it.

Discovery that a person has recently been found in possession of a controlled drug may add more suspicion to the scales. It is just one of many factors that Gardaí may take into account, such as body language, time, and place.

For example, a few years ago I was stopped by a squad car as I crossed the Ranelagh Road, at 2am, with a television in my arms.

When I explained the circumstances (Sunday night, up from the country, back to college), the scales tipped in my favour, the suspicion was quelled. If I had had a recent conviction for theft, no doubt that would have added to the Gardaí's suspicion.

And yes, a diary can be searched, just like a car, or a pocket, or a even the underside of a hat.

jimjohnson

Would you consider a main street which happens to be as the crow flies between my friend's house, and my own house, a suspicious place to be?

You're operating under assumption just like the gardai and this is exactly the kind of thing I'm protesting against.

Cody Pomeray

jimjohnson wrote: »

Would you consider a main street which happens to be as the crow flies between my friend's house, and my own house, a suspicious place to be?

I have no idea.

There are circumstances where walking down the street might appear suspicious, depending on the circumstances. For example, if a resident has just reported a man loitering suspiciously, and that man resembles you. That's just an example from the top of my head.

For future reference, you are entitled to ask, and be told, the reason why you are being stopped. But to be honest, you are so determined to find that you are being targeted that you do not seem to have reflected on the most elementary aspect of your experience, i.e. that Gardaí did not seem to know who you were when you were stopped.