What are we legally obliged to do at a traffic stop

frankmul

There has been a number of videos lately about police actions while doing traffic check points. What is the law regarding what a driver must do when stopped by the guards.

Spiritiser

frankmul wrote: »

There has been a number of videos lately about police actions while doing traffic check points. What is the law regarding what a driver must do when stopped by the guards.

stop

What videos, do you mean freemen type nonsense?

coylemj

IIRC it's to (1) stop the vehicle and (2) keep it there (stationary) for as long as is required to allow the member (of the Gardai) to 'discharge his duty'.

Bepolite

frankmul wrote: »

There has been a number of videos lately about police actions while doing traffic check points. What is the law regarding what a driver must do when stopped by the guards.

Can you elaborate? I believe you are now expected to be able to produce your license on the spot. Beyond that I'm not sure they can make you dance the fandango, what have your locals been getting you to do?

Spiritiser

Bepolite wrote: »

Can you elaborate? I believe you are now expected to be able to produce your license on the spot. Beyond that I'm not sure they can make you dance the fandango, what have your locals been getting you to do?

Is it true you now have to carry the NCT cert, not just display the disk?

Pro Hoc Vice

frankmul wrote: »

There has been a number of videos lately about police actions while doing traffic check points. What is the law regarding what a driver must do when stopped by the guards.

Section 109 Road Traffic Act 1961 as amended



Obligation to stop.

109.—(1) A person driving a vehicle in a public place shall stop the vehicle on being so required by a member of the Garda Síochána.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

Amended in 1968

Section 109.

The insertion after “Garda Síochána” in subsection (1) of “and shall keep it stationary for such period as is reasonably necessary in order to enable such member to discharge his duties”.

Bepolite

Spiritiser wrote: »

Is it true you now have to carry the NCT cert, not just display the disk?

I'd like to know that one too!

Spiritiser

infosys wrote: »

Section 109 Road Traffic Act 1961 as amended



Obligation to stop.

109.—(1) A person driving a vehicle in a public place shall stop the vehicle on being so required by a member of the Garda Síochána.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

Amended in 1968

Section 109.

The insertion after “Garda Síochána” in subsection (1) of “and shall keep it stationary for such period as is reasonably necessary in order to enable such member to discharge his duties”.

you have to give name too and if the garda think your car is not roadworthy he can drive it to see

Bepolite

Presumably if one was to act the maggot that time would be significantly increased? Say while a Klingon interpreter was found and a solicitor phoned?

Pro Hoc Vice

Spiritiser wrote: »

you have to give name too and if the garda think your car is not roadworthy he can drive it to see

I am unaware of any road traffic act that gives AGS power to test a car, but if you know of a section or SI I would like to see it. In relation to name and address and DOB is only if AGS believe an offence has been committed as specified under the Road Traffic Acts.

Spiritiser

infosys wrote: »

I am unaware of any road traffic act that gives AGS power to test a car, but if you know of a section or SI I would like to see it. In relation to name and address and DOB is only if AGS believe an offence has been committed as specified under the Road Traffic Acts.

Don't think so.AFAIK when they stop you they can demand name under the road traffic act. I do not recall where i read about driving the car , maybe in adriver theory book but it was stated. It was in some offical book snay way not a freeman site:D

Pro Hoc Vice

Spiritiser wrote: »

Don't think so.AFAIK when they stop you they can demand name under the road traffic act. I do not recall where i read about driving the car , maybe in adriver theory book but it was stated. It was in some offical book snay way not a freeman site:D

The original section was 107 of the 1961 Act it was amended most recently in a major form by section 79 of the 2010 act one of the relevant bits,

“107.— (1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána alleges to a person using a mechanically propelled vehicle that the member suspects that such person has committed a specified offence under this Act, the member may demand of such person his or her name and address and date of birth and may, if such person refuses or fails to give his or her name and address or date of birth or gives a name or address or date of birth which the member has reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading, arrest such person without warrant."

Was amended again in 2011, by section 3 Road a Traffic (no. 2) Act,

“107.— (1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána alleges to a person using a mechanically propelled vehicle that the member suspects that such person has committed a specified offence under this Act, the member may demand of such person his or her name and address and date of birth and may, if such person refuses or fails to give his or her name and address or date of birth or gives a name or address or date of birth which the member has reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading, arrest such person without warrant.


I am most doubtful that AGS have power to drive a car, and give a view on its state. But if you can point to the section or SI I will stand corrected.

Spiritiser

from another thread. does it still apply?

Road traffic act 1961 section 20

Where a member of the Garda Síochána observes a mechanically propelled vehicle or combination of vehicles in a public place and he suspects that there is a defect affecting the vehicle or combination which is such that it is, when in use, a danger to the public or, in the case of a public service vehicle, there is a defect affecting it which is such that either it is a danger to the public or it is rendered unfit for the carriage of passengers, he may inspect and examine the vehicle or combination and, for the purpose of carrying out the inspection and examination, may do all such things and make all such requirements in relation to it as are reasonably necessary.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section and without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred thereby, a member of the Garda Síochána may—

(a) require the person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle or combination of vehicles to bring it to a convenient place indicated by the member suitable for the carrying out of an inspection and examination under this section and not more than five miles distant by the shortest available route from the place at which the requisition is made, and to carry the member in the vehicle or combination,

(b) drive a mechanically propelled vehicle or combination of vehicles for a reasonable time and distance,

(c) require the person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle or combination of vehicles to drive it or cause it to be driven for a reasonable time and distance in such direction and manner and at such speed as the member directs, and to carry the member in it while it is being so driven,

(d) carry out or cause to be carried out such tests as the member considers reasonable.

Pro Hoc Vice

Spiritiser wrote: »

from another thread. does it still apply?

I stand corrected. I have never come across a Garda doing that, but it does indeed seem to be still on the books.

mcgarrett

If a Garda suspects a car in a public place has a defect that may make it a danger to the public, for the purpose of inspection and examination:-

He can drive it.
Get you to drive it.
Direct you to bring it to a specific site within 5 miles for examination.

If it's defective he can direct it not be used in a public place.


Oops! Just saw it already posted by spiritiser

ANXIOUS

I've seen a gardai test drive a motor bike at a checkpoint to try and ascertain the engine size.

ezra_pound

frankmul wrote: »

There has been a number of videos lately about police actions while doing traffic check points. What is the law regarding what a driver must do when stopped by the guards.

If you make it clear that you have no international treaty or contract formed with AGS and make it clear that you are not driving but moving in your moving machine then you can pretty much completely ignore them.

# this should be clarified by a properly registered solicitor as I was conveyed this information. on a site called livedebtfree or something. It has something to do with lizard people.

Spiritiser

infosys wrote: »

I stand corrected. I have never come across a Garda doing that, but it does indeed seem to be still on the books.

they have the power though.

Pro Hoc Vice

Spiritiser wrote: »

they have the power though.

Yes as I said, "I stand corrected" and "it's still on the books".

Spiritiser

ezra_pound wrote: »

If you make it clear that you have no international treaty or contract formed with AGS and make it clear that you are not driving but moving in your moving machine then you can pretty much completely ignore them.

# this should be clarified by a properly registered solicitor as I was conveyed this information. on a site called livedebtfree or something. It has something to do with lizard people.

And don't forget to say you do not stand under them

StompToWork

Yerra just roll down your window, do what yer told, and move off after the 30 seconds it takes to make sure you are not drunk/your car is safe/taxed/insured. If it's a breath test, then it's 2 minutes. Unless you are stopped every second day, then this should not be too onerous of a request in order to maintain the (relatively) low number of road deaths we have in this country.

Spiritiser

StompToWork wrote: »

Yerra just roll down your window, do what yer told, and move off after the 30 seconds it takes to make sure you are not drunk/your car is safe/taxed/insured. If it's a breath test, then it's 2 minutes. Unless you are stopped every second day, then this should not be too onerous of a request in order to maintain the (relatively) low number of road deaths we have in this country.

and not be a clown like boy racers who have nct but do not display just to be awkward

StompToWork

ezra_pound wrote: »

If you make it clear that you have no international treaty or contract formed with AGS and make it clear that you are not driving but moving in your moving machine then you can pretty much completely ignore them.

# this should be clarified by a properly registered solicitor as I was conveyed this information. on a site called livedebtfree or something. It has something to do with lizard people.

What does this mean?? Contract? International Treaty? We still talking about Garda Roadside Checkpoints and not international terrorism, right?

"I just want to go on my way, Guard, in my own personal mechanical conveyance."
<Facepalm>

Pro Hoc Vice

StompToWork wrote: »

What does this mean?? Contract? International Treaty? We still talking about Garda Roadside Checkpoints and not international terrorism, right?

<Facepalm>

Its a freeman joke, a bit of fun a jolly jibe.

StompToWork

infosys wrote: »

Its a freeman joke, a bit of fun a jolly jibe.

My bad, should have read to the very end of the post!!! Apologies for missing the joke!!!

Carawaystick

getting freeman-ish.

If the Gardai can drive your car or get you to drive it, It will use up your diesel. The laws quoted in thread don't mention anything about a right to consume your diesel/petrol/(tvo/veg oil)

So could you be annoying and ask for fuel in advance or after the fact?
art. 43.2.2 says the state has to delimit by law how external goods can be expropriated.

and obviously get some satisfaction.

Spiritiser

StompToWork wrote: »

My bad, should have read to the very end of the post!!! Apologies for missing the joke!!!

you took it serious ;-)

No Pants

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I've seen a gardai test drive a motor bike at a checkpoint to try and ascertain the engine size.

Seriously? How did that work?

StompToWork

Spiritiser wrote: »

you took it serious ;-)

Feck off!! And I had my nightstick, and pepper spray ready to go,

Greenmachine

No Pants wrote: »

Seriously? How did that work?

Seconded. More reasonable thing would be read the cc from the side of the barrel. Maybe he just wanted to take it for a spin.

Thoie

frankmul wrote: »

There has been a number of videos lately about police actions while doing traffic check points. What is the law regarding what a driver must do when stopped by the guards.

Be reasonable, don't be a dick, follow their instructions unless they're bizarrely over the top.

For example, I'll hand over my license, probably step out of the car (if I'm sure they're actually gardaí), answer general questions about where I've been and where I'm going and if I've been drinking. I'm unlikely to strip naked, repaint the car, do a handstand or whistle the national anthem for them, but they're unlikely to ask me to.

Pat Mustard

I have to say that the lack of a freely accessible way of accessing consolidated legislation makes this a question that non lawyers are going to be unlikely to be able to answer.

It would be nice if www.irishstatutebook.ie displayed consolidated legislation, so that people like the OP could simply look up the consolidated Road Traffic Act, rather than having to ask random punters on the internet.

Rant over.

frankmul

Bepolite wrote: »

Can you elaborate? I believe you are now expected to be able to produce your license on the spot. Beyond that I'm not sure they can make you dance the fandango, what have your locals been getting you to do?

This is one of the videos I was on abouthttp://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/02/23/this-is-worrying/

I know that there many be a spin put on the the story for publicity purposes but did the Garda act within the law.

aujopimur

He can't ask you anything unless he's wearing his Garda cap.

Greenmachine

aujopimur wrote: »

He can't ask you anything
unless he's wearing his Garda cap.

One of my favourites.

Mr Simpson

frankmul wrote: »

This is one of the videos I was on abouthttp://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/02/23/this-is-worrying/

I know that there many be a spin put on the the story for publicity purposes but did the Garda act within the law.

He was being a tosser, he failed to follow the direction of the Garda (pulling into the side), the video is far too edited to take anything from it.

coylemj

Those Shell to Sea protesters are a bunch of hypocrites, they think they can have a free punch at the Gardai and knock over gates and fences during protests but the minute they're at the receiving end of their own medicine, they're crying foul. They deserve everything they get.

Spiritiser

coylemj wrote: »

Those Shell to Sea protesters are a bunch of hypocrites, they think they can have a free punch at the Gardai and knock over gates and fences during protests but the minute they're at the receiving end of their own medicine, they're crying foul. They deserve everything they get.

They may be hypocrites i do not know anything about them. But the garda do not have authority to put them at "the receiving end of their own medicine". The garda should be professional regardless of the behaviour of others, they are not punishment squad or judge and jury and do not have the power to dole out medicine

Bepolite

frankmul wrote: »

This is one of the videos I was on abouthttp://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/02/23/this-is-worrying/

I know that there many be a spin put on the the story for publicity purposes but did the Garda act within the law.

Ireland is a fairly sedate place with, thankfully rare (serious) violence towards the guards. However when it comes to protecting their safety the guards have to take things seriously. They had a guy refusing to co-operate with the engine running, he could have had a shotgun, he could have driven at them at any moment.

All he needed to do was pull in get out and act like a reasonable human being. IF he had done that he would have saved everyone a lot of bother. If the then had issue he could have made a compliant - if he wasn't satisfied with that there is the Ombudsman and ultimately (please correct me if I'm wrong) judicial review.

I think it's obvious the guard lost the plot a bit, rather understandably so. I don't think there was anything illegal there. Perhaps a tad heavy handed but nothing in comparison to what would have happened in Spain or the US. Illegal, not in my uneducated opinion.

I was stopped like that once, I was thinking to myself as the guard bounced off the bonnet, I knew he'd never be strong enough to stop me with one hand.

Spiritiser

Bepolite wrote: »

Ireland is a fairly sedate place with, thankfully rare (serious) violence towards the guards. However when it comes to protecting their safety the guards have to take things seriously. They had a guy refusing to co-operate with the engine running, he could have had a shotgun, he could have driven at them at any moment.

All he needed to do was pull in get out and act like a reasonable human being. IF he had done that he would have saved everyone a lot of bother. If the then had issue he could have made a compliant - if he wasn't satisfied with that there is the Ombudsman and ultimately (please correct me if I'm wrong) judicial review.

I think it's obvious the guard lost the plot a bit, rather understandably so. I don't think there was anything illegal there. Perhaps a tad heavy handed but nothing in comparison to what would have happened in Spain or the US. Illegal, not in my uneducated opinion.

I was stopped like that once, I was thinking to myself as the guard bounced off the bonnet, I knew he'd never be strong enough to stop me with one hand.

i disagree the garda should not have acted like that. two wrongs do not equal right. cop should have been calm.

I was stopped like that once, I was thinking to myself as the guard bounced off the bonnet, I knew he'd never be strong enough to stop me with one hand

why should/did he bounce off your bonnet?

Bepolite

Spiritiser wrote: »

i disagree the garda should not have acted like that. two wrongs do not equal right. cop should have been calm.

The guard wasn't in the wrong. He simply let his emotions out a bit while he was acting in a manner to protect himself, his colleagues and to get the guy to comply with what he was legally being asked to do. To expect a human being to always act 100% calmly under stress is an unrealistic expectation.

Spiritiser wrote: »

why should/did he bounce off your bonnet?

I think you've missed the rather poor joke stolen from the late Mike Reid who I'm absolutely sure stole it from someone else.

Spiritiser

Bepolite wrote: »

The guard wasn't in the wrong. He simply let his emotions out a bit while he was acting in a manner to protect himself, his colleagues and to get the guy to comply with what he was legally being asked to do. To expect a human being to always act 100% calmly under stress is an unrealistic expectation.

I disagree . The garda was partly wrongT

o expect a human being to always act 100% calmly under stress is an unrealistic expectation.

you seem to expect this of the driver not knowing if he had any past experience with shells cops
I do not know the joke, the behaviour of the garda was abit of a joke though.
And i am not a supporter or otherwise of the anti shells, do not know abou
t them

Bepolite

Spiritiser wrote: »

I disagree . The garda was partly wrongT

Thats your right but I don't see any legal basis for it.

Spiritiser wrote: »

you seem to expect this of the driver not knowing if he had any past experience with shells cops
I do not know the joke, the behaviour of the garda was abit of a joke though.
And i am not a supporter or otherwise of the anti shells, do not know abou
t them

If you don't have sufficient control of the vehicle to comply with Garda instructions, especially one as basic as move to the side of the road, and you then lock the doors, you deserve to have the window smashed so that the guard can gain entry and prevent you from hurting someone.

frankmul

Bepolite wrote: »

to get the guy to comply with what he was legally being asked to do.

This is the question that I wanted answered, was what the guard asked a legal request, what can you be asked legally to do at a checkpoint
1. Stop
2. Produce driver licence
3. Give breath sample now without a suspicion of drink driving

What else should be included on the list

I believe that in the case of the video as was previous stated by spiritiser two wrongs do not make a right.

Spiritiser

Bepolite wrote: »

Thats your right but I don't see any legal basis for it.

The garda does not have the power or authority to allow his personal feelings into it

If you don't have sufficient control of the vehicle to comply with Garda instructions, especially one as basic as move to the side of the road, and you then lock the doors, you deserve to have the window smashed so that the guard can gain entry and prevent you from hurting someone.

how do you know he was going to hurt someone

Bepolite

Spiritiser wrote: »

The garda does not have the power or authority to allow his personal feelings into it

You're being unreasonable.

Spiritiser wrote: »

how do you know he was going to hurt someone

How did the guards know he wasn't going to hurt someone? He was behaving erratically.

I'm no great fan of the guards, some of them do some pretty reprehensible things, they tend to stick together even when in the wrong and frankly some of the stunts pulled by them as an institution leaves much to be desired. That said I've even less time for people that can't put themselves in their position and understand that they are human beings doing a demanding job. You're welcome to your opinion, I simply don't share it.

Bepolite

frankmul wrote: »

This is the question that I wanted answered, was what the guard asked a legal request, what can you be asked legally to do at a checkpoint
1. Stop
2. Produce driver licence
3. Give breath sample now without a suspicion of drink driving

What else should be included on the list

I believe that in the case of the video as was previous stated by spiritiser two wrongs do not make a right.

Again, I would argue, the guard wasn't in the wrong. The guard has the power to ask the driver to move out of the flow of traffic. Don't ask me to quote the legislation, but it would seem like common sense no?

Spiritiser

Bepolite wrote: »

Again, I would argue, the guard wasn't in the wrong. The guard has the power to ask the driver to move out of the flow of traffic. Don't ask me to quote the legislation, but it would seem like common sense no?

I agree but he does not have the power to start screaming when he refuses. If you think i am unreasonable so be it. The garda has authority to enforce the law notv scream when some one does not obey

Bepolite

Spiritiser wrote: »

I agree but he does not have the power to start screaming when he refuses. If you think i am unreasonable so be it. The garda has authority to enforce the law notv scream when some one does not obey

I disagree, I think it's perfectly reasonable to start adding a sense of urgency to what you're being asked to do. Several walks of life do this from Air Hostesses to the police.

Okay now there are limits, my personal favourite was getting a briefing on RAF Halton. What the RAF police were meant to say was Halt, Halt or I will release my dog. After having the absolute piss ripped out of them, including one guy showing his ID to the dog (and getting bitten for it) they started to scream Freeze Mudderf**ker. Now shoehorned anecdote aside, you can probably guess which was more effective.

Spiritiser

Bepolite wrote: »

I disagree, I think it's perfectly reasonable to start adding a sense of urgency to what you're being asked to do. Several walks of life do this from Air Hostesses to the police.

i don't. screaming is an angry response not urgency. we will not agree so i leave it there . the cop was a bit of a bully in my view, three of them against one man.

Bepolite

Spiritiser wrote: »

i don't. screaming is an angry response not urgency. we will not agree so i leave it there . the cop was a bit of a bully in my view, three of them against one man.

Again you've got it wrong I'm afraid. It's not 3 against 1 it's not a fight, the guards are there to do a job and as you and others have said two, three or more wrongs do not make a right. If the guy had complied there would have been no issue. If he felt the guards were heavy handed he had all sorts of options open to him.

The guards had very few options open to them an assessed a situation where someone was acting erratically.