Police officer fined for texting behind the wheel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Pour you a scotch just before I pour mine.

---

Stuff that I'd drink the lot. :beer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strop

I don't have an issue with people who are employed to enforce laws doing so but I do with people who are not, starting off proceedings. How would any of us feel if that annoying vindictive neighbour sends in a photo of our mistake? It sets a bad precedent. Is it about road safety or just payback. That it was on the news probably answers that question.

What happens when the police officer pleads not guilty? Who pays for the truck driver to come and give evidence in court? Who pays court costs if the police officer wins - the truck driver as he made the complaint? Us as members of the community? It opens a whole can of worms here.

Let's not even deal with how many silly laws are able to be enacted due to the noisy wheel having to be oiled. I can spread a newspaper over the wheel and they need to prove I didn't have proper control but commit an offence handing a phone to my passenger. Is an iPad a phone? What about a laptop? I can message on them too.

These cameras in cars are dangerous. Just wait till insurance companies make us have cameras recording our every move. Will they review it and reject our claim based on something previously done?

When you drive around next just take note of who have cameras in their cars - grumpy old men. Says something about safety is the priority.

All the best

Laurie

---

The evidence was obtained illegally and not admissible in court, I would think, and the State foots the bill when the Officer wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppabillytea

The evidence was obtained illegally and not admissible in court, I would think, and the State foots the bill when the Officer wins.

---

the evidence was not obtained illegally. evidence was volunteered to the police. the person who took the photo is not on trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

the evidence was not obtained illegally. evidence was volunteered to the police. the person who took the photo is not on trial.

---

If It's illegal to take a photo whilst driving then the photo was illegally obtained. The photo being the only material evidence was obtained illegally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppabillytea

If It's illegal to take a photo whilst driving then the photo was illegally obtained. The photo being the only material evidence was obtained illegally.

---

the law doesn't work like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

the law doesn't work like that.

---

Scenario: The Police are unable to obtain a warrant to search your house for evidence. Luckily, out of the blue, a reliable informant has broken into your house looking for a bottle and a piece of hose, when he stumbles upon your favourite Rubber Chicken. He takes a photo of it and the next day, compelled by an overwhelming sense of community spirit, hands it in at the local Police Station.
Next minute a patrol car shows up at your place and you are arrested and charged with committing an act of gross poor humour.

What do you think your Silk will say when the evidence is presented in Court?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppabillytea

Scenario: The Police are unable to obtain a warrant to search your house for evidence. Luckily, out of the blue, a reliable informant has broken into your house looking for a bottle and a piece of hose, when he stumbles upon your favourite Rubber Chicken. He takes a photo of it and the next day, compelled by an overwhelming sense of community spirit, hands it in at the local Police Station.
Next minute a patrol car shows up at your place and you are arrested and charged with committing an act of gross poor humour.

What do you think your Silk will say when the evidence is presented in Court?

---

the evidence was volunteered to police. same end result.

i think you've been watch too many US tv shows.

Really?

yeah. have a look at Bunning v Cross.
in short, the police unlawfully took a breath test of a drunk driver.

the case was thrown out initially, until it was reviewed and went up to the the high court of australia where it was ruled admissiable.

the end result: Improperly or illegally obtained does not inherently render it inadmissible.