Garda over stepping the mark

MagicSean

comeback_kid wrote: »

its not relevant to this thread and im certainly not going to waste time trying to appeal to someone as one eyed as you


the recent revelations re_ church sex abuse should be enough proof for anyone of the kind of politically motivated outfit they are , they knew kids were being raped and done nothing

It would seem that everyone knew what was going on. The priest, politicians, police, parents, dogs in the street. Unfortunately the catholic church yielded so much power that nobody wanted to believe it or challenge them.

usernamegoes

comeback_kid wrote: »

telling a guard where to go is not a criminal offence but the OP has no big case for complaint here , he will get his disc back but that is all

comeback_kid wrote: »

you might place guards on a pedestal but i certainly dont

I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. I was saying that it's not a criminal offence to tell a police officer to take a hike, but in reality doing so wouldn't be a good idea.

underachieved

I cannot believe anyone in Ireland is bringing up child sex abuse when discussing a guard checking and yes searching a van that he sees with two people in it u turning in a closed petrol station late at night in a rural area that the van is not local to keeping a document either in error or without explanation

not even on the same planet in scale of seriousness and completely irrelevant to the ops post.

Mousewar

OP sounds suspicious as hell. Worth checking out two go-boys cruising petrol stations at midnight I reckon.

Procrastastudy

cursai wrote: »

By the way Cyclops' died out thousands of years ago. I actually have two eyes thankfully. Great comeback nonetheless kid.

While on with Cursai on the spirit of the thread I couldn't let go that the plural of Cyclops is Cyclopes.



Oh and that they are mythical!

comeback_kid

MagicSean wrote: »

It would seem that everyone knew what was going on. The priest, politicians, police, parents, dogs in the street. Unfortunately the catholic church yielded so much power that nobody wanted to believe it or challenge them.

a few brave victims and a number of brave journalists forced this scandal public for all to see , as usual the guards were among the last to get the finger out when it came to dealing with an establishment sensitive issue

kopfan77

Garda wasnt searching the car because of the scratch cards.....he found the scratch cards after he already had begun to search the car...big difference here.

As an ex-Garda myself, the behaviour of this particular Garda in this instance is unacceptable if the OPs version of events is correct. And GCDLawstudent, your thoughts on how public servants should conduct themselves are so out of line I'd be surprised if you can still see the line!!

The Garda has every right to treat the OP turning into a closed petrol station at that hour of the night as suspicious but he still needs to conduct himself profesionally, and in accordance with legislation and as importantly, codes of conduct. The OP has a right to know why he is being searched and under what piece of legislation he is being searched which doesnt appear to have happened. He is entitled to be questioned, yes, but in a professional and courteous manner, which also doesnt appear to have happened. If the Garda has decided that he wants to seize the OPs cert of insurance then he should inform of the reason for seizing it which again doesnt appear to have happened.

Lets call a spade a spade, the Gardas actions while to most might seem trivial, they are still not the correct way for him to conduct himself and the OP is entitled to know what is happening with his documentation.


My opinion is call to the station, ask to speak to the sergeant in charge, explain your story and demand to be informed in full as to what is happening and when you can expect to receive your paperwork back. If you are still not happy with the response then contact the Garda Ombudsman

Simples

comeback_kid

cursai wrote: »

Try narrow minded or close minded. This is what happens when you use your smart phone to go on boards.ie during class.

during class

you presume too much

cursai

comeback_kid wrote: »

during class

you presume too much

Your comments help.

comeback_kid

usernamegoes wrote: »

I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. I was saying that it's not a criminal offence to tell a police officer to take a hike, but in reality doing so wouldn't be a good idea.

thats the kind of forelock tugging approach which allowed the church unbridled power back in the day

comeback_kid

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

While on with Cursai on the spirit of the thread I couldn't let go that the plural of Cyclops is Cyclopes.



Oh and that they are mythical!

yes , they are indeed mythical , unfortunatley , at least sinbad was a true historical charechter though

cursai

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

While on with Cursai on the spirit of the thread I couldn't let go that the plural of Cyclops is Cyclopes.



Oh and that they are mythical!

Cyclopes came up on my phone and i thought it looked suspiciously convenient so i went with the plural apostrophe to be safe. And cyclop(e)s are real.

kopfan77

Stick to topic please

Procrastastudy

kopfan77 wrote: »

Garda wasn't searching the car because of the scratch cards.....he found the scratch cards after he already had begun to search the car...big difference here.

Agreed but if they were outside MY petrol station/house at midnight acting suspiciously I'd want them searched.

kopfan77 wrote: »

As an ex-Garda myself, the behaviour of this particular Garda in this instance is unacceptable if the OPs version of events is correct. And GCDLawstudent, your thoughts on how public servants should conduct themselves are so out of line I'd be surprised if you can still see the line!!

I normally vomit on it apparently - not to worry one day in the very distant future I hope to be in Criminal defence bashing the terrible, over zealous Gardai for all they're naughty antics.

kopfan77 wrote: »

The Garda has every right to treat the OP turning into a closed petrol station at that hour of the night as suspicious but he still needs to conduct himself professionally, and in accordance with legislation and as importantly, codes of conduct. The OP has a right to know why he is being searched and under what piece of legislation he is being searched which doesn't appear to have happened.

You chose to believe the OP I chose to believe it probably wasn't as bad as the OP makes out as everybody lies. Granted I've dealt with my fair share of rude Gardai, I've also dealt with some very nice ones and even the occasional helpful one. IMO everyone is human even the Gardai.

kopfan77 wrote: »

He is entitled to be questioned, yes, but in a professional and courteous manner, which also doesn't appear to have happened. If the Garda has decided that he wants to seize the OPs cert of insurance then he should inform of the reason for seizing it which again doesn't appear to have happened.

Its far from clear what happened could have been a genuine mistake.

kopfan77 wrote: »

Lets call a spade a spade, the Gardas actions while to most might seem trivial, they are still not the correct way for him to conduct himself and the OP is entitled to know what is happening with his documentation.

See above

kopfan77 wrote: »

My opinion is call to the station, ask to speak to the sergeant in charge, explain your story and demand to be informed in full as to what is happening and when you can expect to receive your paperwork back. If you are still not happy with the response then contact the Garda Ombudsman

Simples

So pretty much what I said to do then...

comeback_kid

cursai wrote: »

Cyclopes came up on my phone and i thought it looked suspiciously convenient so i went with the plural apostrophe to be safe. And cyclop(e)s are real.

you should have asked your mom for permission before you uploaded photos of her

Procrastastudy

Guys seriously a bit of banter in these stupid arbitrary opinion treads is one thing but the tiniest bit of relevance would be nice. Yes I know pot kettle black.

Fenian Army

It's daft how some here think what the OP did, (went for a drive! Is this a crime now?) is worse than what the Garda did.

He did a U Turn and flagged down the law to ask for directions, he did nothing to deserve the way he was treated

kopfan77

Agreed but if they were outside MY petrol station/house at midnight acting suspiciously I'd want them searched.

And as I said, the Garda had every right to think it suspicious and approach them - read my post fully - I stated that if he decided to search them then he needed to inform them why and under what legislation



I normally vomit on it apparently - not to worry one day in the very distant future I hope to be in Criminal defence bashing the terrible, over zealous Gardai for all they're naughty antics.

If you are then I hope you learn to read everything fully so you dont embarass yourself as above

You chose to believe the OP I chose to believe it probably wasn't as bad as the OP makes out as everybody lies. Granted I've dealt with my fair share of rude Gardai, I've also dealt with some very nice ones and even the occasional helpful one. IMO everyone is human even the Gardai.

Yes, everyone is human lol....a very good observation. Thank you for confirming that I am in fact human

Its far from clear what happened could have been a genuine mistake.

I never said it may or may not have been a mistake....I stated that if he intended to seize it he must inform the OP why

Procrastastudy

I see you bold type and personal attack and raise you

BIG BOLD UNDERLINED ITALICS!

usernamegoes

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I see you bold type and personal attack and raise you

BIG BOLD UNDERLINED ITALICS!

It's clear he bolded his answers because he didn't quote your post segments and needed to distinguish his from yours.

kopfan77

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I see you bold type and personal attack and raise you

BIG BOLD UNDERLINED ITALICS!

Meh, kinda comeback I expected alright despite it being clear that the bold was to distinguish my comments from yours.
Best of luck with the criminal defence, garda bashing...i think you'll be needing it lol

goose2005

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Forget it and move on imho but then I you'll find I normally side with the Gardai. If I had a bad day at work it might because a customer had been rude to me and I might be a bit off hand with a co-worker.

If a Gardai has had a bad day it's probably because he's dealt with someone smacking there partner around, a rape or worse. Therefore I tend to cut them a bit of slack. My attitude with stop and searches is - if you have nothing to hide and it's not down to the reason of belonging to an ethnic minority - whats the harm?

The difference is that in your job you don't have the powers and privileges gardaí have; when society gives them to them, it's on condition that they be used appropriately.

christmas2012

i hope you didnt let him away with driving off with your disc

Procrastastudy

goose2005 wrote: »

The difference is that in your job you don't have the powers and privileges gardaí have; when society gives them to them, it's on condition that they be used appropriately.

In all honesty goose the point I was trying to make, rightly or wrongly, was that we only have the OPs word for what happened, even an ex garda has confirmed that it probably have been found suspicious. He was most likely in a bad mood and forgotten to give the guy back his cert.

I've said from the beginning it probably warrants a quite word with the Sgt. what is doesn't warrant is the guy being hanged from the nearest tree. There's been no massive outrage here at worse a rude Garda not doing everything 100% by the book.

The reason I've have treated the previous posters with the contempt they deserve is attacking someone's opinion with your own or even pointing out where they are wrong is one thing. Attacking them personally is another.

EDIT: Powers is one thing are one matter I'm not sure what priviliges they get - pretty thankless job imo.

kopfan77

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

In all honesty goose the point I was trying to make, rightly or wrongly, was that we only have the OPs word for what happened, even an ex garda has confirmed that it probably have been found suspicious. He was most likely in a bad mood and forgotten to give the guy back his cert.

I've said from the beginning it probably warrants a quite word with the Sgt. what is doesn't warrant is the guy being hanged from the nearest tree. There's been no massive outrage here at worse a rude Garda not doing everything 100% by the book.

The reason I've have treated the previous posters with the contempt they deserve is attacking someone's opinion with your own or even pointing out where they are wrong is one thing. Attacking them personally is another.

EDIT: Powers is one thing are one matter I'm not sure what priviliges they get - pretty thankless job imo.

I agree....a very thankless job. Bad mood still not an excuse for not providing OP with his basic rights...i.e right to know why being searched etc.

Nonetheless, as I mentioned in my first post and as GCDLawstudent says...first port of call should be to sergeant in charge

fasttalkerchat

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

In all honesty goose the point I was trying to make, rightly or wrongly, was that we only have the OPs word for what happened, even an ex garda has confirmed that it probably have been found suspicious. He was most likely in a bad mood and forgotten to give the guy back his cert.

I've said from the beginning it probably warrants a quite word with the Sgt. what is doesn't warrant is the guy being hanged from the nearest tree. There's been no massive outrage here at worse a rude Garda not doing everything 100% by the book.

The reason I've have treated the previous posters with the contempt they deserve is attacking someone's opinion with your own or even pointing out where they are wrong is one thing. Attacking them personally is another.

EDIT: Powers is one thing are one matter I'm not sure what priviliges they get - pretty thankless job imo.

To be fair its not the type of service they are paid for.

Finnbar01

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

If a Gardai has had a bad day it's probably because he's dealt with someone smacking there partner around, a rape or worse. Therefore I tend to cut them a bit of slack. My attitude with stop and searches is - if you have nothing to hide and it's not down to the reason of belonging to an ethnic minority - whats the harm?

But you have something to hide, it's called your privacy, which is guaranteed under our constitution.

Mousewar

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

To be fair its not the type of service they are paid for.

Protecting the public and businesses from joyriding go-boys? Sure it is.

Procrastastudy

You have to take into account (no really legally you have to as a line manager) that people under stress may make mistakes. This goes for any job. There has to be a line but then there has to be some slack as well.

If the Garda had given him a slap or taken money from the guy then I'd be swinging round yelling "Down with that sort of thing!" as much as the next person but things really need to be put into perspective. If they are not when something bad does happen - and lets be honest here the Gardai are no angels - it gets swallowed up in this ridiculous anti-authority attitude.

You also catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I know my days as a retail manager don't compare with the Gardai but if a customer came up to me and said "Look - I don't want to make a big fuss over it but see that guy over there he was very rude to me." You can guarantee the lad was going to get very little wriggle room in getting lashed out of it out the back. On the other hand if a letter of complaint went in to Head Office it went down though the Regional, to the Area manager though me to the guy. Everything got investigated and more than likely the guy got away with it because it was his word against the customers. Not only that everyone closed ranks because they didn't want to get blamed for crap service over something minor.

The duty Sgt.s know who their muppetts are and will deal with them accordingly even if it doesn't seem so. Then again guys maybe I'm just being naive...

fasttalkerchat

Mousewar wrote: »

Protecting the public and businesses from joyriding go-boys? Sure it is.

The OP wasn't joy riding??
If you flag down a guard to ask for directions you don't expect to have your car searched and your insurance disk taken accidentally or otherwise.
I used to come home from work late at night and had the same sort of nonsensical stops but nothing to this extent. This is the sort of thing that reinforces the negative stereotypes of police in general and not the sort of service I would expect to be paying for.

BornToKill

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Therefore I tend to cut them a bit of slack. My attitude with stop and searches is - if you have nothing to hide and it's not down to the reason of belonging to an ethnic minority - whats the harm?

What is the relevance of the reference to ethnic minorities in this context? Incidentially, Ireland does not recognise any ethnic or national minority groups.

ebbsy

I would go down to the constabulary in question and give them a timeline to have your property returned, otherwise you are heading to the ombudsman, and the guard in question can sort out his own career from there.

Procrastastudy

Finnbar01 wrote: »

But you have something to hide, it's called your privacy, which is guaranteed under our constitution.

Unenumeratedly (okay I just made that word up) caveatted all over the place by legislation and the needs of the common good. This type of search was easily justified as are the vast majority of Garda searches.

Mousewar

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The OP wasn't joy riding??
If you flag down a guard to ask for directions you don't expect to have your car searched and your insurance disk taken accidentally or otherwise.
I used to come home from work late at night and had the same sort of nonsensical stops but nothing to this extent. This is the sort of thing that reinforces the negative stereotypes of police in general and not the sort of service I would expect to be paying for.

Sure he was. He was out for a ride and he was enjoying it. Guards need to keep an eye on these lads cruising petrol stations at midnight with a wad of scratchies in the front seat. Frankly, I'm disappointed he didn't arrest the pair of them. Disgraceful that he let them go on, probably to terrorise more forecourts.

fasttalkerchat

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Unenumeratedly (okay I just made that word up) caveatted all over the place by legislation and the needs of the common good. This type of search was easily justified as are the vast majority of Garda searches.

My personal opinion is that to search a person or their car their should be evidence that the guards are likely to find a haul of drugs, weapons or stolen goods etc.
If a car does a u-turn at a checkpoint I can see them having justification to search a car. But being out past your bedtime is not justification to be treated like this.

Procrastastudy

BornToKill wrote: »

What is the relevance of the reference to ethnic minorities in this context? Incidentially, Ireland does not recognise any ethnic or national minority groups.

Really didn't know that Thanks - Why are the travellers always on about it out of interest?

I was referring to practises such as racial profiling or just randomly stopping people that's clearly stepping over the line IMHO. Again just to be clear I didn't have a problem with it when Lizzy or Barrack were over as it was justified.

EDIT @Fasttalker Yep thats one opinion as equally as valid as any other but really in this context I personally don't see the outrage. Even if I assume everything the OP said was acurate it still only warrants a quite word with someone informally - imho of course.

EDIT2: I think we might be missing the fact that the Garda carried out an inspection if the van distinct from the seach and may have had his suspictions arosed by 100 scratch cards. By vurtue of ir being on the road it's liable for an inspection.

Finnbar01

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Unenumeratedly (okay I just made that word up) caveatted all over the place by legislation and the needs of the common good. This type of search was easily justified as are the vast majority of Garda searches.

Why was the search justified?

If we adopt the atttitude of if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, the next logical step will be guilty until proven innocent.

It is a fundamental right to have privacy and we shouldn't give it up to easily.

fasttalkerchat

Mousewar wrote: »

Sure he was. He was out for a ride and he was enjoying it. Guards need to keep an eye on these lads cruising petrol stations at midnight with a wad of scratchies in the front seat. Frankly, I'm disappointed he didn't arrest the pair of them. Disgraceful that he let them go on, probably to terrorise more forecourts.

Is that meant to be sarcasm?

Mousewar

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Is that meant to be sarcasm?

I'm not actually sure...

fasttalkerchat

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Is that meant to be sarcasm?

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm not actually sure...

Thank god I'm not the only one.

Procrastastudy

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Why was the search justified?

If we adopt the atttitude of if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, the next logical step will be guilty until proven innocent.

It is a fundamental right to have privacy and we shouldn't give it up to easily.

Agreed but adopting the if you have nothing to hide at midnight in a van outside a closed garage with 100 scratch cards on you you have nothing to fear I think we'll be okay.

It's also not a blanket fundamental right - not in The Irish Constitution and not in the ECHR. It simply can't be if we want society to operate in the way it does... now if you're asking do we want society to operate in the way it does then we need another thread!

BornToKill

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

My personal opinion is that to search a person or their car their should be evidence that the guards are likely to find a haul of drugs, weapons or stolen goods etc.

A guard does not require evidence in order to conduct a search under the commonly used statutory provisions - just a 'reasonable suspicion'.

fasttalkerchat

BornToKill wrote: »

A guard does not require evidence in order to conduct a search under the commonly used statutory provisions - just a 'reasonable suspicion'.

That was my personal opinion of how it should be.

BornToKill

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That was my personal opinion of how it should be.

Yes, but it doesn't make much sense.

fasttalkerchat

BornToKill wrote: »

Yes, but it doesn't make much sense.

For a guard stop and search me in the street I would hope that they would have something to suggest that they have a decent chance of finding something. Other wise its a case of "that fella has a shifty walk".

Ellian

BornToKill wrote: »

A guard does not require evidence in order to conduct a search under the commonly used statutory provisions - just a 'reasonable suspicion'.

So how does that work?
Guard: "I'd like to search your car"
Me: "I decline on the basis that I have done nothing wrong and appear to have broken no laws.."
Guard: "Well the fact that you are refusing to let me search makes me think that you have something to hide, so I am going to call that a reasonable suspicion and search it anyway."

Is that plausible?

fasttalkerchat

Ellian wrote: »

So how does that work?
Guard: "I'd like to search your car"
Me: "I decline on the basis that I have done nothing wrong and appear to have broken no laws.."
Guard: "Well the fact that you are refusing to let me search makes me think that you have something to hide, so I am going to call that a reasonable suspicion and search it anyway."

Is that plausible?

I have heard of the PSNI doing something similar.
They can use terrorism legislation to search you against your will with no evidence. I would hate to see the guards behaving like that.

Finnbar01

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I have heard of the PSNI doing something similar.
They can use terrorism legislation to search you against your will with no evidence. I would hate to see the guards behaving like that.

A guard can search you anytime he or she wants.

BornToKill

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I have heard of the PSNI doing something similar.
They can use terrorism legislation to search you against your will with no evidence. I would hate to see the guards behaving like that.

Again, A guard does not require evidence in order to conduct a search under the more commonly used statutory provisions - just a 'reasonable suspicion'. Evidence and suspicion are not the same thing and should not be confused.

fasttalkerchat

Finnbar01 wrote: »

A guard can search you anytime he or she wants.

If they do that they must give you the name of the legislation under which you are being searched. If they do not have a warrant and search you wrongfully anything they find cannot be used in court. In the case of People v. O'Brien, DPP v. Kenny this happened, although it should be noted that this was a search of property and not of a person.