Police pulled me over because of my age!

Sponge25

Hey folks! First off, i'm not looking for legal advice.

Anyways, I was on my way home from the evening doctor (5.30) for people who can't make it during the day due to work obligations etc. and on my way home up the mainstreet a small hatchback pulled up in front of me and the door swung open causing me to walk into the railings and I thought "rude b1tch" and then she said "Bray Guarda"

Now there has been a spate of break ins around the area and it's nice to see they're doing something about it; They brought me to a nearby line for privacy and I gave them everything they had, and I said, "Yas mustn't be busy today if yas are pulling the likes of me over" (As I have never been involved in crime and I have no record and the police don't know me etc. etc.) and they said there was a few break-ins (as I knew there was) and I said "Yas don't think I'm the kinda guy to be breaking into houses do ya!?" And they said "No, 'we're searching all younglads"

Now they were sound enough and I was polite and answered all their questions politely and gave them my stuff etc. I didn't moan or whinge. I made small talk etc. And we cracked a couple jokes amongst ourselves and there was smiling. Now the guards were sound that's not my problem.

My problem is, AGS surely to God must have some better reason to stop and search a guy other than his age (which happens to be something I cannot control). I wasn't behaving suspiciously. I'm no known the police nor have I ever been. I'm no angel but i'm not a criminal or law-breaker.

And before they say I probably fit some description, they had the offender in custody. It was nothing to do with description. They were arbitrarily stopping young men for NO other reason than they where young men. I have a feeling they're doing it due to the general lack of knowledge about the law. Now i'm now lawyer meself neither, that's why i'm here.

So, I suppose it comes down to this. Can AGS arbitrarily search people because they belong to a certain age group? I wasn't behaving suspciously in the SLIGHTEST and they acknowledged I wasn't. If they can, some law needs to be enacted to stop this because people who know me seen me getting searched and must thing I'm involved in the spate of burglaries now and I put a great emphasis on maintaining my good character which I have held for life.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. PS. If I could get a opinion on a serving or retired member of AGS I would really appreciate that too. Now by now means do I dislike the AGS. I respect them alot and I even considered becoming one, but I think the aforementioned needs to stop. The fact that I am 26 SHOULD NOT be grounds for a search.

Peregrinus

If you consented to the search, there's no issue. A garda can search you at any time with your consent.

They can only search you without your consent if they are executing a search warrant on premises and you happen to be on the premises when they search it (clearly not the case here) if if they have "reasonable suspicion" of certain things, one of which is that you are in possession of stolen goods. The mere fact of your being a "young lad" would not be enough to create a reasonable suspicion.

Sponge25

They didn't ask consent nor gain it sir.

drunkmonkey

Were you in a track suit?

Sponge25

I was wearing jeans and a tracksuit top? Coud you please show me the legislation where it says AGS can search a guy if he has a tracksuit on? I think you won't find it.

Anyways, I'll be back on tommorow to reply to everything. Thanks guys, I really want to get to the end of this. It might seem petty to some and I'm not gonna make any complaints or anything (ofcourse). I just want to know what i'm entitled to do and when i'm entitled not to do something etc.

Thanks lads, nn. Cyas tommorow.

Peregrinus

Sponge25 wrote: »

They didn't ask consent nor gain it sir.

Did they take your bag and search it, or did they ask you for your bag and you handed it over? Did they go through your pockets, or did they ask you to show them the contents and you took them out and showed them?

If it comes to a dispute, odds are that they're going to say that they asked to see your stuff, and you agreed, and that's consent. They only take the view that you've withheld consent if you explicitly refuse your co-operation.

Your mileage may vary. So might the court's. But this would only ever come to court if they went through your bag and found that spliff (or whatever) and charged you. You might then argue that the evidence of what they found on the search was inadmissible because the search was illegal, and it would probably come down to "he said, she said" over exactly how your alleged consent was manifested.
/

onemorechance

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT, 1994

Wilful obstruction.

9.—Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, wilfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person or vehicle in any public place shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.

This applies to the Gardaí too.

According to this act, you were under no obligation to do anything the Guard asked of you, even giving your name, unless you were "acting in a manner contrary to the provisions of:

Intoxication in public place,

Disorderly conduct in public place,

Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in public place,

Distribution or display in public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene,

Failure to comply with direction of member of Garda Síochána ( Where a member of the Garda Síochána finds a person in a public place and suspects, with reasonable cause ...),

or the one quoted above,

Wilful obstruction,

which it may be argued that the Garda herself was guilty of.

As others have pointed out, it seems that you consented to a search, "gave them my stuff", so other than possibly wilful obstruction, the Gardaí did nothing wrong.

There are several ways to look at this: lazy police work, 'we're searching all younglads"; community and Garda cooperation, i.e., ye had a polite interaction which aided a Garda investigation; you were profiled and discriminated against based on your age.

It's good to be polite, but it's also good to know your rights.

I would say that your cooperation in terms of answering their questions, even if not leagally obliged to, was the reasonable thing to do. It would also have been reasonable for you not to give them your stuff; they are going too far there in expecting reasonable cooperation from the public, especially when there was no legal obligation to give it and their only basis in stopping you was your age.

Peregrinus

Might be a bit of a stretch to say that the garda was guilty of wilful obstruction; she pulled up suddenly and opened her door in a way that startled and/or inconvenienced Sponge25, but he doesn't suggest that his way was actually blocked. What stopped him going on was not the fact that the pavement was blocked but the fact that the garda spoke to him and he - very politely - stopped to reply. Hard to parlay that into wilful obstruction.

On the consent issue, that's a bit fuzzy. If the garda, an authority figure, asked to see Sponge25's stuff in terms and tones which left Sponge25, who let us assume is a young fella not well-versed in the ways of the world, with the impression that he had no option to decline, I think he could well say that, notwithstanding that he voiced no objection, he did not consent. But, as I say, the issue would never be tested in a court unless the search had revealed something incriminating, which it did not.

the world wonders

http://www.iccl.ie/know-your-rights-criminal-justice-and-garda-powers.html

There are various laws that allow for a garda to search you without your consent, however they all require "reasonable suspicion". Nor can they prevent you from continuing on your way without arresting you.

If you feel like making an issue of it next time, use the following phrases:

• "I don't consent to a search"
• "Am I free to go?"

Be warned that going this route may spoil your plans for the rest of the day.

johnnyskeleton

You can make a complaint to the Garda ombudsman if you like.

Zambia

Op bear in mind the reason they stopped you may not be the reason they told you.

"We are stopping all young lads" sounds better than "You look dodgy as f$$k"

They were polite they appeared professional, maybe give them the benefit of the doubt.

onemorechance

Peregrinus wrote: »

Might be a bit of a stretch to say that the garda was guilty of wilful obstruction; she pulled up suddenly and opened her door in a way that startled and/or inconvenienced Sponge25, but he doesn't suggest that his way was actually blocked. What stopped him going on was not the fact that the pavement was blocked but the fact that the garda spoke to him and he - very politely - stopped to reply. Hard to parlay that into wilful obstruction.

On the consent issue, that's a bit fuzzy. If the garda, an authority figure, asked to see Sponge25's stuff in terms and tones which left Sponge25, who let us assume is a young fella not well-versed in the ways of the world, with the impression that he had no option to decline, I think he could well say that, notwithstanding that he voiced no objection, he did not consent. But, as I say, the issue would never be tested in a court unless the search had revealed something incriminating, which it did not.

Might be difficult but it's hardly a sretch when it states: "interrupts the free passage of any person". At the very least the Garda did interrupt the free passage of the OP.

"on my way home up the mainstreet a small hatchback pulled up in front of me and the door swung open causing me to walk into the railings".

If it was not a Garda that did that I'm sure it would be a clear case of wilful obstruction and since the act applies to "Any person" and it seems that the Garda had no "reasonable cause"; I think it's difficult not to interpret it as wilful obstruction.

Cody Pomeray

2 words: Implied consent.

You were under no obligation to stop, although your behaviour might then have contributed to reasonable suspicion.

JEINKINS12

You are ignoring the 'without lawful authority' part of the piece of law you are quoting.

There are other pieces of law, like Road Traffic Act which allows Gardaí to stop people for no other reason than they are driving a car on a public road.

Next time a Garda stops you walking on the path, keep walking and see what will happen. If you have done nothing wrong and have nothing illegal on you then what have you to fear.

Cody Pomeray

The Road Traffic Acts have nothing to do with this. It's a pretty simple question.

JEINKINS12

I didn't say the RTA had anything to do with it, I'm pointing out that the 'without lawful authority' part was being ignored from the piece of law under the Public Order Act that was being quoted.

Pat Mustard

onemorechance wrote: »

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT, 1994

Wilful obstruction.

9.—Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, wilfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person or vehicle in any public place shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.

Seriously?

The chances of a Garda who is acting in the course of his duty getting prosecuted for this must be somewhere between slim and none.

And even if it were to proceed to prosecution in some weird parallel universe, if a Garda showed that he was on duty, acting in the course of his duty, that should be a prima facie reasonable excuse at the least (if not lawful authority), resulting in quite an uphill battle for the State Solicitor.

Just because the OP wasn't aware or was not told the correct reason why he was stopped, does not not mean that there was no reasonable excuse or lawful authority. Gardai often act on information that they get: information that they do not give out to the general public.

Cody Pomeray

But you did mention the RTAs.

Which are not relevant.

In this case, there is no lawful authority to compel someone to submit to a search simply on the basis of being a young man in a town quite well populated with young men. However there may have been implied consent.

This is all very straightforward.

JEINKINS12

If there is one thing I know about the law, it is never straightforward.

How do you know there was no 'lawful authority' to compel someone to submit to a search. Here is an example of something that COULD happen (not saying it did).

Taxi man/Resident/Pub owner etc etc tells Garda he just saw young male (describes male) smoking a 'spliff' and tells them what direction he has headed off. Garda finds a young male (may or may not be the same one) matching the description and heading in the direction that he was told. Garda asks male to turn out pockets and male complies (implied consent no legal power invoked), Garda gives the reason for the stop as 'burglaries by young fellas in the area' because he doesn't want to reveal the source of the complaint/information. OR male refuses to turn out his pockets and Garda invokes Section 23 Misuse of Drugs Act to search male.

Most likely didn't happen in this case, but if you don't have all the facts then you can't be sure of what the Garda were trying to achieve.

End of the day, this young man got delayed a few minutes, dealt with politely and Garda are trying to catch the thieves, what's the problem.

Cody Pomeray

JEINKINS12 wrote: »

How do you know there was no 'lawful authority' to compel someone to submit to a search. Here is an example of something that COULD happen (not saying it did).

Taxi man/Resident/Pub owner etc etc tells Garda he just saw young male (describes male) smoking a 'spliff' and tells them what direction he has headed off. Garda finds a young male (may or may not be the same one) matching the description and heading in the direction that he was told.

Lets stop that here.

Here, the Garda has used his critical faculties in differentiating this young man from every other young man in the town. The young man is walking in a specific direction; his attire or appearance matches a description which sets him apart from other men.

DPP v Farrell [2009] IEHC 368

onemorechance

The Mustard wrote: »

Seriously?

The chances of a Garda who is acting in the course of his duty getting prosecuted for this must be somewhere between slim and none.

And even if it were to proceed to prosecution in some weird parallel universe, if a Garda showed that he was on duty, acting in the course of his duty, that should be a prima facie reasonable excuse at the least (if not lawful authority), resulting in quite an uphill battle for the State Solicitor.

Just because the OP wasn't aware or was not told the correct reason why he was stopped, does not not mean that there was no reasonable excuse or lawful authority. Gardai often act on information that they get: information that they do not give out to the general public.

they said "No, 'we're searching all younglads"

Based on the details provided by the OP, and if accurate, the Garda is guilty of wilful obstruction based on my interpretation of the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT.

The difficulty or likelihood of prosecution is a separate matter and is not uncommon in the justice system.

JEINKINS12

And how do you know that that (or something else entirely legitimate) did not happen in this case.

Are you automatically assuming all Gardaí are on a power trip wanting to trample all over everyone's rights? (i'm not accusing, i'm asking)

OR

Isn't it possible this was just a case of two Gardaí doing a professional and courteous job which slightly inconvenienced a person going about their own business?

If you object to this type of policing then when your house is burgled don't go asking what are the Gardaí doing about it because you obviously want light touch policing.

Cody Pomeray

JEINKINS12 wrote: »

And how do you know that that (or something else entirely legitimate) did not happen in this case.

Are you automatically assuming all Gardaí are on a power trip wanting to trample all over everyone's rights? (i'm not accusing, i'm asking)

OR

Isn't it possible this was just a case of two Gardaí doing a professional and courteous job

It's not any of our responsibilities to 'judge' the OP or his case.

All we can do is impart the relevant rules. I have no idea what the circumstances of this case are. I do know, however, that there is no general power to stop and search pedestrians on an indiscriminate basis, which I would suggest extends to the category 'all young men'.

onemorechance

JEINKINS12 wrote: »

And how do you know that that (or something else entirely legitimate) did not happen in this case.

Are you automatically assuming all Gardaí are on a power trip wanting to trample all over everyone's rights? (i'm not accusing, i'm asking)

OP said:

they said "No, 'we're searching all younglads"

OR

Isn't it possible this was just a case of two Gardaí doing a professional and courteous job which slightly inconvenienced a person going about their own business?

I said:

I would say that your cooperation in terms of answering their questions, even if not leagally obliged to, was the reasonable thing to do. It would also have been reasonable for you not to give them your stuff; they are going too far there in expecting reasonable cooperation from the public, especially when there was no legal obligation to give it and their only basis in stopping you was your age.

If you object to this type of policing then when your house is burgled don't go asking what are the Gardaí doing about it because you obviously want light touch policing.

If you are referring to my posts then everything you have asked here has already been addressed in my posts.

beauf

Sponge25 wrote: »

...Can AGS arbitrarily search people because they belong to a certain age group? ...

I think there was more to it then that. Break ins in the area, dressed a particular way.. For example if you dressed the same but near a college would you have been stopped. Dressed in a suit. Near a record store. The question then becomes about profiling in general. The following is US based but raises the issue of profiling.

Bias-based profiling is the use of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, economic status, background, age, or culture as the sole basis for police activity. The absence of facts, suspicious activity, or specific criminal information is what separates bias-based profiling from legitimate criminal profiling.

It is important to realize that police officers must sometimes consider a person’s race, age, gender, religion, and other factors when preparing a criminal profile, as it may be a necessary part of determining who would have had a motive or the capability of committing an alleged crime. Routinely we determine a possible type of suspect in a series of crimes by first scrutinizing the facts of the case, then further narrowing our search by considering factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, etc. The key element is that the investigative outcome is based on facts and knowledge, not personal attributes or societal biases.

http://www.wppd.org/about/bbp.htm

H3llR4iser

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

...I do know, however, that there is no general power to stop and search pedestrians on an indiscriminate basis, which I would suggest extends to the category 'all young men'...

In this case, I am actually genuinely curious about how the law enforcement agencies are supposed to act upon reports of illegal activities such a burglaries, smuggling or drug dealing, if they actually lack the possibility to conduct what I would call sample searches.

onemorechance

H3llR4iser wrote: »

In this case, I am actually genuinely curious about how the law enforcement agencies are supposed to act upon reports of illegal activities such a burglaries, smuggling or drug dealing, if they actually lack the possibility to conduct what I would call sample searches.

They would require probable cause, such as a description which is better than 'all young lads'.

Pat Mustard

onemorechance wrote: »

Based on the details provided by the OP, and if accurate, the Garda is guilty of wilful obstruction based on my interpretation of the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT.

This is entirely based upon your assumption that there is no reasonable excuse or lawful authority.

You have assumed that the Garda gave the OP the correct reason for stopping him. Neither you nor the OP could possibly know if the Garda divulged the correct reason that the OP was stopped.

Therefore, there is no way of showing that there was no lawful authority or reasonable excuse, and there is no way of saying that a crime has been committed, with any degree of accuracy.

Cody Pomeray

H3llR4iser wrote: »

In this case, I am actually genuinely curious about how the law enforcement agencies are supposed to act upon reports of illegal activities such a burglaries, smuggling or drug dealing, if they actually lack the possibility to conduct what I would call sample searches.

I don't know what 'sample searches' are. That just does not compute in my brain. I actually think the term sails close to being offensive in any progressive, democratic society.

There is a loose, poorly (judicially) defined basis for mass screening, if that is what you are referring to, which is more specifically defined in the revised Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Bill.

The Mustard wrote: »

You have assumed that the Garda gave the OP the correct reason for stopping him. Neither you nor the OP could possibly know if the Garda divulged the correct reason for the stop to the OP.

It is, on the face of it, equally serious if the Gardaí stopped an individual and compelled that individual to submit to a search of their person without giving a reason or without giving a true reason. There is a general duty to explain, as per Farrell, mentioned above.

onemorechance

The Mustard wrote: »

This is entirely based upon your assumption that there is no reasonable excuse or lawful authority.

You have assumed that the Garda gave the OP the correct reason for stopping him. Neither you nor the OP could possibly know if the Garda divulged the correct reason for the stop to the OP.

Therefore, there is no way of telling whether there is lawful authority or reasonable excuse, and there is no way of saying that a crime has been committed, with any degree of accuracy.

It's based entirely on the details provided by the op who wanted to know their rights in the scenario described. If the Garda is not able to provide a lawful reason then the op is under no obligation to cooperate. I am basing everything on the details provided by the op, and not making any assumptions on information which is not provided, either by the op or the Garda.

Pat Mustard

onemorechance wrote: »

I am basing everything on the details provided by the op, and not making any assumptions on information which is not provided, either by the op or the Garda.

Your observation that the Garda has committed the crime is unlikely in the extreme, and somewhat off the wall. The definition of the crime requires absence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse. As you have stated that the crime has been committed, by definition, you have assumed the absence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse, whether or not you care to admit it.

onemorechance wrote: »

If the Garda is not able to provide a lawful reason then the op is under no obligation to cooperate.

This is very misleading. Garda powers of search do not depend upon providing reasons or having probable cause. For instance, if a Garda has a reasonable cause to suspect that a person is in possession of cannabis, he may search that person. If he suspects that there are drugs in a vehicle, he may search it. In practise, the Garda may offer his reasons in order to gain the cooperation of the suspect, but the legislation does not make this compulsory.

onemorechance

The Mustard wrote: »

Your observation that the Garda has committed the crime is unlikely in the extreme, and somewhat off the wall. The definition of the crime requires absence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse. As you have stated that the crime has been committed, by definition, you have assumed the absence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse, whether or not you care to admit it.


This is very misleading. Garda powers of search do not depend upon providing reasons or having probable cause. For instance, if a Garda has a reasonable cause to suspect that a person is in possession of cannabis, he may search that person. If he suspects that there are drugs in a vehicle, he may search it. In practice, the Garda may offer his reasons in order to gain the cooperation of the suspect, but the legislation does not make this compulsory.

Your inability to understand what is being said and giving examples which are not relevant to the situation described by the OP is de-railing the thread and is not useful in helping the op understand their rights in the situation they described.

An example of your lack of understanding of what is being said is when you equated my saying that "If the Garda is not able to provide a lawful reason" is understood by you as not providing. Reasonable and probable are synonyms and I may have written the wrong one with regard to what is written in the irish act.

Could you please stop trying to make assumptions on what is not described by the OP, and provide information related to what was described by the OP.

Are you saying that based on the reason the Garda gave, we are searching "all young lads" that the Garda had a right to search the OP even if the OP did not consent? There was no mention of cannabis. Stick to the example at hand without making assumptions.

If the OP is in this exact same situation again, he has the right to ask what is the reason for the search, and "we are searching all young lads" is not reasonable cause and thus the OP is entitled to walk away and ignore the cops.

Also if this is their sole reason for interrupting the free passage of the OP, then they would be guilty of wilful obstruction based on my interpretation of the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT.

Pat Mustard

onemorechance wrote: »

An example of your lack of understanding of what is being said is when you equated my saying that "If the Garda is not able to provide a lawful reason" is understood by you as not providing. Reasonable and probable are synonyms and I may have written the wrong one with regard to what is written in the irish act.

What you had written was misleading. The reference to probable cause was incorrect. Your attempt to state the law was clumsy, at best. Therefore, I pointed it out.

onemorechance wrote: »

Are you saying that based on the reason the Garda gave, we are searching "all young lads" that the Garda had a right to search the OP even if the OP did not consent?

When I have something to say, I'll let you know.

onemorechance wrote: »

There was no mention of cannabis. Stick to the example at hand without making assumptions.

I will use the Misuse of Drugs Act as a relevant example of legislation giving Garda powers of search.

onemorechance wrote: »

Also if this is their sole reason for interrupting the free passage of the OP, then they would be guilty of wilful obstruction based on my interpretation of the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT.

Back to this again, is it? So, again, if we assume that this is the sole reason... etc. etc. Round and round in circles...

Cody Pomeray

The Mustard wrote: »

Garda powers of search do not depend upon providing reasons...

DPP v Farrell [2009] IEHC 368

[32]. It is well established since Christy v. Leachinsky† that a subject must be informed of the reason for his arrest and since Rooney* that the reason for any search of his person should be explained. The reasoning behind for these requirements is that any interference with a subject's right to personal liberty must be justified and the first step in this justification is to inform a person why he/she is being arrested. Similarly, a personal search may infringe on a right to bodily integrity and so the reason for the search should be stated. The obligations are general without being absolute as there will always be occasions where the exigencies are such that they do not permit opportunities to communicate such information or where the reason is obvious or where, as happens at airports and the entrance to many public institutions, persons impliedly consent to body searches.

† [1947] 1 All ER 567
* DPP v Rooney [1992] 2 IR 7

I think there is a strong likelihood that the OP impliedly consented in this case, and therefore he may have no basis for complaint to the Ombudsman.

It is incorrect to suggest or imply that there is no general obligation to provide reasons.

onemorechance

Just so the OP is aware, you are entitled to ask the Gardaí their reason(s) and "we are searching all young lads" is not a good enough reason to interrupt your free passage or to search you without your consent.

Don't be mislead by those who might say they don't have to provide you with a reason, give you a false reason, or that you should accept that the Gardaí will never over-step their authority.

Pat Mustard

Sorry, I must have missed your reply to an earlier post of mine.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It is incorrect to suggest or imply that there is no general obligation to provide reasons.

I accept that this is correct, as you have clearly shown.

I would also point out this will operate so as to exclude illegally obtained evidence at trial. Aside from giving consent to search or receiving reasons for searching aside, it would be unwise to resist a Garda search at the roadside.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I think there is a strong likelihood that the OP impliedly consented in this case,

I would tend to agree with this.