Stop and Search of Vehicles

[oghene]

I have read the road traffic act over and over again. I can't find any imperative words to suggest that a 'person' must get out of their vehicle. Any one is free to correct me if I am wrong.
It seems the statute is based on the assumption that a person will get out of the vehicle when asked, and thus giving their consent.

Therefore my initial conclusion is that a 'person' if they so wish can stay in their vehicle and speak to the 'policy enforcer' through a gap in their window.

Thus they cannot search your person or its property.

Here is the act.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_14#pt7-pb1-l1g163
Road Traffic Act 1988

Terrorism Act 2000
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_10#pt8-l1g116

116 Powers to stop and search (1) A power to search premises conferred by virtue of this Act shall be taken to include power to search a container.
(2) A power conferred by virtue of this Act to stop a person includes power to stop a vehicle (other than an aircraft which is airborne).
(3) A person commits an offence if he fails to stop a vehicle when required to do so by virtue of this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,
(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(c) both.

[chateaux]

Remember all these Statutes that demand you do something breaches your right to silence...

Here is a case where someone who did not want to speak with the police got away with it:

http://www.andrewgray.uklinux.net/legalsupport/caselaw124.html

[chateaux]

It is quite clear that the appellant was making it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties, and that the police at the time and throughout were acting in accordance with their duties. The only remaining element of the alleged offence, and the one on which in my judgment this case depends, is whether the obstructing of which the appellant was guilty was a wilful obstruction. “Wilful” in this context in my judgment means not only “intentional” but also connotes something which is done without lawful excuse . . . . Accordingly, the sole question here is whether the appellant had a lawful excuse for refusing to answer the questions put to him. In my judgment he had. It seems to me quite clear that though every citizen has a moral duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that effect, and indeed the whole basis of the common law is that right of the individual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority, and a refusal to accompany those in authority to any particular place, short, of course, of arrest. (Parker, CJ, at page 651H–652B of [1966] 2 AllER)

There is the crux.

[oghene]

There is the crux.

Thanks for that. Rice v Connolly I think.

But the law is not general but specific in scope and context. In that situation, the chap was walking in the street. The police had no lawful reason to ask him his name. The only lawful reason the police have to ask you your name, is if there is a claim, directed to a specific 'Joe Bloggs'. Other than that they cannot demand it.

Infact, it shouldn't be what is your name, but rather we are looking for 'name', is that you?

The context I am alluding to, is when a man/person/individual is in a car.
Does the act command the driver to open the car door?
The police have no powers of entry, so opening the car door is your consent to be violated.

That's how I see it.

[yozhik]

Thanks for that. Rice v Connolly I think.

But the law is not general but specific in scope and context. In that situation, the chap was walking in the street. The police had no lawful reason to ask him his name. The only lawful reason the police have to ask you your name, is if there is a claim, directed to a specific 'Joe Bloggs'. Other than that they cannot demand it.

Infact, it shouldn't be what is your name, but rather we are looking for 'name', is that you?

The context I am alluding to, is when a man/person/individual is in a car.
Does the act command the driver to open the car door?
The police have no powers of entry, so opening the car door is your consent to be violated.

That's how I see it.

Which is why the Australian Freemen advocate rolling down your window only slightly, so as to hear and be heard, but no more. Lock doors and do not contract. Do not get out. Do not allow access.

Also, if you watch the videos of the roadblocks in the U.S by "border patrols"; in those, the wondows are also kept well and truly up.

[tom bombadil]

Its my understanding that a warrent is required for any search.


Nelly.

[dreamweaver]

If you get out of the car when a policy officer approaches you in the US, you can be shot.

Having spent some time there, I've tended to wait until they approach the window if a cop pulls me here (it's been a while since it happened though).

[the worm that turned]

I have also heard (in the UK) that if a person feels intimidated or frightened by a Police car pursuing/harassing you, or you are uncertain if the Police car is genuine, you do not have to stop, particularly if in a rural area.

Perhaps you could continue driving until you get home, nip onto your drive, stay in your car, open your window a fraction and tell whoever it is following you to "GET OFF MY LAND!".

Once they are off your land and you have revoked any believed right that they think they have to be on your land, go indoors and wait for a warrant to enter onto your land.

Of course this is not advice and merely a fictional story :D

[whitenight639]

I have also heard (in the UK) that if a person feels intimidated or frightened by a Police car pursuing/harassing you, or you are uncertain if the Police car is genuine, you do not have to stop, particularly if in a rural area.

Perhaps you could continue driving until you get home, nip onto your drive, stay in your car, open your window a fraction and tell whoever it is following you to "GET OFF MY LAND!".

Once they are off your land and you have revoked any believed right that they think they have to be on your land, go indoors and wait for a warrant to enter onto your land.

Of course this is not advice and merely a fictional story :D


lol think that would get you a broken window, some bruises and tasered possibly, but try it if ya want :D

actually a guy i know did something similar, he lives in a very rural area and bought a running car from the scrap yard down the road, he thought it was a gud idea to drive it back to his house and the police saw him (what they were doing round there i dnt know cos theres nothing going on) anyway he decided to try outrun them cos he knew the roads, the numpty only lost them then parked the car on his drive so they then knew exacly where he lived and what his name was, he got banned for 6 months i think.

[malvern]

Its my understanding that a warrent is required for any search.




They must give a reason for why they wish to carry out a search ...ie think that there has been a crime .... not looking to see if they might find one ...facts of why they wish to carry out such actions ....PACE, or Drugs are the only two i know of and then they must state thier case firts and give out the correct paperwork..... but they have missed used these reasons so that they can search at will and might come across something that excuses thier unlawful search ...... They must have reason before the search ..... they treat everyone as a crimal ...... has everyone been trained to forget the human and bow to the power of the person .....



freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers