WA Police - What Classes as Reasonable Suspicion?

[Pete pan]

Just wondering, what things are causes to be pulled over and searched in a car? I'll give you a situation:

S is driving down a main road at approximately 2 am in a friend's neat 4wd that he had borrowed to give someone a lift home. There was nothing wrong with it. It was registered and obeying the road rules the when police sped up behind with lights flashing, S pulls into a service station and rolls the window down and the police officer walks up to widow, hand on a gun telling him to exit the vehicle.

In fear he does and is handcuffed and the car was searched. Only after the search, S is asked for his name and identification then is subsequently taken back to the station and charged with something found in the car.

S had asked when first pulled over. What was wrong and why was it necessary for the handcuffs and why was being detained? The only explanation that was given was, "you should know we can stop and search anyone walking or driving".

Is this allowed and does this sound like a normal stop and search? Are police able to handcuff and detain and search you before even asking who you are? I thought that they had to have reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. How can they have suspicion if they didn't know who S was and there was nothing wrong with the car. Is this a legal stop and search?

 

[sammy01]

So the owner of the car has probably got a criminal history... So when they do a rego check and see the owner has history they pull the car over.

BTW what was found?

So their report will go like this - you were driving suspiciously, no more info, but you pulled into a servo. Police perceived this as trying to avoid cops, more suspicion . Oh and the owner of the car has a history. Oh and guess what - there was something illegal in the car, so their suspicions were right...

 

[Pete pan]

so the owner of the car has probably got a criminal history... So when they do a rego check and see the owner has history they pull the car over.

BTW what was found?
So their report will go like this - you were driving suspicously, no more info, BUT you pulled into a servo - police percieved this as trying to avoid cops, more suspision - Oh and the owner of the car has a history...... OH and guess what - there was something illigal in the car, so their suspicioins were right...

The registered owner did not have a record at all and S only pulled over into the servo due to the police signalling him to pull over

 

[Pete pan]

Do they have to have reasonable suspicion and what are the boundaries of that? Do they have to have a reason more than driving at night or is that suspicion enough?

 

[Rod]

Handcuffing without arrest is illegal in Victoria. It may even constitute false imprisonment. Not sure about WA.

Sometimes think our police watch too many US cop shows.

 

[Pete pan]

Handcuffing without arrest is illegal in Victoria. Not sure about WA.

Is that the same as WA?

S seems to believe they can't detain you with handcuffs without them even asking you to identify yourself. I'm not sure though, that's why I thought I could help him by asking on here. He thinks that if they don't even know who a person is and they hadn't committed a crime while driving or did anything to raise suspicion except driving at night.

S thinks the police acted wrong, is this right or not?

 

[sammy01]

They don't have to have a suspicion... They can make one up - thought your driving was erratic...

Now when you were directed to pull over, it seems reasonable that you would pull over to the side of the road - you went into the servo. So I'm guessing the copper found this suspect - hence the heavy handed tactics...

But here is the problem - they found something illegal. So their suspicions - whatever they may have been - were well founded... Sounds like good police work...

Story time -

When I was 19, I had dredlocks. I was driving to university in a bit of an old bomb. I got pulled over for nothing - breath tested. Passed all good. The cops then threw everything out of the car - clothes, papers, macca's wrappers, etc. All under suspicion of drugs... because of the way I looked.

Cop claimed they could smell something but They found nothing. Gotta admit I was a bit of a smart arse, but largely because I knew there was nothing in the car. So once they had chucked all the mess on the ground, the copper informed me that I was going to have to pick up all the mess.

I said nope. Copper tells me to pick up the mess or he will write me a ticket for littering. WTF?

So I picked up the mess and decided against making a... Now the difference here is I was doing nothing wrong at all. You, however, had some sort of illegal substance in.

 

[Pete pan]

they don't have to have a suspicion..... They can make one up - thought you're driving was erratic....Now when you were directed to pull over, it seems reasonable that you would pull over to the side of the road - you went into the servo.
so I'm guessing the copper found this suspect - hence the heavy handed tactics...

BUT here is the problem - they found something illegal. So their suspicions - what ever they may have been were well founded... Sounds like good police work...

Story time - when I was 19 I had dredlocks. I was driving to university in a bit of an old bomb... I got pulled over for nothing - breath tested. Passed all good. The cops then threw everything out of the car - clothes, papers, macca's wrappers etc. All under suspicion of drugs... because of the way I looked. Cop claimed they could smell something.... They found NOTHING. Gotta admit I was a bit of a smart arse, but largely because I knew there was nothing in the car.... So once they had chucked all the mess on the ground the copper informed me that I was going to have to pick up all the mess. I said NOPE. Copper tells me to pick up the mess OR he will write me a ticket for littering. WTF??? So I picked up the mess and decided against making a .... Now the difference here is I was doing nothing wrong at all. You however, had some sort of illegal substance in

Not me, but an acquaintance. I only ask because when S mentioned this to me, I remember some case vaguely that if the officers stepped outside their rights, there's been times that the evidence found in illegal searches are inadmissible, but from what you're saying, the police will just say they had suspicion.

But the bit that he was handcuffed and searched without them even knowing or asking his name, is that legal?

 

[sammy01]

OK, so there is a bit of Chinese whispers going on here. This is your acquaintance's version... but based on what you've written, I see two really important flaws:

1. Pulled into a servo - not pulled directly onto the curb. That alone spooked the cop.

2. Cop approached with hand on gun holster... Again, indicates the cop was spooked.

Now - illegal searches are seriously problematic. You don't need a warrant to search the car. So the cop pulled over your mate - no idea why. Now as far as handcuffs go, I thought cops could use them if they feared for their safety... But that may change from state to state / territory...

So with old mate pulling into the servo, I reckon the cop has grounds for suspicion from there... and given the cop found something, I reckon it is a done deal...

Now here is the real problem with the law. Old mate could spend thousands trying to get the unlawful search case heard. He is gonna need a barrister for that one.

So I'm thinking 10's of thousands of dollars. Now given he was driving around at 2am and had drugs in the car, I reckon his chances of winning are stuff all.

 

[Pete pan]

ok so there is a bit of Chinese whispers.... going on here - this is your acquaintance's version... BUT based on what you've written I see two really important flaws.
1. Pulled into a servo - not pulled directly onto the curb. That alone spooked the cop.
2. cop approached with hand on gun holster... Again, indicates the cop was spooked.

Now - illegal searches are seriously problematic. You don't need a warrant to search the car. So the cop pulled over your mate - no idea why. NOW as far as handcuffs go. I thought cops could use them IF they feared for their safety... But that may change from state to state / territory...

So with old mate pulling into the servo, I reckon the cop has grounds for suspicion from there... AND given the cop found something - I reckon it is a done deal...

Now here is the real problem with the law.... Old mate could spend thousands trying to get the unlawful search case heard. He is gonna need a barrister for that one. So I'm thinking 10's of thousands of $$$. Now given he was driving around at 2am and had drugs in the car - I reckon his chances of winning are stuff all.

Ok thanks for your insight, much appreciated.