NSW What constitutes a reasonable suspicion?

[Jaywoo220]

For police to arrest you.

 

[Atticus]

In Part >>>

(1) A police officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person if--

(a) the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person is committing or has committed an offence, and

(b) the police officer is satisfied that the arrest is reasonably necessary for any one or more of the following reasons--

(i) to stop the person committing or repeating the offence or committing another offence,

(ii) to stop the person fleeing from a police officer or from the location of the offence,

(iii) to enable inquiries to be made to establish the person's identity if it cannot be readily established or if the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that identity information provided is false,

(iv) to ensure that the person appears before a court in relation to the offence,

(v) to obtain property in the possession of the person that is connected with the offence,

(vi) to preserve evidence of the offence or prevent the fabrication of evidence,

(vii) to prevent the harassment of, or interference with, any person who may give evidence in relation to the offence,

(viii) to protect the safety or welfare of any person (including the person arrested),

(ix) because of the nature and seriousness of the offence

SOURCE >>>> LAW ENFORCEMENT (POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES) ACT 2002 - SECT 99 Power of police officers to arrest without warrant

 

[Jaywoo220]

Thanks, I understand section 99.

In practice though, if someone (where there are cross avos on each party against each other) falsely states that you yelled out to them and made a statement about a court case, would that be enough for police to just turn up and arrest you?

 

[Atticus]

In practice though, if someone (where there are cross avos on each party against each other) falsely states that you yelled out to them and made a statement about a court case, would that be enough for police to just turn up and arrest you?

So,... lets get the facts right from the get go this time.... Is this the same event where you refused to co-operate with police investigating a complaint of a breach of an AVO & was arrested for resisting arrest?..... If so, we've been round this merry go round before....

If no, then it would really help your cause to just tell us the honest sequence of events in enough detail for people here to make some level of informed comment that may be helpful to you & others reading this.

 

[sammy01]

"In practice though, if someone (where there are cross avos on each party against each other) falsely states that you yelled out to them and made a statement about a court case, would that be enough for police to just turn up and arrest you?"


Yes.... Kinda.... Maybe.... Let me explain
So i am a protected person on an AVO. I tell the cops that you yelled out at me.... But the avo states no contact and probably a distance from which you need to stay away. So according to the protected person you have breached the avo. All good so far. So the cops have an obligation to investigate. That might mean asking some questions... OR the cops might have already decided that based on the information provided they would be making an arrest. So in 'practice' how do you reckon the cops decide between asking some questions OR deciding to turn up and arrrest?
Let me give you my answer.... It is to do with context.

Story time... The ex took to whinging to the cops. She could not find the car keys? Hmm. Sammy must have broken into the house and taken them.... She complains to the cops. They investigate.... NOPE nothing.

She sees my car parked at the shops in our small one horse town... I must be stalking her... Off to the cops.
Each time I'm called into the cop shop for a chat. They have to investigate if there has been a complaint lodged about breach AVO... Eventually the cops start to understand that I'm not the problem here. Initially I get a phone call telling me to come to the cop shop straight away or the cops would come and arrest me (bit embarrassing when you're a high school teacher having to leave a class to go to the cop shop). God bless 'em or they're lazy and they'd rather I come in on my own than they have to get off their arses and come get me...
After a while the cops realise they are being played and I'm getting a bit pissed off. So the nice copper tells me that from here on in, unless there was something really serious they would just call me up for a chat if the ex lodged a complaint because they understood it was BS and I should not have to leave work every time this BS happens.... But I have no criminal history. No prior altercations with the cops except for a speeding fine a few yrs back...

Now let's look at what I know of your context. Charged with theft (charges dropt). Charged with resist arrest previously after the altercation with the security guard? Maybe, one or two other altercations with the police? So that is the history/ context. And now a complaint lodged claiming you yelled at someone and made a statement about some other court case? I'm guessing you didn't yell 'hello my friend' (allegedly) because you're claiming all this was a falsehood. Ok, good oh, it is a falsehood, but the cops have to investigate the complaint and with a context of recent history of altercations with the cops they decided it would be best to bring you in for questioning. They have reasonable suspicion in accordance with the legislation...

Is this event a different one to the resist arrest event on a different thread?

BTW did you read the article I posted the link on the other thread?

 

[Jaywoo220]

Thanks, I get the context and I appreciate you being serious.

Couple of things:

1. With the theft they admitted I legitimately purchased the bottle at trial in the dock.

2. I didnt yell anything to them, they just made it up due to court case.

3. The difference is they rang you up and called you in. That is fine. They gave you an opportunity, notice and treated you with common decency. With me, they rock up late at night, the owner occupier tell them to leave as they do not have a warrant, and I do not know what they are talking about, and then they start breaking up the property, assault me and then then the judge let me out the next day.

So what is 'reasonable suspicion' to arrest?

- Is it a whim, intuition, or are there some tests , procedures they must follow?

 

[sammy01]

1.ok so the theft didn't happen.
3. Yup they called me up. But I didn't have any prior involvement with cops. You do. The owner occupier poked the bear. He didn't have the right to thell them to leave. Then s**t goes down

2. They didn't know whether or not you'd yelled anything. They were simply investigating the complaint. I hope you're not saying the cops made it up? I think you mean the other person made it up? the cops had to investigate.

So is there a test / procedure they must follow? look at what Atticus posted.
"(a) the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person is committing or has committed an offence, "

So if you read the article I posted on the other thread, strip searching a chick at a night club for drugs, just because she was in a night club was not considered reasonable grounds to arrest, detain and search. A pittance of compensation was paid. But in your case I reckon the cops did have grounds to arrest. The protected person on an AVO had made a complaint and you have had recent history of police involvement (sure found innocent) but let's not pretend the cops are saints. They saw you as a trouble maker and I reckon when the owner / occupier refused to give them access when they were looking for you the whole scene got escallated. Frankly, to be fair to the cops it looks like the owner occupier was trying to hide you. At least NO DOUBT that is how the cops would have seen it?

So I reckon this meets the 'reasonable grounds' criteria.