Anti-hoon (hoon Laws) Legislation

[some_cs_student]

Hey,

I'm sure I found a link ages ago, it might have been on the justice website but that website has been re-structured recently.

Does anyone have a document that specifies what the hoon laws are?

I understand the obvious, if your over the speed limit by 45km/h, loss of control of vehicle in some circumstances, drag racing, excessive noise or wheel spin...

Just trying to confirm some rumors about the law.

Regards,

Gareth

[_Ryan_]

I have a brilliant idea, don't be a cock and you won't need them

seriously though, maybe pop down to a cop shop and ask for a copy?

[some_cs_student]

I have a brilliant idea, don't be a cock and you won't need them

seriously though, maybe pop down to a cop shop and ask for a copy?

Lol at the first comment, I don't need 'em, I just want to confirm a rumour, the rumour was that police can search your vehicle if they believe you have illegal performance modifications, which is a very open law, I don't believe it exists but wanted to confirm.

Obviously there are similar laws but that's if you have a previous drug offence or similar, or they believe you have a radar detecting device or..

[madbung]

No warrant only suspicion of a crime/offence is required for a valid vehicle search.

So basically any excuse will do.

[some_cs_student]

No warrant only suspicion of a crime/offence is required for a valid vehicle search.

So basically any excuse will do.

Under which act? According to http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/your.rights.html the police do not have a general right to search your vehicle, inspect yes, but not to rip the vehicle apart to check for something unless they have a good reason for the suspicion, eg. previous drug conviction of any kind et cetera.

[madbung]

The smell of cannabis or when approaching the vehicle i noticed blah blah reaching under the seat ect,

To check for aftermarket ecu is an emmissions issue so they can also do that....I could go on but i'd hope you have the general idea by now.

Edited December 26, 2008 by madbung

[madbung]

You'd probably be better seaching common law than some 3rd party traffic law site.

Look under powers of search and seizure.

Heres a breif summary.

Skip to the bold print if you don't want to read the entire txt

SEARCH & SEIZURE

Specific powers of entry, arrest, search and seizure under DFDA include inter alia:

s 91 (Power to Enter to make Arrest)

s 92 (Use of Force)

subject to no greater indignity than necessary – no automatic handcuffs!

ss 101V-W (Search and Seizure Powers)

Key Concept: Belief on Reasonable Grounds

Who must have this belief?

Role of investigating and authorized officer?

SEARCH & SEIZURE

George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104

The prescription of conditions which must be fulfilled before a warrant is issued reflect the legislature's concern to protect these interests. It is necessary to insist on strict compliance with these conditions: at 111

Proving the existence of reasonable grounds

[The Act] imposes a duty on the magistrate to satisfy himself or herself that the conditions for the issue of the warrant are satisfied. That is, it must appear to the magistrate that there are reasonable grounds for the police entertaining the relevant suspicion and belief. This does not mean that the justice must also entertain the relevant suspicion and belief. Such a requirement was described by the court as "excessive": at 112.

SEARCH & SEIZURE

George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104

Endorsed Parker v. Churchill (1985) 63 ALR 326 at 333, per Burchett J:

"The duty, which the justice of the peace [authorized officer under DFDA] must perform in respect of an information, is not some quaint ritual of the law, requiring a perfunctory scanning of the right formal phrases, perceived but not considered, and followed by simply an inevitable signature. What is required by the law is that the justice of the peace should stand between the police and the citizen, to give real attention to the question whether the information proffered by the police does justify the intrusion they desire to make into the privacy of the citizen and the inviolate security of his personal and business affairs.”

SEARCH & SEIZURE

George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104

“…suspicion and belief are different states of mind … Suspicion is a state of conjecture or surmise where proof is lacking. The facts which can reasonably ground a suspicion may be quite insufficient reasonably to ground a belief, yet some factual basis for the suspicion must be shown. The objective circumstances sufficient to show a reason to believe something need to point more clearly to the subject matter of the belief, but that is not to say that the objective circumstances must establish on the balance of probabilities that the subject matter in fact occurred or exists. Belief is the inclination of the mind towards assenting to, rather than rejecting, a proposition and the grounds which can reasonably induce that inclination of the mind may, depending on the circumstances, leave something to surmise and conjecture”: at 115-116.

SEARCH & SEIZURE

R v Rondo [2001] NSWCCA 540, per Spigelman CJ, Simpson J, and Smart AJ [para 51]

(a) A reasonable suspicion involves less than a reasonable belief but more than a possibility. There must be something which would create in the mind of a reasonable person an apprehension or fear of one of the state of affairs covered by s 357E [stop and search power]. A reason to suspect that a fact exists is more than a reason to consider or look into the possibility of its existence.

(b) Reasonable suspicion is not arbitrary. Some factual basis for the suspicion must be shown. A suspicion may be based on hearsay material or materials which may be inadmissible in evidence. The materials must have some probative value.

© What is important is the information in the mind of the police officer stopping the person or the vehicle or making the arrest at the time he did so. Having ascertained that information the question is whether that information afforded reasonable grounds for the suspicion which the police officer formed. In answering that question regard must be had to the source of the information and its content, seen in the light of the whole of the surrounding circumstances.

Edited December 26, 2008 by madbung

[madbung]

My pleasure......anytime, really.

[some_cs_student]

Thanks for that, sorry about the delayed reply but you already seem to have taken the credit

Thanks for your help!