Being Told To Open The Bonnet After Being Pulled Over

[tss]

  R31Nismoid said:

Yes but it is not longer reasonable grounds if the modifications they are quoting are legal.

I'm dubious as to suspicion alone.

"reasonable grounds" still apply if the modifications are legal, the "reasonable grounds" to inspect the vehicle is to see if it modifications are in fact legal and comply with the regulations.

If they do comply, then you will be sent on your way without a defect notice.

[_Ryan_]

  bryce19 said:

come to tassie we have none of the bullshit u guys have to put up with

Says the two headed guy

[_Ryan_]

TMU EVERYWHERE at the moment, just dropped the 32 off for a few things, didnt get hassled :S

[bombtrack]

  Terry_GT-R34 said:

A point I'm trying to make is...

"What if you can't remember where the bonnet release is?" OR...

"What if you don't know where it is?" OR...

"What if your bonnet release is fixed in position with a coach screw"...

Does Mr/s Plod have the authority to touch your car and release it himself/herself???????????????

I DOUBT THIS VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because, once you release the bonnet, you are in effect giving him/her the 'authority' to inspect.

I reckon:

1. If the copper knows he/she can show you. You then have no excuse.

2. Ditto point 1.

3. I always thought having your bonnet fixed in position was illegal anyway and grounds for him to defect you without even opening your bonnet.

I also doubt their authority to touch your car, but if it all becomes too much for them they have an easy way out.... EPA notice. It's much more hassle than the defect anyway.

[GTR-N1]

  bombtrack said:

I reckon:

1. If the copper knows he/she can show you.

OK I'm prepared to scrap the coach screw idea... give you that...

b-b-b-b-but how does he/she know what he/she can't see?

[R33-GTST]

  R31Nismoid said:

Victorian Law does not require the officer to see a thing to report you to the EPA

That's the whole bullshit part... Any officer can report you without any fact, proof or otherwise. It's as simple as that.

They just "say" they "suspect", and off you go.

However, another interesting point, you can find the name of the officer out under freedom of information laws.

My next EPA i will be doing this, and then contacting a lawyer on top of writing an official complaint etc etc.

Its nothing short of absolute bullshit that you have to take your car for a test - which you have to pay for... OR take half a day off work to take it for a full inspection... especially if you are indeed legal.

My last EPA i wasn't even pulled over, i was 'observed' on the street - i mean what the f**k... the officer was standing out the front of a maccers or something and decides to report me based on no fact whatsoever... *sigh*

All of this based on no proof, fact or anything else what so ever. It does not even require suspicion. You just get reported and that's that.

They law has to be changed and some proper controls put in place, but like all things law related - good luck with that.

That's a very good idea, you're a smart man, i too got done by some lazy cop who suspected my car was too loud, most likely at a hungry jacks when i drove past it on my way home, i've been driving for 4 years with no hassles until some police officer thought he can note something down to show he was working at that time instead of piss farting around.

[R31Nismoid]

Victorian Law does not require the officer to see a thing to report you to the EPA

That's the whole bullshit part... Any officer can report you without any fact, proof or otherwise. It's as simple as that.

They just "say" they "suspect", and off you go.

However, another interesting point, you can find the name of the officer out under freedom of information laws.

My next EPA i will be doing this, and then contacting a lawyer on top of writing an official complaint etc etc.

Its nothing short of absolute bullshit that you have to take your car for a test - which you have to pay for... OR take half a day off work to take it for a full inspection... especially if you are indeed legal.

My last EPA i wasn't even pulled over, i was 'observed' on the street - i mean what the f**k... the officer was standing out the front of a maccers or something and decides to report me based on no fact whatsoever... *sigh*

All of this based on no proof, fact or anything else what so ever. It does not even require suspicion. You just get reported and that's that.

They law has to be changed and some proper controls put in place, but like all things law related - good luck with that.

[Peter89]

don't have time to read the whole thread but the cop on NS said while a person doesn't have to open the bonnet of the car, he could just require you to do a road worthy check right on the spot or 9am the next morning at a place of his preference. So, probably better to open the bonnet.

[Astro Bear]

  Peter89 said:

don't have time to read the whole thread but the cop on NS said while a person doesn't have to open the bonnet of the car, he could just require you to do a road worthy check right on the spot or 9am the next morning at a place of his preference. So, probably better to open the bonnet.

Hey mate, do you have a link to that thread on NS? Wwould be interested to read it.

Cheers

[_Ryan_]

  Terry_GT-R34 said:

OK I'm prepared to scrap the coach screw idea... give you that...

b-b-b-b-but how does he/she know what he/she can't see?

external gate?

  Astro Boy said:

Hey mate, do you have a link to that thread on NS? Wwould be interested to read it.

Cheers

vic legal advice thread. and it can be any station they nominate, so if your attitude sucks, expect a 500km+ drive haha

Edited August 4, 2009 by RB_Ryan

[rusty31]

  R33-GTST said:

That's a very good idea, you're a smart man, i too got done by some lazy cop who suspected my car was too loud, most likely at a hungry jacks when i drove past it on my way home, i've been driving for 4 years with no hassles until some police officer thought he can note something down to show he was working at that time instead of piss farting around.

wow that i did not know, that seem very unfair they should at least pull you over and tell you.

[bombtrack]

  Terry_GT-R34 said:

OK I'm prepared to scrap the coach screw idea... give you that...

b-b-b-b-but how does he/she know what he/she can't see?

Kinda luck of the draw in that case... if he knows where it is, you can feign ignorance all you want, but if he can tell you exactly how to open it you're farting against thunder.

You could refuse to open it straight out of course rather than feigning ignorance. In which case you will probably be receiving an EPA notice within 4 weeks of the encounter anyway

I am damned if I do and damned if I don't regardless given my mods, so I just hope for nice or clueless coppers every time.

[Astro Bear]

  tss said:

Police need "reasonable grounds" to stop you and do an inspection. Once this has been established, they can do any tests which the inspecting officer or member of the police force decides to be appropriate,

So if an officer sees you have modified wheels on your vehicle even although they might be legal, this is the "reasonable grounds" to do an inspection to see if the vehicle is complying with the act or regulations. Once they have established this "reasonable grounds" then they can do a complete inspection of the vehicle, which includes opening the bonnet if they want.

There is no requirement for an officer to tell you what "reasonable grounds" they had to do an inspection, although most will if you ask.

I can't believe I missed this post previously.

So let me get this straight, I can have a set of wheels that are larger than standard by 1" (fully legal), and that gives an officer the right to inspect my entire vehicle, because he / she now has "reasonable grounds" to suspect my vehicle is not complying with the act, even though the wheels are fully compliant. How does the existence of a fully legal "modification" give an officer "reasonable grounds" to suspect that the vehicle doesn't comply with the Act? That makes absolutely no sense. I don't think a reasonable person would consider that "reasonable grounds".

To me, that's the equivalant of an officer driving past someone's house and stopping because he sees a suspicious plant in the front of a property that looks like Marijuana. It turns out it's just an innocent indigenous shrub, however he knocks on the front door because he now has reasonable grounds to suspect that the owner of the house has a marijuana plant inside. Perhaps not the best analogy, but equally as nonsensical nonetheless.

Sounds like typical bully-boy tactics used to take advantage of less legal minded road users to me

[cmccolgan27]

  bryce19 said:

come to tassie we have none of the bullshit u guys have to put up with

Only because everyone would leave that dump if they did.

[foznice]

  Astro Boy said:

I can't believe I missed this post previously.

So let me get this straight, I can have a set of wheels that are larger than standard by 1" (fully legal), and that gives an officer the right to inspect my entire vehicle, because he / she now has "reasonable grounds" to suspect my vehicle is not complying with the act, even though the wheels are fully compliant. How does the existence of a fully legal "modification" give an officer "reasonable grounds" to suspect that the vehicle doesn't comply with the Act? That makes absolutely no sense. I don't think a reasonable person would consider that "reasonable grounds".

To me, that's the equivalant of an officer driving past someone's house and stopping because he sees a suspicious plant in the front of a property that looks like Marijuana. It turns out it's just an innocent indigenous shrub, however he knocks on the front door because he now has reasonable grounds to suspect that the owner of the house has a marijuana plant inside. Perhaps not the best analogy, but equally as nonsensical nonetheless.

Sounds like typical bully-boy tactics used to take advantage of less legal minded road users to me

Yeah I agree. just because there is a visable modification on the car from the outside, does not imply that there are more inside, or under the bonnet. Conversely, just because there are no modifications that you can see from or on the outside of the car does not imply that it's legal under the bonnet.

But meh, I don't get any trouble from the police anymore.

[tss]

  Astro Boy said:

So let me get this straight, I can have a set of wheels that are larger than standard by 1" (fully legal), and that gives an officer the right to inspect my entire vehicle, because he / she now has "reasonable grounds" to suspect my vehicle is not complying with the act, even though the wheels are fully compliant. How does the existence of a fully legal "modification" give an officer "reasonable grounds" to suspect that the vehicle doesn't comply with the Act? That makes absolutely no sense. I don't think a reasonable person would consider that "reasonable grounds".

Its "reasonable grounds" because how does an officer know that your legal modification eg.1" larger wheels is legal, unless they inspect the wheels. if it's legal then you will be sent on your way.

it's a bit hard to inspect a vehicle which is on the move

  Astro Boy said:

To me, that's the equivalant of an officer driving past someone's house and stopping because he sees a suspicious plant in the front of a property that looks like Marijuana. It turns out it's just an innocent indigenous shrub, however he knocks on the front door because he now has reasonable grounds to suspect that the owner of the house has a marijuana plant inside. Perhaps not the best analogy, but equally as nonsensical nonetheless.

Sounds like typical bully-boy tactics used to take advantage of less legal minded road users to me

The government allows a person to modifiy their vehilce within the standards, so there needs to be away that they can confirm that it complies to this standard.

[tkdbboy]

Curious about this longshot situation:

Lets say you have a 100% stock car and you get pulled over. Cop is stupid and tells you to get an EPA or RWC check. For some unknown reason you don't fight it and get the EPA check / RWC. Does the police compensate for making an error or do you just cop it and it all comes out of your pocket?

[R31Nismoid]

You can take it to court, they will pay the costs etc as obviously they are not going to win

[OMGGTR]

1. Look at the end of the day if one doesn't know their rights they obviously cant do shit and have to cop it no matter what. pardon my french.

2. IF! and i say IF! one knows their rights.. grow the balls to stand up for yourself and say something... but look ull get dicked anyway...

so fkn gooooooood luck! its just to much fkn effort to do all that bullshit when all they have to do it put ur rego on a paper....so u end up loosing anyway..

look a lot of you may think I'm wrong but do me a favor n prove me wrong.. please.

[dan_the_man]

  Astro Boy said:

Does anyone know where I can site the relevant piece of legislation that refers to vehicle searches / police powers with regard to the searching of vehicles?

Cheers

http://www.austlii.edu.au/