Off duty police officers.

[Halle Terry]

Just got a couple of questions about what police can and can't do whilst off duty.

Can a Officer charge someone whilst off duty?

-If so, does he require a partner to witness it (Don't all Officers travel in pairs so they are witness's to charges?)

-Can this be done just by witnessing the infringement? ie taking no details down (license# name etc)

-Can a charge be sent through via the mail? (similar to a speeding ticket)


Just curious what off duty Police can do, that's all.

[fourseven]

Just got a couple of questions about what police can and can't do whilst off duty.

Can a Officer charge someone whilst off duty?

-If so, does he require a partner to witness it (Don't all Officers travel in pairs so they are witness's to charges?)

-Can this be done just by witnessing the infringement? ie taking no details down (license# name etc)

-Can a charge be sent through via the mail? (similar to a speeding ticket)


Just curious what off duty Police can do, that's all.

Police officers can do the same things off duty that they can do on duty.

1. Yes they can arrest/charge someone while off duty.
2. No they don't require their partner (or anyone else) to witness it.
3. If it is a traffic infringement it can be sent through the mail. If you are arrested/charged on the spot it would usually mean a trip to the Police station with them (they can call for officer assistance via mobile phone etc)
4. Yes.

[Fozzy]

FourSeven is right.

Technically police officers are always on duty and when sworn in take an oath to uphold the law and enforce it at all times.

That said if it is a traffic matter it would more than likely be worth fighting if it just said he witnessed it as he has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you committed that offense

[Halle Terry]

FourSeven is right.

Technically police officers are always on duty and when sworn in take an oath to uphold the law and enforce it at all times.

That said if it is a traffic matter it would more than likely be worth fighting if it just said he witnessed it as he has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you committed that offense

Do you mind explaining that further? Don't quite understand what you mean by "beyond reasonable doubt"

[ossie_21]

Best way I can describe it at the moment is that beyond reasonable doubt means that it could only of been the person in question that committed the offence, and all the evidence needs to support that.

Example - Say they claim you drop a skid & their evidence is a photo of twin lines snaking up the street, but your car could only do single peggers, that is reasonable doubt.

haha

[SLYDR_SAM]

I dont know what they can and cant do but in two seperate occasions i have had off duty officer come to my car with his badge and take my licence details and told me i would be done for reckless driving, both times when I got the letters I wrote in saying not guilty and the charges where dropped

[Fozzy]

Burden of proof = Beyond Reasonable doubt.

Important bit highlighted

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." This is a statement of a version of the presumption of innocence which underpins the assessment of evidence in some legal systems, and is not a general statement of when one takes on the burden of proof. The burden of proof tends to lie with anyone who is arguing against received wisdom, but does not always, as sometimes the consequences of accepting a statement or the ease of gathering evidence in its defence might alter the burden of proof its proponents shoulder. The burden may also be assigned institutionally.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.

The burden of proof is an especially important issue in law and science.

[Halle Terry]

So if there is no evidence other then what is witnessed, then what happens?

(sorry but the burden of proof definition confused me a bit0

[Fozzy]

If a cop presents Evidence of you doing 145 on the freeway in court and you say you were only doing 100 the cop then has to prove with no doubt in a magistrates or jury's mind that you were doing 145 with further evidence..

So basically if you create any doubt to the evidence you can not be found guilty

[ossie_21]

It would probably be thrown out unless it was admitted to or there was bulk witnesses

[Ryan1080]

Adding to that, you also got "on the balance of probabilities" burden of proof used in civil cases, which is a lot easier to prove. OJ Simpson got away from 'beyond reasonable doubt' in his criminal trial, but got owned on the 'balance of probabilities' for the murder of his missus, hence he had to pay compo to her family... even though he was never found guilty of her murder in the crimial trial. Just for your info :)

Yeah, what Fozzy said if spot on, you can cast doubt on the officer's statement, which he cannot prove otherwise, judging by lack of evidence other than his word against yours, and no other witensses, this should be a no brainer...

So if you chucked a skid on someone's driveway, with only the cop witnessing it, you won't be found guilty for it in criminal trial, but you will be liable to compensation to the driverway owner for damages in a civil trial, lol! If that makes sense...

[iluv2moan]

if your guilty and u know it. take it like a man

[nang3]

nah Fight the Man !!!!

tell us what you allegedly did (on your private road of course) anyway!

[McLOVIN]

A charge can be sent through the mail, but generally only for minor offences.

As for cops always travelling in pairs, it's done for officer safety and police presence reasons more than for witnessing offences. There are buttloads of cops that work 1-up in country areas and never have another cop witness anything they do or see.

Also don't think that just because there are no other witnesses to an incident that you can easily cast reasonable doubt on the situation. Police training and experience carries a lot of weight in a court room, especially with highway patrol in traffic matters. An estimate of speed may sound like a guesstimate to you, but a lot of cops are trained to accurately estimate speeds without the use of any measuring devices.

At the end of the day, if you have any doubts about what's happened to you, seek real legal advice and base your decisions on that.

[Joe]

Another thing to be aware of..

Many years ago, I was on a cruise and when parked up at a meet point, we were approached by someone claiming to be an off-duty police officer, saying that we were all going to be yellow stickered, our cars were too loud, and a whole bunch of other stuff whilst carrying on and ranting away.

He was asked to show his identification, which he didn't have. Therefore, he was told to politely to go fuck himself and leave us alone.

If someone claims to be an off-duty cop, make sure you ask them for appropriate identification.. if they don't have it, they're good for nothing IMHO.

[Alt_F4]

He was asked to show his identification, which he didn't have. Therefore, he was told to politely to go fuck himself and leave us alone.
Should of called the cops on him, impersonating a police office is a serious offense.

[McLOVIN]

Good point. If an off-duty cop identifies themselves as a police officer, they are effectively recalling themselves to duty and should have their identification ready to produce it. Not sure about over there but here in NSW, one of the most important aspects of utilising any Police powers is that a cop must identify themselves as a police officer. If they're not in uniform, they must produce a badge and warrant card.

[fourseven]

Good point. If an off-duty cop identifies themselves as a police officer, they are effectively recalling themselves to duty and should have their identification ready to produce it. Not sure about over there but here in NSW, one of the most important aspects of utilising any Police powers is that a cop must identify themselves as a police officer. If they're not in uniform, they must produce a badge and warrant card.

It is the same over here. The badge is unimportant, the warrant card being the feature of the day.

As for the uniform... don't always take that as a guarantee. Last year there were many reports of unmarked vehicles fitted with lights pulling people over, with the driver of the vehicle wearing what looked like a Police uniform. If in doubt ask for ID, even if they look legit.

[Halle Terry]

Well the thing that did strike me as a little differnt was the fact he was riding a motorbike and had the plates [YKZA] he said he was going down to the station in 10 minutes to write me up a ticket.

I'd rather not speak too openly about this as it is a public forum.

That and if I told you guy's you would probally think I'm a bit pety for worrying about something preety trivial.:P

[fourseven]

Well the thing that did strike me as a little differnt was the fact he was riding a motorbike and had the plates [YKZA] he said he was going down to the station in 10 minutes to write me up a ticket.


You can speak freely, just don't incriminate yourself.

Did he identify himself as a Police officer with a badge?

[Halle Terry]

^^ Nah he didn't, I didn't even realise he was an officer at all until he said something along the lines of he's going to write me a ticket when he get's back to the station, mind you this was just around the corner from Curtin House, and I did see him turn directly onto the street Curtin House is on.

[fourseven]

That's fucked up.

I'd make a complaint.

[Halle Terry]

That's fucked up.

I'd make a complaint.

Excuse my blinding ignorance, but in regards to what? Not identifying himself as an officer and issuing me a fine?

[fourseven]

If he is a Police officer and threatened you with a fine without identying himself it's misconduct. In this case he probably wont fine you but will be trying to 'scare' you... you should report it.

On the other hand he may not have been a Police officer, in which case the registration details of the bike should be reported for impersonating a public officer.

Having said all of that, I don't know all the details of the situation. :)

[_S9_]

If he is a Police officer and threatened you with a fine without identying himself it's misconduct.

lolwut

[insane]

purplemonkeydishwasher.

wheres secret squirrel?

[s.t.i.f.t.w.]

Well the thing that did strike me as a little differnt was the fact he was riding a motorbike and had the plates [YKZA] he said he was going down to the station in 10 minutes to write me up a ticket.

I'd rather not speak too openly about this as it is a public forum.

That and if I told you guy's you would probally think I'm a bit pety for worrying about something preety trivial.:P

this happened to me a while ago. i dropped a little wheelspin entering a main road, next minute i see a white cop bike imitation doing about 160kph (in 100 zone) in my rear mirror catching up to me from about 1kilometre back, and pulls up next to me waving and shaking his head. he then pisses off up the road at speed only to have to stop at the next set of lights. i pull up right next to him and start questioning if he's alright or having some sort of epilepsy fit or something and he starts going off about what a hoon i am, that he's off duty, he's got my rego and he's writing up a fine as soon as he gets to work.

had a bit of a think before i said anything and realised that if he is off duty, he'd be impounding my car right there and then for hoon law, so i more or less told him to get fucked, and i had his rego too for doing at least 50kph above the speed limit which he didn't even try to deny. the look on his now stunned face was funny

of course there was no fine in the mail etc. just some police academy reject cut about the fact he didn't get in. wouldn't worry about it