Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

Methhead busted in Belco Kmart

By johnboy - 18 November 2011 32

A 32-year-old Macquarie man was arrested by members from Belconnen Police Station earlier today on knife and drug possession charges (Friday, November 18).

About 1.20pm police attended K-Mart at Westfield Belconnen after receiving a report of suspicious activity. The man was spoken to and consented to search of his items, where police located a knife inside a bumbag.

As the man was being arrested, he attempted to swallow a small clip seal bag which police will allege contains a white crystallised powder suspected to be methamphetamine. A struggle ensued between police and the man with all parties falling to the ground.

The 32-year-old was taken back to Belconnen Police Station and will be charged with possessing a drug of dependence, possessing a knife in a public place, breach of bail, theft and obtain property by deception.

He will face the ACT Magistrates Court tomorrow.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
32 Responses to
Methhead busted in Belco Kmart
damien haas 5:21 pm 20 Nov 11
Mumbucks 2:02 pm 20 Nov 11

PrinceOfAles said :

I think his worst crime was that he was wearing a bum bag.

That and the mullet haircut

Tooks 1:04 pm 20 Nov 11

Cheap said :

KeenGolfer said :

Cheap said :

The breach of bail was due to the drugs and stolen property they found when he consented to a search. If he had have refused then he would not be in breach of his bail.

Is that right? So you know this person and know what his bail conditions are do you? You must also know what the ‘suspicious activity’ was that police were called for. I think that he would have been legally searched even if he hadn’t consented due to the circumstances. Nothing wrong with giving someone the option of consenting first before stepping to the next level.

If the police could have searched him without asking for his consent they would have.

Nope, not necessarily.

Trashman 12:06 pm 20 Nov 11

Yes, well at the risk of offending the “I got rights uber alles” crowd, a methhead with a knife is off the streets so as far as I’m concerned that is a definite win.

PrinceOfAles 10:52 am 20 Nov 11

I think his worst crime was that he was wearing a bum bag.

Cheap 10:48 am 20 Nov 11

KeenGolfer said :

Cheap said :

The breach of bail was due to the drugs and stolen property they found when he consented to a search. If he had have refused then he would not be in breach of his bail.

Is that right? So you know this person and know what his bail conditions are do you? You must also know what the ‘suspicious activity’ was that police were called for. I think that he would have been legally searched even if he hadn’t consented due to the circumstances. Nothing wrong with giving someone the option of consenting first before stepping to the next level.

If the police could have searched him without asking for his consent they would have.

AdventureTime 10:41 am 20 Nov 11

It was the bumbag that gave him away!

KeenGolfer 10:30 am 20 Nov 11

Cheap said :

The breach of bail was due to the drugs and stolen property they found when he consented to a search. If he had have refused then he would not be in breach of his bail.

Is that right? So you know this person and know what his bail conditions are do you? You must also know what the ‘suspicious activity’ was that police were called for. I think that he would have been legally searched even if he hadn’t consented due to the circumstances. Nothing wrong with giving someone the option of consenting first before stepping to the next level.

Henry82 10:25 am 20 Nov 11

Spykler said :

Superb advice if you are keen on arousing suspicion..

afaik not consenting to a search is not reasonable suspicion

Imagine if the cops knocked on your door and asked to search your house. You reply with no, then they go “oh you’ve got something to hide then” and then search the house anyway. Flawless victory.

Tooks 9:58 am 20 Nov 11

Cheap said :

Spykler said :

Cheap said :

This is why you NEVER consent to a search.

Superb advice if you are keen on arousing suspicion..

Somehow I think that if you’re carrying a bag of meth it would be better to “arouse suspicion” then to submit to a search.

Cheap said :

This is why you NEVER consent to a search.

There are many reasons/circumstances when you can be searched that doesn’t require your consent. This guy would have ended up being searched regardless of his consent or not once they realised he was in breach of his bail, or if police suspected he had been shop lifting.

The breach of bail was due to the drugs and stolen property they found when he consented to a search. If he had have refused then he would not be in breach of his bail.

It doesn’t say what bail conditions he breached.

They might’ve had grounds to search him anyway (if he hadn’t consented).

Cheap 9:41 am 20 Nov 11

Spykler said :

Cheap said :

This is why you NEVER consent to a search.

Superb advice if you are keen on arousing suspicion..

Somehow I think that if you’re carrying a bag of meth it would be better to “arouse suspicion” then to submit to a search.

Cheap said :

This is why you NEVER consent to a search.

There are many reasons/circumstances when you can be searched that doesn’t require your consent. This guy would have ended up being searched regardless of his consent or not once they realised he was in breach of his bail, or if police suspected he had been shop lifting.

The breach of bail was due to the drugs and stolen property they found when he consented to a search. If he had have refused then he would not be in breach of his bail.

Spykler 9:21 pm 19 Nov 11

Cheap said :

This is why you NEVER consent to a search.

Superb advice if you are keen on arousing suspicion..

Henry82 12:23 pm 19 Nov 11

Cheap said :

This is why you NEVER consent to a search.

This is why you never carry drugs and a knife in a public place?

KeenGolfer 12:17 pm 19 Nov 11

Cheap said :

This is why you NEVER consent to a search.

There are many reasons/circumstances when you can be searched that doesn’t require your consent. This guy would have ended up being searched regardless of his consent or not once they realised he was in breach of his bail, or if police suspected he had been shop lifting.

Cheap 9:12 am 19 Nov 11

This is why you NEVER consent to a search.

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site