Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

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?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
32 Responses to
Methhead busted in Belco Kmart
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Tooks 9:40 am 22 Nov 11

Cheap said :

@Henry I’m glad that someone else here understands their rights.

Assuming you don’t if you got caught with weed…

Tooks 9:12 am 22 Nov 11

Stevian said :

Lazy I said :

milkman said :

FWIW, I’m not a thief, but I wouldn’t consent to a search unless required to.

So why would they want to search you? are you a druggo?

You have a one track mind and little intelligence, there could be a hundred and one reasons that the police would wish to search someone (they’re bored, they have a quota to fill)

You call out someone for having little intelligence, then you come out with that comment? A search quota?

Cheap 8:06 am 22 Nov 11

@Henry I’m glad that someone else here understands their rights.

Henry82 12:39 pm 21 Nov 11

dvaey, not sure if trolling or serious. My comment (starting with “imagine”) was sarcasm.

buzz819 said :

… if a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds.. … This section applies if a police officer suspects, on reasonable grounds …. police officer has reason to believe ….believes on reasonable grounds.

As seen above, the police need reasonable suspicion/reasonable grounds. Not consenting to a search is not reasonable grounds, however if you leg it, then you’ve thrown most of your rights away. The location isn’t reasonable grounds either, unless you’re trespassing. Having said that, when operating a motor vehicle. Yes you have to provide your drivers license, yes you have to do a breath test/drug test.

In OPs post, i bet the bogan thought consenting would be a good idea, thinking the cops would let him go, instead they called his bluff and took him up on the offer.

buzz819 said :

As you can see all that is legislated so Police can do it, and people will conduct their behaviour accordingly, if you do not allow it to happen you will be a criminal for breaking those laws.

how? you read the bit about “reasonable suspicion” right?

http://www.theshopfront.org/documents/Police_Powers_and_Your_Rights_004524341v44.pdf
page 3

Stevian said :

I think you’ll find the law does not work that way

yeah, i didn’t make my sarcasm clear enough :/

buzz819 10:19 am 21 Nov 11

dvaey said :

Henry82 said :

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.

Pretty much nail on the head.

If you dont consent to a breath-test, they assume youre drunk.
If you dont consent to a drug test, they assume youre drugged.
If you dont consent to a search, they assume youre hiding something.
If you dont provide your name and address, they assume youre hiding from them.

Either way, good citizen, consent to police authority, or you’ll be treated like a criminal.

Section 197 of the Crimes Act 1900 – Search for a knife
(1) Subject to subsection (2), if a police officer suspects on reasonable
grounds that a person who is in a public place or school has a knife
in his or her possession, the police officer may—
(a) conduct a frisk search or an ordinary search of the person; and
(b) seize any knife found as a result of the search.
(2) A police officer may conduct a search of a person under
subsection (1) only if the police officer—
(a) provides evidence to the person that he or she is a police
officer, unless the police officer is in uniform; and
(b) informs the person of the reason for the search.
(3) As soon as practicable after a search has been conducted under
subsection (1), the police officer who conducted the search shall
record the time, location and nature of the search.

Section 207 Crimes Act 1900 – Stop, Search and Detain
(1) This section applies if a police officer suspects, on reasonable
grounds, that—
(a) a person is carrying, or otherwise has in his or her possession, a
thing (the relevant thing) relevant to a serious offence or a
thing stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained; and
(b) it is necessary to exercise a power under subsection (2) to
prevent the thing from being concealed, lost or destroyed; and
(c) it is necessary to exercise the power without the authority of a
search warrant because the circumstances are serious and
urgent.
(2) If this section applies, the police officer may—
(a) stop and detain the person; and
(b) conduct a frisk search or ordinary search of the person for the
relevant thing; and
(c) seize the thing if the officer finds it.

Section 211 Crimes Act 1900 – Requirement to provide name
(1) If—
(a) a police officer has reason to believe that an offence has been
or may have been committed; and
(b) believes on reasonable grounds that a person may be able to
assist him or her in inquiries in relation to that offence; and
(c) the name or address (or both) of that person is unknown to the
officer;
the officer—
(d) may request the person to provide his or her name or address
(or both) to the officer; and
(e) if making such a request—shall inform the person of the reason
for the request.
(2) If a police officer—
(a) makes a request of a person under subsection (1); and
(b) informs the person of the reason for the request; and
(c) complies with subsection (3) if the person makes a request
under that subsection;
the person shall not, without reasonable excuse—
(d) fail to comply with the request; or
(e) give a name or address that is false in a material particular.
(3) If a police officer who makes a request of a person under
subsection (1) is requested by the person to provide to the person—
(a) his or her name or the address of his or her place of duty; or
(b) his or her name and that address; or
(c) if he or she is not in uniform and it is practicable for the police
officer to provide the evidence—evidence that he or she is a
police officer;
the police officer shall not—
(d) fail to comply with the request; or
(e) give a name or address that is false in a material particular.
(4) As soon as possible after making such a request, the police officer
shall make a written record of the grounds for his or her belief.
Maximum penalty: $500.

Section 8 Road Transport (Drug and Alcohol) Act 1977 – Power to require alcohol screening test if vehicle not involved in accident
(1) A police officer may require a person to undergo an alcohol
screening test in accordance with the directions of that officer if—
(a) the person is––
(i) the driver of a motor vehicle on a road or road related
area; or
(ii) the driver trainer in a motor vehicle on a road or road
related area; or
(b) the police officer has reasonable cause to suspect that, shortly
before the requirement is made, the person was––
(i) the driver of a motor vehicle on a road or road related
area; or
(ii) the driver trainer in a motor vehicle on a road or road
related area.
(2) Nothing in this section prevents a police officer from requiring both
the driver and driver trainer to undergo an alcohol screening test.

Section 13A Road Transport (Drug and Alcohol) Act 1977 – Power to require drug screening test if vehicle not involved in accident
(1) A police officer may require a person to undergo 1 or more drug
screening tests in accordance with the directions of the officer if—
(a) the person is––
(i) the driver of a motor vehicle on a road or road related
area; or
(ii) the driver trainer in a motor vehicle on a road or road
related area; or
(b) the police officer has reasonable cause to suspect that, shortly
before the requirement is made, the person was––
(i) the driver of a motor vehicle on a road or road related
area; or
(ii) the driver trainer in a motor vehicle on a road or road
related area.
(2) The person must remain at the place where the drug screening test is
being carried out until the test is completed in accordance with the
police officer’s directions.
(3) Nothing in this section prevents a police officer from requiring both
the driver and driver trainer to undergo a drug screening test.

As you can see all that is legislated so Police can do it, and people will conduct their behaviour accordingly, if you do not allow it to happen you will be a criminal for breaking those laws.

Stevian 10:16 am 21 Nov 11

Henry82 said :

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.

I think you’ll find the law does not work that way

buzz819 10:08 am 21 Nov 11

Stevian said :

Lazy I said :

milkman said :

FWIW, I’m not a thief, but I wouldn’t consent to a search unless required to.

So why would they want to search you? are you a druggo?

You have a one track mind and little intelligence, there could be a hundred and one reasons that the police would wish to search someone (they’re bored, they have a quota to fill)

They have a search quota? I didn’t see that one in their KPI’s

Mothy 10:01 am 21 Nov 11

sunshine said :

And here too. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/periodic-detention-for-50-forger/1607356.aspx

Wait, so it goes like this;
* Forge a $50
* Try to pass it off as genuine, get told its a fake at the Servo
* Attend Cop Shop, complain about being told your $50 is a fake

???

Was he hoping to have the fake $50 replaced with a real one by the cops???

Or is it just the way the article is written, and it should have been “after being taken to Belconnen Police Station”?

dvaey 9:34 am 21 Nov 11

Henry82 said :

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.

Pretty much nail on the head.

If you dont consent to a breath-test, they assume youre drunk.
If you dont consent to a drug test, they assume youre drugged.
If you dont consent to a search, they assume youre hiding something.
If you dont provide your name and address, they assume youre hiding from them.

Either way, good citizen, consent to police authority, or you’ll be treated like a criminal.

Stevian 9:21 am 21 Nov 11

p1 said :

I frequently carry a knife in public. I find it really helpful on many occasions for cutting things. I don’t however carry meth, wear a bumbag, or break bail conditions. With this in mind, should I consent to a search?

That said, I’ve never been searched by the police (unless you count sniffer dogs)…

Cutting things? Like people? You should be searched and locked away

Stevian 9:20 am 21 Nov 11

Lazy I said :

milkman said :

FWIW, I’m not a thief, but I wouldn’t consent to a search unless required to.

So why would they want to search you? are you a druggo?

You have a one track mind and little intelligence, there could be a hundred and one reasons that the police would wish to search someone (they’re bored, they have a quota to fill)

Tooks 7:12 am 21 Nov 11

milkman said :

FWIW, I’m not a thief, but I wouldn’t consent to a search unless required to.

Then it’s very unlikely they would want to search you.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site