Burnouts on Private Property

[Brent]

IMO if you're out in the country on your own land with nobody else around, then go nuts. No place for it in suburbia though.

[FPV GT40]

You can do what you like as long as all goes well, like the old saying goes 'its funny till someone gets hurt'....does not matter what you think the fact remains the driver is responsible on the road or off the road for his actions...if his actions cause injury or death he will be criminally charged no questions asked.

If someone tells you to stand in front of a loaded gun and you do it the person pulling the trigger is still responsible, its all the same and very basic really not a matter of shifting blame.

[Wally]

I know of instances where the cops follow suspect DUI drivers into driveways and breath test, but to my mind that's fairly reasonable. But I'm not convinced they can do so on private land without there being an incident involving injury or damage that would result in a claim on third party or a suit.

[protd]

Originally Posted by Wally

I know of instances where the cops follow suspect DUI drivers into driveways and breath test, but to my mind that's fairly reasonable. But I'm not convinced they can do so on private land without there being an incident involving injury or damage that would result in a claim on third party or a suit.

i'm fully convinced, i have the dui charge and the bill for trying to fight it in court

would have been a hell of a lot cheaper if i just took my solicitors advice over the phone :

oh and i was not doing anything stupid, i was working on my car having a few beers, i loaded it onto the trailer ready to hit the strip the next day, the cops happened to be next door and wandered over because of how loud the car was :

i had a beer in my hand while i was getting out of my car, i went .053

[Wally]

Were you on private land or on council land?

[dave289]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

This is going around in circles.

Do a search on Bluepower and see how many 8 year olds run 10 second passes in XR8's they built them self.

You will find most serious racers have nothing to prove to drunk mates at parties.

Got to admit I've never seen an 8 year old run a 10 sec pass.I thought he was older.

[protd]

Originally Posted by Wally

Were you on private land or on council land?

i was in my back yard

hence why a replied to the private property statement

[Wally]

That's interesting. I think it's NSW that requires consent of the property owner to carry out a breathtest, but Queensland being run by the archetypal Labor Govt has probably made sure it can interfere legally into anything a citizen does.

You must be one of the reasons they are installing fixed red light/speed camera combos in Brisbane... silly me thought it was only the accidents on the country roads that had precipated that decision.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by FPV GT40

It is not a question who you blame, it is a question who is responsible, the driver of a vehicle is responsible for his actions, weather drunk or not, if passengers do not wear seat belts the driver gets fined, if you cause injury to someone you are responsible as you have control of the vehicle no one else.

If your argument was correct you would blame the person getting shot for standing in front of the gun....The driver of the vehicle is responsible for all actions associated with his driving, and you are responsible for all acts (what you did) and also all omissions (what you did not do but should have done). People killed or seriously injured can often mean jail time for the driver.

The person in the back has no control over the vehicle the driver does.

Thats why traffic offences are strict liability, meaning police do not have to prove that you meant to do whatever happened they just have to show that it happened...while with most other offences (non traffic) police must show that you had the intend to do the act that you did.

So "I did not realise the speed limit was 60 officer". or "sorry i did not know that U turns at traffic lights were illegal" does not wash, as a holder of a licence and the driver of a motor vehicle it is your responsibility to know the law associated with what you are driving.

Even though in criminal proceedings charges would be laid on the driver.

You will find in a civil case, ie. a claim for compensation for death or injuries received, the bloke in the back of the ute would be deemed partially or fully responsible for his actions. This would be at the discretion of the judge or magistrate.

[FPV GT40]

Read my previous post Police CAN NOT breath test on private property in NSW, not sure about other states, and DUI has NOTHING to do with breath testing it is a completely different charge.

Even if police follow you home, once you are in your driveway they CAN NOT breath test, they can however charge with DUI, which is based on observations only ie the driver was unsteady on his feet smelt of alcohol, had slurred speach etc. police must then tender a statement of there observations to the court and the court will decide if it was good enough for the charges to stick. A lot of paperwork for police for something that will possibly be thrown out of court anyway.

If police pull you over and breath test then it is called PCA (Not DUI), as explained in my earlier post. Police have no power at all to breath test on your private property they can only go on DUI unless you are on public land namely a road or road related area.


When the driver is breath tested a section 33 cerificate is issued (printed out)by the breath Analysis Machine, giving a reading of PCA (prescribed concentration of alcohol) which is your .00 (provisional) .02(truckies) or .05(normal drivers), or .07(for polititions and others in Canberra), this is presented to the court and is all the evidence that is need for the charge to stick. This is in NSW, other state laws may differ.

If anyone wonders why I know all this and how accurat this information is keep in mind that I am sitting in front of my lap top at the moment and am in the process of writing a 2500 uni essay on law as part of my job training and completing a university course on the subject as we speak.

[FPV GT40]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Even though in criminal proceedings charges would be laid on the driver.

You will find in a civil case, ie. a claim for compensation for death or injuries received, the bloke in the back of the ute would be deemed partially or fully responsible for his actions. This would be at the discretion of the judge or magistrate.

That is correct, as the person in the back of the ute could be deemed parially responsible and miss out on all or part of his compensation, but that will not affect the criminal liability and possible jail time for the driver.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by FPV GT40

Read my previous post Police CAN NOT breath test on private property in NSW,........................

If anyone wonders why I know all this and how accurat this information is keep in mind that I am sitting in front of my lap top at the moment and am in the process of writing a 2500 uni essay on law as part of my job training and completing a university course on the subject as we speak.

Well that's probably what the act says, but I bet they could argue around that if they really wanted to and once the precedent was set there wouldn't be any change to close the loophole. It's the vaguaries of the law that keeps lawyers in suits and cops in uniform.

[FPV GT40]

These are acts of parliament, voted on by or on behalf of the people, precedent usually refers to common law, so there is no precedent on breath testing on private property as breath testing is a legislative law based on an act of parliament, not common law based on precedent, police simply do not have to power to do so full stop no arguing the fact.

If they did it will simply be thrown out of court by the magistrate and the cop will get his butt kicked from here to doomsday for wasting court time and he will possibly be personally liable for the court costs incurred, by the way the case would actually never make it to court as the police prosecutor will throw it back into the charging officers face and kick his butt before it gets to court.

Not sure if people actually realise that a breath test means nothing anyway, it only gives the police officer the probable cause required to arrest the person and subject them to a breath analysis back at the police station, the breath analysis will determine if you will be charged with PCA, or simply be taken back to your car to be on your merry way, no matter what the reading of the road side breath test was.

This is starting to get well away from the topic, but if it helps someone out there it will be well worth it I guess.....people get very confused about the law, when in actual fact it is fairly straight forward, not necessarely right all the time but straight forward none the less.

[nat_daly]

nice,

wow its rare a thread with the word "burnout" in the title makes it past 100 posts without being closed

[Wally]

Originally Posted by FPV GT40

These are acts of parliament, voted on by or on behalf of the people, precedent usually refers to common law, so there is no precedent on breath testing on private property as breath testing is a legislative law based on an act of parliament, not common law based on precedent, police simply do not have to power to do so full stop no arguing the fact.

If they did it will simply be thrown out of court by the magistrate and the cop will get his butt kicked from here to doomsday for wasting court time and he will possibly be personally liable for the court costs incurred, by the way the case would actually never make it to court as the police prosecutor will throw it back into the charging officers face and kick his butt before it gets to court.

Not sure if people actually realise that a breath test means nothing anyway, it only gives the police officer the probable cause required to arrest the person and subject them to a breath analysis back at the police station, the breath analysis will determine if you will be charged with PCA, or simply be taken back to your car to be on your merry way, no matter what the reading of the road side breath test was.

This is starting to get well away from the topic, but if it helps someone out there it will be well worth it I guess.....people get very confused about the law, when in actual fact it is fairly straight forward, not necessarely right all the time but straight forward none the less.

Yeah well I did law at Uni too, and I can say with absolute confidence that there is no statute, act, taut, etc that can't be interpretted however the beak wants to interpret it. It's the inbuilt rat cunning that is the legal profession that makes sure there is always an avenue to subvert the intent of any legislation that is invariably framed by the same rat cunning people, just incase Caeser finds himself judging Caeser . :evil3:

[wingTS]

FPV GT40

"If anyone wonders why I know all this and how accurat this information is keep in mind that I am sitting in front of my lap top at the moment and am in the process of writing a 2500 uni essay on law as part of my job training and completing a university course on the subject as we speak."

You are not quite as accurate as you think.

"Police CAN NOT breath test on private property in NSW"

(RTA NSW) Section 17(d) precludes police from demanding a breath test of a driver at their home. This includes the curtilage of the property – ie. any part of the property behind the boundary of such property. It must be YOUR home – not your friend's home. It is where you reside.

"DUI has NOTHING to do with breath testing it is a completely different charge."

There are very few DUI offences as this is the older charge and has been supplanted by PCA offences. Section 17(c) requires that a breath analysis, (ie. the reading taken at the police station) be taken within 2 hours of "the occurrence of the event" that gave police the entitlement to breath test the person.

May I ask what is your job training? and what course are you doing out of interest sake...

[Thomas21]

If it happens behind close doors and the cops don't see you do it, play dumb. You dont know anything? I didn't see who did it. What noise? Never own up to anything especially a burn out if they didn't witness it. Just my 2 cents.

[scoupedy]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

what a stupid post it had already been posted here by a cop (redrum) that there are legal grounds for a DD charge on private property so you are telling members to openly break the law by refusing a breath test. doing so will see you charged with refuse breath test which carries the same penalty as high range DD . there is always a rebelious fool in every thread and you get the award this is dangerous advice someone will end up being prosecuted for refuse breath test and your stupid advice will be responsible. who knows they may have grounds to sue you for this dodgy advice that would be an interesting case and you would deserve it

Ok 2 examples:
1. Had big party some guy in a 350 chev does a 100m burn out down the road diff blows (leaving 100m black line directly to his car) he walks back to the party, police turn up wanting to breath test and arrest driver for burn out. I tell them that as the owner i am not letting them on the property without a warrant they try again tell me i will be done for obstructing the law i tell them to come back with a warrant. (in WA)

2. Driving home late one night in Landau about 200m from home police try to pull me over i keep driving into my driveway and get out, the cops a super off and angry tell me they want to breath test me i agree and am ok. Next day i ask a mate who is a cop why they were so ****ed off and he said because i was on private property i could refuse the breath test if i wanted. (in QLD)

The rules may have changed and may be different in each state
as for people suing me that just goes to show what you know about the law ... as if they could you tool....... "I was reading a forum a scoupdy said i could"