New warrantless search powers in gun war

[MeccaOz]

http://www.ballinaadvocate.com.au/news/premier-proposes-new-warrentless-search-powers-gun/2020856/

NEW South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell has proposed new laws which will give police greater powers to search people for guns without a warrant.

The changes are to be introduced to Parliament this week and mean police would not need a warrant to search people who have been banned from owning weapons.

Their cars, homes and outlaw motorcycle gang club houses will also be able to be searched without a warrant.

Mr O'Farrell also plans to increase the prison term for anyone convicted of possessing or supplying guns to try to crack down on crime in Sydney.

The jail term will increase from 10 to 14 years.

[Shotfox]

havent got a problem with that.Although i wonder about the "where there is smoke there is fire" policy.?

[MeccaOz]

I do, I mean warrentless search in it's own right, is completely wrong !

[Shotfox]

Thats what I mean about where there is smoke there is fire policy. I do not mind cops hitting the bad guys but does this policy extend to law abiding shooters as well ? What is the range of this policy? Can we expect to be raided because we havent paid a parking fine? . I feel there needs to be a more complete explination of their intentions

[WesleySnipes]

I do, I mean warrentless search in it's own right, is completely wrong !

I agree with both sides of this, while I agree they're going after the bad guys for a change I can't help but notice how loose the term is for people who classify as being able to be searched without a warrant. Banned from owning guns? Does that mean Joe Blow who has a firearms licence and his disgruntled ex wife rings up the Police and say he threatened to kill her, so now they can storm the bloke's house for no good reason other than he said or she said?

And it's pretty obvious that if there is no evidence of what she said then there is no reasonable grounds to give the bloke a hard time. That's just a hypothetical I plucked out of thin air mind you.

And once it's done you have to wonder what next? Give them an inch and they'll take a mile, once they get the idea it's okay to search people's homes without a warrant what's to stop them from broadening the criteria for any other offence, or perhaps no offence at all. They might get to this stage where they make 'suspected' criminals register themselves and wear arm bands all Nazi Germany like. Might sound paranoid, but it's a very slippery slope and throughout history governments have only really sought more power to control the populace, not less.

"Their cars, homes and outlaw motorcycle gang club houses will also be able to be searched without a warrant." This makes me wonder, if they really are "outlaw" motorcycle gang members how hard would it be to get a warrant in the first place? All you'd need is a bit of cold hard evidence, which shouldn't be too hard if they're breaking the law.

[WesleySnipes]

Thats what I mean about where there is smoke there is fire policy. I do not mind cops hitting the bad guys but does this policy extend to law abiding shooters as well ? What is the range of this policy? Can we expect to be raided because we havent paid a parking fine? . I feel there needs to be a more complete explination of their intentions

This is exactly what I'm getting at, the road to Hell was paved with good intentions is a pretty good saying here. It might seem they're only hitting the bad guys now, but at any point they will most likely try to broaden this unwarranted search business to anything they please. Once things like this start, they will never stop, which is why I don't agree with the unwarranted searches at all. If there is no hard evidence then no search. I do agree that it is good they are shifting towards the demographics that usually cause more trouble but at the cost of the beginning of a hardcore police state? I don't think anyone other than the government wants that.

[Shotfox]

Agree Wes. I lost my firarms licence 14years ago because a disgruntled girlfriend thought it would be funny to go to a police station a year after we broke up and apply for an AVO over the counter. My house was raided at 5 in the morning, would'nt tell me what the hell for. They took all my guns, I had to go to court and was banned for 10years. Subsequently i fought it and won but at much cost and anguish with the firearms registry. The court agreed the AVO should not have been allowed in the first place. This went on for 7 years but I never gave up to clear my name and get my licence back. This is an example of buracratic policy on the run.

[MeccaOz]

Agree Wes. I lost my firarms licence 14years ago because a disgruntled girlfriend thought it would be funny to go to a police station a year after we broke up and apply for an AVO over the counter. My house was raided at 5 in the morning, would'nt tell me what the hell for. They took all my guns, I had to go to court and was banned for 10years. Subsequently i fought it and won but at much cost and anguish with the firearms registry. The court agreed the AVO should not have been allowed in the first place. This went on for 7 years but I never gave up to clear my name and get my licence back. This is an example of buracratic policy on the run.

Man that sucks soooo hard ! Unfortunatley it happens quite often, and to lodge an AVO in WA at least, there doesnt have to be any proof of anything, just a "feeling" that feeling could be legit or it could simply be spiteful ....

[1290]

the domestic violence angle was always available, threat of violence reported, truth or fantasy would result in a quick smart knock at the door and I dont think a warrant would be required to make their way in to confiscate the legal arms....

This new proposal seems to allow warrantless entry on suspicion only, this is not good for the community commie contributor^, it is a power that can be abused, is available to any 'situation' not necessarily limited to bikies and associates...

Harsher penalties WILL be applied to crims, bu will ALSO be applied to those members of the community, who are respectable, responsible but find that they have infracted.....

There are many unregistered firearms about, many, and theyre not all with the bikies or the 'crims'.
There is the Australian underground army, AKs,SKS,AR15 and of course the SLR aplenty.... of course the concept of non-crims possessing these arms is in direct opposition of the police state that is descending upon us, I dont know about you, but I see police patrolling 40km/h zones, pulling up peds for j-walking. These laws are aimed at 'us' (not me personally, I unfortunately dont have an SLR in a PVC pipe) but us generally....

Remember the old "a mans home is his castle"?? It might surprise some to know that represented the antiquated concept of even the King not having the right to enter a mans home..... yup, we've come a long way, nowadays even the faux government, AKA the local council have local laws that allow their employees to enter you land for many reasons, from suspicion that you've cut a tree branch, built a shed thats 11m2 instead of 10m2, done anything without a permit, an endless list....

[Shotfox]

Agree Wes. I lost my firarms licence 14years ago because a disgruntled girlfriend thought it would be funny to go to a police station a year after we broke up and apply for an AVO over the counter. My house was raided at 5 in the morning, would'nt tell me what the hell for. They took all my guns, I had to go to court and was banned for 10years. Subsequently i fought it and won but at much cost and anguish with the firearms registry. The court agreed the AVO should not have been allowed in the first place. This went on for 7 years but I never gave up to clear my name and get my licence back. This is an example of buracratic policy on the run.

Man that sucks soooo hard ! Unfortunatley it happens quite often, and to lodge an AVO in WA at least, there doesnt have to be any proof of anything, just a "feeling" that feeling could be legit or it could simply be spiteful ....

YYYup. This is where this type of policy needs clarification and total transparency. The same day I was in court fighting it there was another guy with the same drama. Now i have my licence back I apply for everything going including prohibited weapons permits and will jump through the hoops, pay the fees, put up with the waiting times until the registry paint themsleves into a corner.

[Chronos]

I'm a strong believer in nothing to hide, nothing to fear but some of these laws are nothing but clutching at straws trying to create additional backup for prosecutors struggling to keep crims in gaol

An example is about 10 years ago nsw police had issues with the amount of motorcyclists riding certain roads. In particular the old road (old pacific hwy) north of Sydney. Any given sat or Sunday hundreds of bikes would use the road, grab a coffee and come home. Some would speed, occasionally there was a crash.

So the speed limit was dropped. Then someone introduced a law saying raft any motor vehicle fitted with an after marked exhaust was in breach of EPA noise laws unless it had been approved by an engineer. Soon both police and RTA inspectors were stopping bikes, hundreds of fines issued regardless of whether or not the bike produced excessive noise under the law. No sticker, expect a fine. Lots of bikes stayed away because like me their exhaust while within the EPA noise limits were not standard land therefor "illegal" without a sticker.

Eventually the law was overturned but it was Ill-conceived in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned if you are breaking the law it's pretty black and white. Doesn't matter to me if you're a career crim or a licensed shooter, if you're in possession ad an illegal firearm the same penalty should occur, in fact if you're licensed you should know better than to bring other licensed shooters down with your stupidity.

As for warrantless searches it surprises me this is new. As far as I was aware police could already execute a search if they suspected you of being in possession of stolen goods, drugs or weapons

The systematic harassment of members of a particular demographic is another thing all together and I hate to think of the kind of stuff that would (and probably already does) go on if police were excused from obtaining warrants to conduct raids on residences and club houses etc.

Chronos.

[MeccaOz]

I'm a strong believer in nothing to hide, nothing to fear but some of these laws are nothing but clutching at straws trying to create additional backup for prosecutors struggling to keep crims in gaol

An example is about 10 years ago nsw police had issues with the amount of motorcyclists riding certain roads. In particular the old road (old pacific hwy) north of Sydney. Any given sat or Sunday hundreds of bikes would use the road, grab a coffee and come home. Some would speed, occasionally there was a crash.

So the speed limit was dropped. Then someone introduced a law saying raft any motor vehicle fitted with an after marked exhaust was in breach of EPA noise laws unless it had been approved by an engineer. Soon both police and RTA inspectors were stopping bikes, hundreds of fines issued regardless of whether or not the bike produced excessive noise under the law. No sticker, expect a fine. Lots of bikes stayed away because like me their exhaust while within the EPA noise limits were not standard land therefor "illegal" without a sticker.

Eventually the law was overturned but it was Ill-conceived in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned if you are breaking the law it's pretty black and white. Doesn't matter to me if you're a career crim or a licensed shooter, if you're in possession ad an illegal firearm the same penalty should occur, in fact if you're licensed you should know better than to bring other licensed shooters down with your stupidity.

As for warrantless searches it surprises me this is new. As far as I was aware police could already execute a search if they suspected you of being in possession of stolen goods, drugs or weapons

The systematic harassment of members of a particular demographic is another thing all together and I hate to think of the kind of stuff that would (and probably already does) go on if police were excused from obtaining warrants to conduct raids on residences and club houses etc.

Chronos.

They dont like to have "reasonable suspicion" having over their heads mate, in fact in WA they removed that bit in the right to search a vehicle. They can now search your car for any reason, pull everything out of it and leave it on the side of the road. Ive actually seen this done because a certain local cop didnt like a certain local bloke. It was a few years ago and I wont mention names.

[Shotfox]

Agree Chronos. In my case I never even had a parking ticket. and it was even funnier when I went to court to fight it ( as I have never appeared on any police radar for anything at all). The judges gave it to the cops attending the case and threw the paperwork over his shoulder, So it higlights the problem with this type of policy of the potential time wasting process and ties up our legal system with potentially irrational cases based on a hunch . A hell of a lot more thought needs to go into this by our law makers I feel.before they start to paint us all the same colour with the same brush.

[WesleySnipes]

I'm a strong believer in nothing to hide, nothing to fear but some of these laws are nothing but clutching at straws trying to create additional backup for prosecutors struggling to keep crims in gaol

An example is about 10 years ago nsw police had issues with the amount of motorcyclists riding certain roads. In particular the old road (old pacific hwy) north of Sydney. Any given sat or Sunday hundreds of bikes would use the road, grab a coffee and come home. Some would speed, occasionally there was a crash.

So the speed limit was dropped. Then someone introduced a law saying raft any motor vehicle fitted with an after marked exhaust was in breach of EPA noise laws unless it had been approved by an engineer. Soon both police and RTA inspectors were stopping bikes, hundreds of fines issued regardless of whether or not the bike produced excessive noise under the law. No sticker, expect a fine. Lots of bikes stayed away because like me their exhaust while within the EPA noise limits were not standard land therefor "illegal" without a sticker.

Eventually the law was overturned but it was Ill-conceived in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned if you are breaking the law it's pretty black and white. Doesn't matter to me if you're a career crim or a licensed shooter, if you're in possession ad an illegal firearm the same penalty should occur, in fact if you're licensed you should know better than to bring other licensed shooters down with your stupidity.

As for warrantless searches it surprises me this is new. As far as I was aware police could already execute a search if they suspected you of being in possession of stolen goods, drugs or weapons

The systematic harassment of members of a particular demographic is another thing all together and I hate to think of the kind of stuff that would (and probably already does) go on if police were excused from obtaining warrants to conduct raids on residences and club houses etc.

Chronos.

While I agree with most things you have said, the whole ideology of "nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" is ridiculous and should never be implemented. Joseph Goebbels was famous for saying that with good reason, and look how that turned out. We should be learning from history not repeating it.

The people should not fear the government, It should be the other way around. No person, government or not should have authority to search you or your property unless there is a damn good reason or hard evidence. Just like Shotfox's incident, he was penalised for nearly a decade over something that ended up being a complete waste of time, he had nothing to hide but quite a lot to fear. Privacy should remain that, private. If there is no evidence or solid grounds to do a search then it should not be allowed, as I said before, if the authorities are certain enough to raid a house without a warrant, how hard would it be to get one in the first place?

[WesleySnipes]

I'm a strong believer in nothing to hide, nothing to fear but some of these laws are nothing but clutching at straws trying to create additional backup for prosecutors struggling to keep crims in gaol

An example is about 10 years ago nsw police had issues with the amount of motorcyclists riding certain roads. In particular the old road (old pacific hwy) north of Sydney. Any given sat or Sunday hundreds of bikes would use the road, grab a coffee and come home. Some would speed, occasionally there was a crash.

So the speed limit was dropped. Then someone introduced a law saying raft any motor vehicle fitted with an after marked exhaust was in breach of EPA noise laws unless it had been approved by an engineer. Soon both police and RTA inspectors were stopping bikes, hundreds of fines issued regardless of whether or not the bike produced excessive noise under the law. No sticker, expect a fine. Lots of bikes stayed away because like me their exhaust while within the EPA noise limits were not standard land therefor "illegal" without a sticker.

Eventually the law was overturned but it was Ill-conceived in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned if you are breaking the law it's pretty black and white. Doesn't matter to me if you're a career crim or a licensed shooter, if you're in possession ad an illegal firearm the same penalty should occur, in fact if you're licensed you should know better than to bring other licensed shooters down with your stupidity.

As for warrantless searches it surprises me this is new. As far as I was aware police could already execute a search if they suspected you of being in possession of stolen goods, drugs or weapons

The systematic harassment of members of a particular demographic is another thing all together and I hate to think of the kind of stuff that would (and probably already does) go on if police were excused from obtaining warrants to conduct raids on residences and club houses etc.

Chronos.

They dont like to have "reasonable suspicion" having over their heads mate, in fact in WA they removed that bit in the right to search a vehicle. They can now search your car for any reason, pull everything out of it and leave it on the side of the road. Ive actually seen this done because a certain local cop didnt like a certain local bloke. It was a few years ago and I wont mention names.

Speak of the devil too, I've had this exact thing happen to my mate who I was in the car with at the time. Pulled all his seats and boot lining out under NO grounds whatsoever, concluded everything was in order, and then left us high and dry to put it all back together with no tools. And that is what I absolutely hate about our government, ordinary everyday citizens are assumed criminals until otherwise, completely backwards to what it should be, innocent until proven guilty. That is why no authority should have the power to do such things, it can be influenced by hatred or dislike for members of the public.

If you've ever experienced something like that, you will understand how fundamentally wrong the whole notion of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" really is.

[MeccaOz]

I'm with you Mr Snipes. I believe for anyone to enter your car or house, they really should have a great reason ! ITS YOUR PLACE, CAR, and NAME !... Not theirs to cruise around in at their own convenience , which i way Im also against gun safe checks. I was wondering how long it would take from "Only to check gun safes" to OK we already have that power now lets stretch it a little more and a little more..

[Chronos]

While I agree with most things you have said, the whole ideology of "nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" is ridiculous and should never be implemented. Joseph Goebbels was famous for saying that with good reason, and look how that turned out. We should be learning from history not repeating it.

The people should not fear the government, It should be the other way around. No person, government or not should have authority to search you or your property unless there is a damn good reason or hard evidence. Just like Shotfox's incident, he was penalised for nearly a decade over something that ended up being a complete waste of time, he had nothing to hide but quite a lot to fear. Privacy should remain that, private. If there is no evidence or solid grounds to do a search then it should not be allowed, as I said before, if the authorities are certain enough to raid a house without a warrant, how hard would it be to get one in the first place?

Let me clarify my statement "nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide"

Like anything else in an ideal world it would work fine, it's the minority who would abuse any system that make it unworkable. Corrupt police, racial profiling and other factors mean somewhere some time someone in power would abuse it and an innocent party would be affected.

AVO's have probably helped some people, mostly women. But it's a flawed system open to abuse from vindictive "victims" and useless in stoping the person it's taken out against from actually harming the person who took it out. I too have a mate who's ex partner falsely took out an AVO against him, he gad his guns taken, went to court, the AVO was thrown out and he had to go through the process of getting all his stuff back.

Like microchipping suspects discussed in another thread, all well and good until some over zealous government department or individual mis uses the technology or the data comes into the hands of the wrong people.

Firearms registry info is another example, Introduced for the greater good and probably harmless if 100% secure but who can be trusted to do that?

The other option is the whole "bill of rights" anti police, anti government attitude. The problem I see with that is that school yard rules tend to take over and the strong stand over the weak. Society should be better than that and that's why our democratic system gives an equal say to all (the vote)

These topics can tend to degrade into a slanging match about ideologies but it should be a discussion.

I'm sure my opinions will be very different to some others. Someone who grew up in the bush will have very different ideas to someone who grew up in the inner city but as long as everyone can discuss their thoughts free of abuse it's fine.

Chronos

[chilliman]

http://www.ballinaadvocate.com.au/news/premier-proposes-new-warrentless-search-powers-gun/2020856/

NEW South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell has proposed new laws which will give police greater powers to search people for guns without a warrant.

The changes are to be introduced to Parliament this week and mean police would not need a warrant to search people who have been banned from owning weapons.

Their cars, homes and outlaw motorcycle gang club houses will also be able to be searched without a warrant.

Mr O'Farrell also plans to increase the prison term for anyone convicted of possessing or supplying guns to try to crack down on crime in Sydney.

The jail term will increase from 10 to 14 years.

can't see much of a problem with this. btw, this seems to be an old article as Barry hasn't been state premier since April - has this been passed through parliament yet or is it more bluff/bluster/hysteria over nothing? I mean, that article is dated September 2013.

think this may have gone through to the 'keeper.

[WesleySnipes]

While I agree with most things you have said, the whole ideology of "nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" is ridiculous and should never be implemented. Joseph Goebbels was famous for saying that with good reason, and look how that turned out. We should be learning from history not repeating it.

The people should not fear the government, It should be the other way around. No person, government or not should have authority to search you or your property unless there is a damn good reason or hard evidence. Just like Shotfox's incident, he was penalised for nearly a decade over something that ended up being a complete waste of time, he had nothing to hide but quite a lot to fear. Privacy should remain that, private. If there is no evidence or solid grounds to do a search then it should not be allowed, as I said before, if the authorities are certain enough to raid a house without a warrant, how hard would it be to get one in the first place?

Let me clarify my statement "nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide"

Like anything else in an ideal world it would work fine, it's the minority who would abuse any system that make it unworkable. Corrupt police, racial profiling and other factors mean somewhere some time someone in power would abuse it and an innocent party would be affected.

AVO's have probably helped some people, mostly women. But it's a flawed system open to abuse from vindictive "victims" and useless in stoping the person it's taken out against from actually harming the person who took it out. I too have a mate who's ex partner falsely took out an AVO against him, he gad his guns taken, went to court, the AVO was thrown out and he had to go through the process of getting all his stuff back.

Like microchipping suspects discussed in another thread, all well and good until some over zealous government department or individual mis uses the technology or the data comes into the hands of the wrong people.

Firearms registry info is another example, Introduced for the greater good and probably harmless if 100% secure but who can be trusted to do that?

The other option is the whole "bill of rights" anti police, anti government attitude. The problem I see with that is that school yard rules tend to take over and the strong stand over the weak. Society should be better than that and that's why our democratic system gives an equal say to all (the vote)

These topics can tend to degrade into a slanging match about ideologies but it should be a discussion.

I'm sure my opinions will be very different to some others. Someone who grew up in the bush will have very different ideas to someone who grew up in the inner city but as long as everyone can discuss their thoughts free of abuse it's fine.

Chronos

It is a discussion, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. And while it's not an anti government or anti police ideology as such, more of a fact that human nature never changes, and the people in power usually only seek more. And this unfortunately isn't an ideal world, so things like unwarranted searches will never effect just the criminals, and the government will almost definitely try to expand it to all other criteria if allowed to get away with it.

I personally identify with politicians as everyday people, mind you with a bit more power. There are assholes and there are good human beings, they aren't incorruptible beings which is why I naturally don't trust them to act in our best interests when they could (and usually do) rather line their own pockets.

[Chronos]

It is a discussion, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. And while it's not an anti government or anti police ideology as such, more of a fact that human nature never changes, and the people in power usually only seek more. And this unfortunately isn't an ideal world, so things like unwarranted searches will never effect just the criminals, and the government will almost definitely try to expand it to all other criteria if allowed to get away with it.

I personally identify with politicians as everyday people, mind you with a bit more power. There are assholes and there are good human beings, they aren't incorruptible beings which is why I naturally don't trust them to act in our best interests when they could (and usually do) rather line their own pockets.

I agree, in fact I feel our views are quite close with the difference being I tend to hope for them to do their best and am sometimes disappointed when people don't act in the interest of those they represent.

[bigfellascott]

Even more old news - this ones dated 15th Sep 2013 10:30 AM

[handofcod]

Police are not employed to work only to a specific politcal intention. They are emplyed to apply the law as it stands and that means using every tool within their power right up to the boundary of legislation. Even though I'm sure a great many police officers are not automatons that blindly follow the letter of the law, Police discretion should be assumed to be an oxymoron when creating legislation.

If it can be applied to bikies, it can and will be applied to other groups as well despite being outside of the original intention of politicians.

[1290]

Factoid;

Police are employed to protect the Queens interests....

From time to time those interests actually align with those of the 'people'.

[Lorgar]

Banned from owning guns? Does that mean Joe Blow who has a firearms licence and his disgruntled ex wife rings up the Police and say he threatened to kill her, so now they can storm the bloke's house for no good reason other than he said or she said?

And it's pretty obvious that if there is no evidence of what she said then there is no reasonable grounds to give the bloke a hard time. That's just a hypothetical I plucked out of thin air mind you.

It's not a hypothetical, that's already the way it is based on an instance I'm aware of.

A colleague of mine had this happen - an unpleasant breakup with a vindictive women - and she called the police and claimed he was threatening violence.

Cops called him (politely, didn't 'storm the house') and said we need your license and firearms to be handed in blah blah blah while we sort this out. So he did all that.

Eventually the ex-wife calmed down and admitted to the police he hadn't made the threats and in time everything was returned to him. (That's the course of events as I've been told them, he got his stuff back in the end obviously without being charged etc. so I have no reason to doubt them).

It's a tough spot, obviously they can't take these kinds of things lightly (as they shouldn't) but it sucks if you're the poor SOB on the receiving end of some unjust complaints.

P.S. This was in Victoria, couldn't say for the process of other states.

[RoginaJack]

What a Joke! if it wasn't so serious, this would be laughable.

So it's NSW's turn for a pollie to huff n puff and rattle the Sabre while kicking the "get tough on crime" bucket.

When all that's required is for the courts to enforce the existing legislation and the A.G. and DPP to appeal the lenient sentences handed out. Remember the "Bum Crack Bandit" up in Qld?

This will be a field day for the legal profession, arguing over the legality of the search and when that charge is dismissed, all other charges go out the door as well.

A complete waste of police time.

[Norton]

Remember the "Bum Crack Bandit" up in Qld?

She robbed a pub with her bum half out didn't she?

[Bourt]

Yeah, her and a bloke I think.

She was wearing tight jeans with an inch of bum sticking out for the camera.

[RoginaJack]

Yep, and she was ID by a Tat on her bum. She and a couple of sidekicks went to a park, did a drug deal with the proceeds of the ARMED robbery, got high and leaned out of the back of the car and fired several shots, hitting the drug dealer and will be eligible for parole from December.

The Justice went on to say that to fire a loaded weapon at someone on a motorcycle was highly dangerous. To fire a loaded weapon at ANYONE is highly dangerous, whether they are on a motorbike or not!

The Justice also took into account her youth (21) and limited history. What has age etc got to do with it?

So, what's the point in increasing the length of jail time.

[headspace]

Factoid;

Police are employed to protect the Queens interests....

From time to time those interests actually align with those of the 'people'.

Sorry mate, they are not employed to enforce the Queens, or more accurately the States legislation, they are employed to protect the innocent, and to that I guess they have to enforce the law. There are never going to be any guarantees in any legislation that the occasional "collateral damage" may occur. However I'd be a lot happier to see people like bikies and potential jihadists woken up in the wee hours and be deprived of things no law abiding citizens should have. Considering the number of drive by shooting these days, the cops need to be less shackled in my opinion.
JD

[Bourt]

Yep, and she was ID by a Tat on her bum.

Didn't realise they actually caught her by ID'ing her bum