Lonan3 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Thanks for that, Hornetman. I wonder what 'reasonable' grounds are for suspecting drugs Reading some of your posts? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Thanks for that, Hornetman. I wonder what 'reasonable' grounds are for suspecting drugs or stolen goods. That would be glassy, red eyes and a bag with 'swag' emblazoned upon it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 17, 2013 Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) Reading some of your posts? Oh no. Those things that I do like aren't things worth doing on the Island. I am not asking about anything to do with drugs, but rather about when the Manx police, as they seem accusomted to doing, conduct searches when I I believe they have very poor grounds for doing so. I am talking about my experiences and others. Knowing more about the law I would have been less compliant as it was evident that they were abusing their abusing their position and my ignorance of the law. Not that I am surprised for they are police and work on the Isle of Man. In one case they never told they who they were (i.e. name of officer or number) which I believe they should do and didn't give the reason for the search until asked. Edited April 17, 2013 by La_Dolce_Vita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 17, 2013 Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 Thanks for that, Hornetman. I wonder what 'reasonable' grounds are for suspecting drugs or stolen goods. That would be glassy, red eyes and a bag with 'swag' emblazoned upon it... Haha. And I'd agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Well if you believe the grounds were not there make a complaint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Well if you believe the grounds were not there make a complaint. Its easy enough to say but, from personal experience, I'd say its much wiser to stay beneath the radar of the local police as far as possible. A few years ago, after being involved in a dispute that ended up making some officers look a bit foolish, my vehicle was followed much too frequently to be mere coincidence - both by visible and 'unmarked' police cars (we all know them!) - just waiting to pounce if I did anything wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) ATTORNEY GENERAL v. COWLEY and KINRADE 1522 - 1920 MLR 107 (PC) Decided in the mid 1860's. This was a case where two men were prosecuted for trespassing onto the queens land, the forest, ie the moorland, (now public land held on trust for the crown for the public service of the Isle of Man) makes it quite clear in Manx terms that land owned by the state is private. The two men being prosecuted believed the land was "common" and they could go where they wanted Mr Wright, Who exactly is "the state" defined as? Who gets to proclaim "L'etat C'est Moi" in the Isle of Man? The Queen? Tynwald? I was under the impression there was some sort of ambiguity about the Isle of Man Government's legal existence, and that each department was a stand-alone legal entity -- can you confirm whether that is the case? Personally, I think in a modern classical liberal nation, it is the electorate who ought to be regarded as the state, and the ultimate arbiter of sovereignty, but I appreciate that we still live in the 1500s. Good question T.J. who exactly is to be classed as 'the state'. I agree with your suggestion that the Electorate should be regarded as 'the state'. Be really interested to hear John Wright's view on this. Edited April 17, 2013 by Lisenchuk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 The state in the IOM is the Crown as emodied in the governmnmet of the IOM. BS and TJ are partly correct that CoMin and the executive as such have no legal personality, and there are potentially difficulties in suing them as I read the case law. Governmnet Departments are however sueable as are individual ministers. Where IOMG has to be sued then you sue the correct or relevant department. If it is CoMin the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary maybe. There is case law but I cannot find it without spneding time. Our constitution is more written down than UK and we have the Human Rights Act which is in effect a Bill of Rights and with which any Bill of Rights would have to be compliant I'm not sure why anyone would think the electorate is the state. Which electorate, those registered, those who could be registered, those who vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 17, 2013 Author Share Posted April 17, 2013 Well if you believe the grounds were not there make a complaint. Do you know that the police investigate and decide upon their own complaints? I did complain. Though when it came to the second time, where there really had no reasonable grounds at all for being suspicious of drugs or stolen goods (as they actually searched us on information on 'supposedly' being suspicious another time - which was already recognised after my first complaint not to be the case), I had already come to the realisation that you don't really know what the outcome will definitely be. You might get told that the investigating officer will discipline their staff, but what does it matter? There just isn't that good a reason for them to discipline their own officers when the complainant and the officer concerned are fighting their corner. They naturally err on their own side. And when you don't have legal knowledge on your side it makes it more difficult. So...what I am interested in is knowing where I stand legally were it to happy again, in which case the text of the law mentioned above and comment that it follows English law is very helpful. Interested though, if they consider they have reasonable grounds to search and you disagree and refuse a search then they would arrest. But still...what if there aren't sufficient grounds? What recourse does the person have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 So...what I am interested in is knowing where I stand legally were it to happy again... Freudian slip? ...I bet you like being patted down by a hunky cop or two really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Would it be wrong to suggest: allow the search and, assuming they find nothing, file a civil suit for damages for harassment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 unlawful detention, trespass to the person and assault would be more appropriate 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevster Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I wonder how many of the people who moan about being stopped immediately get gobby and abusive with the police instead of remaining calm and asking politely why they've been stopped? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyst Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Cops aren't going to just stop search you for no reason. Stop being dodgy is the simple answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 I'm aware of a few recent cases of damages payouts for wrongful searches in the IOM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.