Gupta: Cops axed

[LazyLion]

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/gupta-cops-axed-1.1250211

Two policemen who stopped and tried to search newspaper publisher Atul Gupta's vehicle in 2010 have been discharged for breaching police discipline rules, a spokeswoman confirmed on Tuesday.
“They have been discharged and they have got 10 days to lodge an appeal,” said Sandton police spokeswoman Captain Kym Cloete, confirming a report in Beeld.
The two stopped Gupta's BMW X5 outside Joburg in September 2010 and searched Gupta's bodyguard and driver. Gupta refused to let them search his car and he was arrested.
Authorities decided not to prosecute Gupta.
Cloete did not know the finer details of the police internal investigation, and a provincial police spokesman was not immediately available to comment.
However, she said the public was always entitled to lodge a complaint against the police if they were not satisfied with their conduct so that a disciplinary investigation could take place.
The two, named in Beeld as Constable Aubrey Mlotshwa and a colleague, identified only as Constable Mangema, were not on active duty currently, Cloete said.
Gupta, a publisher of The New Age newspaper, was on his way home to Saxonwold when the incident occurred.
Comment from Gupta was not immediately available. – Sapa

So what do you guys think?

Should the police have the right to search any vehicle without any reasonable suspicion? (No warrant needed)
Should they only have the right to search your vehicle only with reasonable suspicion? (Warrant needed, but can be obtained after the fact)
Was their political interference in this case? The fact that they were dismissed rather than the Minister of Police standing behind his men and having to apologise/pay damages for a false arrest?

 

[LazyLion]

Personally, I feel that the police should only have the right to search your vehicle if they have a reasonable suspicion that you are guilty of a crime (and then a warrant should be issued before or after the fact). But it's kinda weird that these guys were just dismissed outright instead of there being any court case for wrongful arrest?

 

[Hemi300c]

In SA with the crime as it is (on the decrease yeah right) I think if the have reasonable cause then they should have the right to search. If he had nothing to hide then why did he refuse?

The good cops trying to do their duty have no teeth in this country and that is part of the problem.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Agreed they need to have reasonable suspicion. It seems like the authority that has been entrusted to some police is being abused, and they think that they can do as they please because normal people won't fight back. Despite what the law says, if you try to argue with some of them that what they are doing is against the law, they'll arrest you just because they can. I'm not a big fan of this guy and his ANC buddies, but I can't see that he did anything wrong here.

 

[OMB]

Was their political interference in this case?

of course there was political interference, who do you think are paying Zuma's bills these days?

some old news here but in these circumstances reflects the power of the Gupta's

 

[R13...]

Was their political interference in this case?

Of course there was, you as Joe Ordinary Guy can't even get the cops to discipline their members when the police beat you to a pulp or plain kill you illegally unless the media gets involved.
Connections. Connections. Connections. Of the political sort.

 

[zululami]

this is not about whether or not these cops acted in the interest of the fight against crime. this is about guptas being filthy rich and politically wired! which is quite unfortunate...

 

[intel8080]

Of course police should NOT be allowed to do random searches of vehicles. We live in a country with almost ZERO crime. No need for such drastic, crime combating measures. Geee . . . I mean, we don't have crime like Colombia or Somalia or South Africa . . . <Oops> And I am sure the cops acted racist. It must be, otherwise why did they stop the poor Indian chap driving a common vehicle like that. FFS, the cops should keep themselves busy with paper work or more meaningfull jobs and not bother the citizens of such a law abiding and peacefull nation

 

[daveza]

Should the police have the right to search any vehicle without any reasonable suspicion?

What if we change this to

Should the police have the right to search any residence without any reasonable suspicion?

Any different ?

My answer is no, get a warrant - for my car or my house.

 

[Inertia]

After being pulled over countless times by cops simply looking for a bribe, the idea of a 'reasonable cause' before stopping sounds good. But as far as I'm aware this has always been the case for the SAPS to pull over a car, but I've yet to hear a reasonable cause for pulling me over, apart from driving a BMW which could probably be forced to pay a bribe (I have been threatened many times with the old trick that the cop doesn't have any breathalysers on them so I have to be taken to either Alex or Hillbrow station and may have to spend the night - I was completely sober I might add)

 

[marine1]

What I do not understand is the SAPS have every right to search your car on suspicion of something.
Gupta did something wrong and they searched him no? Such as erratic driving for example.
This is just a big F you to the SAPS that they must not screw with the powers that be.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Should the police have the right to search any vehicle without any reasonable suspicion? (No warrant needed)

No. Rights are universal. Unless I have the same rights as policeman (What makes them good and holy? Magic?) and I don't see why I don't have the right to search other people's property, and policemen do.

Should they only have the right to search your vehicle only with reasonable suspicion? (Warrant needed, but can be obtained after the fact)

No. Same as above, there is no magical difference between a policemen and a person. If you suspect someone of foul behaviour why should a law prevent you from bringing someone to justice (Assuming your suspicion was right) but not a person with a "badge" given to them by some bureuocrat which I didn't give any permission or power to do anything?

Was their political interference in this case? The fact that they were dismissed rather than the Minister of Police standing behind his men and having to apologise/pay damages for a false arrest?

Possibly, whilst I personally dislike the Gupta's, think they are crooks and ANC cronies and heavily politically connected, I have to assess the case on the merits.

I do not feel policemen have any right to search a vehicle. I don't have a right to search their vehicle and rights are universal, otherwise they are purely arbitrary and meaningless distinctions between people. Clothing and gold badges do not determine a persons rights.

Thus the policemen violated Gupta's rights to privacy.

 

[4cer]

If police wheren't as corrupt as they are i would say it is fine.

But on two occassions i have also been told that they don't have breathalysers, and i have to go with them to Diepsloot/hillbrow in the back of the Van... or pay them :/

Gotta love SA

 

[Grant]

We have a situation where the constitution (right to privacy etc) is at odds with the criminal procedures act (right to search without warrant). The constitution remains supreme but is usually ignored. When gupta resisted (maybe just asserting his constitutional rights) he was possibly arrested for "obstructing the course of justice". The fact that he was released without charge & the cops fired, reeks of political interference. I personally hope the cops take action & those responsible for their dismissal are revealed.

 

[Albereth]

So two plods that were not on active duty decided to hold an imprompyu roadblock actually picked on the wrong person and got fired. Oh my gosh! And we don't have corrupt cops trying a little moonlighting?

 

[Freshy-ZN]

So two plods that were not on active duty decided to hold an imprompyu roadblock actually picked on the wrong person and got fired. Oh my gosh! And we don't have corrupt cops trying a little moonlighting?

They are not currently on active duty, they were when the incident happened as far as I can see.

 

[Albereth]

They are not currently on active duty, they were when the incident happened as far as I can see.

This is really looks like one of those stories that has two sides.

1. Cops really were doing their jobs (afaik cops are never 'off' duty) and had genuine cause to search the car.
2. Cops were looking to shake down rich looking dude.

I guess that there are even variants on the above.

Sorry, but I've become a bit too jaded to give any benefit of the doubt to the plods. The many bad apples have given the few the same bad name.

 

[R/SGT]

The two, named in Beeld as Constable Aubrey Mlotshwa and a colleague, identified only as Constable Mangema, were not on active duty currently, Cloete said

This is strange, do they mean that they were not on active duty at the time of the incident or are they currently not on active duty

Permanent force member’s are always on duty, where they in a marked police vehicle?

Inertia that isn’t a trick, If they suspect you of been under the influence and cant get a breathalyzer they will arrest you on suspicion of drunken driving, take you to the station get a blood sample kit and take you to the local government hospital where your blood will be taken. After that they will return to the station where you will be held until you are sober or someone can fetch you. You will only be formally charged once the blood sample comes back


Wild_cat you do not have the same rights as the police
This page will explain it tou you

Many routine police activities, such as questioning people, interviewing them at the police station and making searches are conducted with the consent and help of the people concerned. Generally, however, the police have wide powers under the law that are independent of the citizen's goodwill or sense of duty.

The police right to search
The police have no general right to search people or their houses without a search warrant issued by a magistrate. Warrants are normally issued only if the police can supply information - under oath - that what they are seeking is essential evidence in a possible criminal case and that it is on the premises they wish to search.
Search and seizure can, however, be made without a warrant if a person consents, or if the investigating officer believes that a warrant will be issued but that the delay will defeat the object of the investigation, or where the suspect has been arrested.
A warrant can also be issued by a magistrate if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed or is being planned in or upon the premises.
A police officer who reasonably suspects that a person who can assist in an investigation is on any premises, may enter those premises without a warrant. (This does not extend to entering a private home without the consent of the occupier.)
A police officer lawfully conducting a search may use reasonable force to overcome resistance, including breaking down doors and windows. However, the search must be conducted in a decent and orderly manner, and a woman must always be searched by a female police officer.
A police officer who exceeds his or her statutory functions will be guilty of a criminal offence. Anyone who suffers damage from unlawful entry, search or seizure can bring a civil action for damageshttp://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=rights.article&Sort=P&ArticleID=2972680

Obstructing The Police
Preventing the police from performing their duties
It is a criminal offence to impede or obstruct the police in the execution of their lawful duties.
An obvious example is assaulting a police officer who is trying to arrest a suspect. Even switching off a light in a room in which the police are carrying out an investigation is regarded as an act of obstruction. To warn a speeding motorist of a speed trap also constitutes obstruction.
Before a person can be found guilty of obstructing the police, it must be shown that the police were lawfully exercising their powers or duties. You are not obliged, however, to submit to unlawful interference with your property or your person. You are therefore entitled to take reasonable steps to resist such interference without risking a charge of obstructing the law. For example, anyone may resist an unlawful arrest or an attempt at unlawful entry by the police
http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=rights.article&Sort=O&ArticleID=8094126

 

[intel8080]

@ R/Sgt On paper things look very good for the entire South Africa. Reality is a different matter. I always instruct my subordinates, when out on patrols to keep their eyes f-and open whom they are picking siht with. I have put out many many fires over the years. Of course is not right but certainly keeps bread on the table. I can't believe there still are police man and women out there who believe in the truth and correctness. They should be all out of jobs by now. Sad but true.

 

[froot]

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/gupta-cops-axed-1.1250211

So what do you guys think?

Should the police have the right to search any vehicle without any reasonable suspicion? (No warrant needed)
Should they only have the right to search your vehicle only with reasonable suspicion? (Warrant needed, but can be obtained after the fact)
Was their political interference in this case? The fact that they were dismissed rather than the Minister of Police standing behind his men and having to apologise/pay damages for a false arrest?

Ah, fun times. What they're allowed to or not allowed to do.

Question is, when is there reasonable suspicion?
I can't remember the details about this case but they wouldn't have been discharged (the cops) if they had indeed had reasonable suspicion.
Recently we had a neighbourhoodwatch thing on the one night and we have roadblocks on busy streets (roadblocks since we have Police on scene doing it, we simply assist). We had a car throw a u-turn just before the roadblock and the police gave chase (although one of our guys managed to catch and stop the vehicle). Taking this as reasonable suspicion (well this and reckless driving), the vehicle was searched. The guy was very arrogant when the policeman threatened to arrest and charge him with reckless driving and attempting to evade the police.