In car filming - right to confiscate?
Discussion
r32 said:
There was an item on 'Road Wars' recently, where a biker was convicted by his own video evidence in court... mind due, it was pretty scary stuff!
I recall that the biker you refer to had come off his bike and ended up in hospital and the Police had come across the camera and video as part of the accident investigation.
bongomania said:
Question for the BIB.
If someone is filming from a fixed camera in car, say along a winding country road, and then gets stopped, can a BIB who stops you ask for the tape or ask to view the tape?
Just curious.
Unlikely. Would probably need a search warrant (and the relevant belief). Let's face it, could be a bit of film of her indoors in her vest!
slinky said:
I'm not sure about the right to confiscate, but wasn't the F40 chap prosecuted using his own tape as evidence?
slinky
I think I remember that if it is the same one you are thinking of. Wasn't it a Japanese guy who was using the video as a selling point for the car. It was a forward facing shot with the speedo superimposed in the top right corner. Makes me think it was 'discovered' after he had the time to edit it so not sure under what curcumstances it came into the Bib's possession to view it.
tom_audi_tt said:
I'm not sure about the right to confiscate, but wasn't the F40 chap prosecuted using his own tape as evidence?
slinky
I think I remember that if it is the same one you are thinking of. Wasn't it a Japanese guy who was using the video as a selling point for the car. It was a forward facing shot with the speedo superimposed in the top right corner. Makes me think it was 'discovered' after he had the time to edit it so not sure under what curcumstances it came into the Bib's possession to view it.
I seem to remember that the BiB got wind of the problem (video) and someone went undercover (what's this, lots of money thrown at small problem??) and managed to buy a copy of the video.. seeing as the driver is identifiable in the video (iirc) that was used as prosecution evidence..
slinky
That depends on weather i had other grounds of an offence... if he was commiting offences then maybe, if there was nothing to make me think an offence was or has been commited then no. Just because its a quick car doesnt mean he/she has been driving dangerously for example. But had he been donutting it round the roads or car parks then thats a different matter.
Gareth
Gareth
Yes provided the offence is an arrestable offence. If its not then we cant arrest.
Going equipped is to do with having and article for use in the course of a Burglary, Theft Or Cheat, and they are not at their place of abode.
We have the criminal attemts act which i think you may be thinking of which is.... an offence triable on indictment (crown court), a person does an act more than merely preparatory to commiting the offence ie trying to comit.
but again as speeding is non indictable then that cant be used either.
Gareth
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Friday 16th July 23:35
Going equipped is to do with having and article for use in the course of a Burglary, Theft Or Cheat, and they are not at their place of abode.
We have the criminal attemts act which i think you may be thinking of which is.... an offence triable on indictment (crown court), a person does an act more than merely preparatory to commiting the offence ie trying to comit.
but again as speeding is non indictable then that cant be used either.
Gareth
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Friday 16th July 23:35
^Slider^ said:
That depends on weather i had other grounds of an offence... if he was commiting offences then maybe, if there was nothing to make me think an offence was or has been commited then no. Just because its a quick car doesnt mean he/she has been driving dangerously for example. But had he been donutting it round the roads or car parks then thats a different matter.
Gareth
IS DONUTTING ILLEGAL
My spelling maybe crap but you know what i mean.... Yes one of several offences,
Due care and consideration to other road users.
Not in proper control of vehicle.
Dangerous careless or inconsiderate driving.
And i think using a vehicle in an antisocial manor under antisocial behavior act.
Gareth
Due care and consideration to other road users.
Not in proper control of vehicle.
Dangerous careless or inconsiderate driving.
And i think using a vehicle in an antisocial manor under antisocial behavior act.
Gareth
^slider^ Doughnutting = "not in proper control of vehicle"??
I think you need to be very in control of the vehicle to do it well.
I am of course joking, very naughty 
dangerous to other road users, socially irresponsible, (but strangely exciting 
)
>> Edited by ftasb on Saturday 17th July 08:40
I think you need to be very in control of the vehicle to do it well. I am of course joking, very naughty dangerous to other road users, socially irresponsible, (but strangely exciting ) >> Edited by ftasb on Saturday 17th July 08:40
JMGS4 said:
I'm not sure about the right to confiscate, but wasn't the F40 chap prosecuted using his own tape as evidence? slinky
The F40 uy was in Japan, different law. IMHO the police need a warrant to sieze a film, unless there was a crime in progress..........
"You aint go no warrant copper...." (Too much US tv, I'm afraid)
The police can sieze any evidence if it's believed it contains evidence of offence.
For an easier example..If you punch your postman on your doorstep because he brought too many bills and you happen to have cctv covering your doorway, the police can sieze the cctv tape as it may contain 'evidence of offence'. No warrant needed..
Street
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff