New Zealand NEW LAW = AngloFascism

>
> Committee Secretariat
> Justice and Electoral Committee
> Parliament Buildings
> Wellington
>
> Submissions close at 5pm on Friday 3 September 2010.
>
> Kind regards
>
> James Picker
> Clerk of Committee - Justice and Electoral Committee
> Select Committee Office
> Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives
>
> Email: james.picker@parliament.govt.nz
> Phone: 04 817 9508
> Fax: 04 499 0486

THE FOLLOWING IS MY SUBMISSION AGAINST THE SEARCH AND SURVEILLANCE BILL.

KIA ORA NA

TOM XXXXXXXX

ADDRESS

I AM OPPOSED TO:

Warrant-less Searches

Once you are arrested or even simply detained*, police and

enforcement officers are able to search your home, workplace,

car, friend.s home or any place with which you are associ-

ated, without a warrant if they believe they can find evidential

material related to the offence. Thus, a young person detained on

suspicion of possessing drugs can have their home or car and those

of their friends searched without them or their parents being pres-

ent or informed. This power, combined with .plain view. searches is

a nightmare. Whilst you are sitting in the cells or being questioned

on the sidewalk, your home can be turned upside down.

Similarly, a warrant will not be needed to record a conversa-

tion when two or more people are talking if one person consents

to a recording of the conversation. This person could be an under-

cover cop sitting in a meeting, someone employed by an .enforce-

ment officer. or a friendly person at the bar. A group planning a

campaign against 1080 in national parks could have someone

sitting amongst them recording the discussion and handing that

information to the police. Now this material can be used in court.

A warrant is needed for a computer search, however this

warrant allows police to have access to your entire hard-

drive; then using .plain view. they can trawl through other

information not on the warrant.

*.Detained. is when you are not formally arrested but are not free to leave.

I am opposed to :

An End to The Right to Silence

If this bill becomes law, the right to silence will

effectively no longer exist. The bill.s examination order

(E.O.) gives police a new power, one imported from the

Serious Fraud Office. Using this, the police can compel you

to answer questions when they think they have reasonable

grounds to suspect that a crime punishable by imprison-

ment is being planned or has been committed by three or

more people. Even extremely minor offences such as tres-

pass or disorderly behaviour would qualify.

For example, three people plan a protest against water

privatisation. The police only need to persuade a judge that

some participants may trespass or behave in a disorderly

manner resulting in jail time. With the E.O., they can

compel the organisers to turn over participant details and

surrender computer files.

Suspicion alone will be a sufficient basis for obtaining

this order. Your right to silence is vetoed. Even if you claim

.privilege against self-incrimination,. you can be ordered to

explain to a judge WHY you would be likely to incriminate

yourself: an Orwellian Catch 22.

Refusal to comply with the examination order: up to one-

year imprisonment

I am oppposed to :

Production Orders: Convict yourself!

Current practice is that the police have to provide all the

evidence to prove a person is guilty.when the bill passes,

they can sit back and order you to produce some of that evi-

dence. The bill.s new production order (P.O.) requires you to

produce documents that you are suspected of having or may

have in future. No longer will the police have to provide the

evidence of guilt; they can order you to do the work.

Again, suspicion alone will be a sufficient basis for ob-

taining the P.O. Penalty for non-compliance with a

production order: up to one-year imprisonment.

I am opposed to:

Surveillance Devices

In the bill, surveillance devices are bugs,

video cameras and tracking devices for cars.Police need

a warrant to install a listeing bug in your house. Video

surveillance by police inside a house or other private place is

illegal now. Police do it anyway knowing that most judges

will admit it as evidence. This illegal practice will

become legal with the Bill, and police will be able

to put cameras anywhere in your home. It intro-

duces the concept of a surveillance device warrant,

which can be obtained by any enforcement

officer (not just police) under the same

criteria as a search warrant.that is, the suspicion that

the search (or surveillance) will uncover evidential

material necessary for the prosecution of a crime. This treats

on-going video surveillance (for up to a month) in exactly

the same way as one-off search.

This contrasts to legislation elsewhere. In the US,

Canada and a number of European countries, phone

bugging and installing a surveillance camera in a home is treat-

ed as a much more serious invasion of privacy than a search.

In order to get a surveillance warrant, those police have to

demonstrate that other ways of obtaining the evidence

have failed. In the new bill, there is no such restriction.

I am opposed to:

Plain View Searches

This power permits police to take as evidence anything in

plain view whether related or unrelated to the search war-

rant provisions. Such extraneous evidence can subsequently

be used in court.

While a warrant is needed for a comput-er search, under plain

view provisions po-lice are permitted to access to your entire

hard drive, ie, they can trawl through files and documents

totally unrelated to the search warrant purpose, such as

family photos, bank documents or emails.

This bill expands police

powers and fundamentally alters some core legal concepts

to such a degree that even the Law Society and the Chief

Justice criticised it.

The bill.s passage will signal the end to the right to privacy, the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination.

Stumble It!