Do i have the right to refuse officer's demand to see my IC?
-
No, a refusal alone, without any other mitigating circumstance is NOT sufficient to warrant suspicion.Originally posted by prso:A P.O must have a valid reason or suspicion in order to conduct a check. There is a difference between consensual conversation (in which a P.O does not have a right to ask for your particulars) and checks....
HOWEVER....
in the very practical world...
When a P.O ask you for your particulars (for no reason.). You can reject.
However, the moment you reject, is it not enough suspicion to warrant a demand for your particulars?
Its as simply as that.
A refusal is enough reason to cast a suspicion.
Simple??? -
Originally posted by Bamboozler:
Okies...whats mitigating circumstances?
No, a refusal [b]alone, without any other mitigating circumstance is NOT sufficient to warrant suspicion. [/b] -
I think someone should cite one good reason that a officer might say to a subject when he/she wants to screen ID.
Since this discussion still remains unclear. -
You suggest one at least lah. To start the ball rolling.Originally posted by M©+square:I think someone should cite one good reason that a officer might say to a subject when he/she wants to screen ID.
Since this discussion still remains unclear. -
Assuming that the subject doesn't have any grounds of suspicion to be checked upon.Originally posted by viciouskitty74:You suggest one at least lah. To start the ball rolling.
I'd approach him in a Friendly 'community policing' manner.
Start off a topic that there have been series of certain crime around this vicinity and does he(subject) know any of such incidents.
Then ask him for his particulars incase if there happen to be a incident, we could contact him to seek his help by aiding the police to solve the case.
Then talk for a while to make him feel relax.
So this approach is likely give civilian a sense of willingness to cooperate instead of being seen as a suspicious character or feel intimidated. Police will need civilians to work things out, so no point burning bridges.
My opinion. -
You tell me ... you're the cop, right? All I'm saying is that a simple refusal doesn't seem enough.Originally posted by viciouskitty74:Okies...whats mitigating circumstances?
What's to stop the cops from just approaching anyone and asking for ID? ... or are you guys still just doing that? -
Originally posted by Bamboozler:
Well, one must realise, such is the paradox. Refusal does warrant suspicion.
No, a refusal [b]alone, without any other mitigating circumstance is NOT sufficient to warrant suspicion. [/b]
Imagine you are a P.O. The subject you check upon refuse to provide particulars simply because he does not wish to. Would that not cause you to be suspicious?
If one maintains that it is his constitutional rights not to be checked and decide to fight all the way to the court, the only outcome will be a tick off from the magistrate. -
So essentially, you're saying that the cops can do random checks on ID, they may not have the powers to in certain circumstances, but that cannot be challenged because challenging attributes suspicion.Originally posted by prso:Well, one must realise, such is the paradox. Refusal does warrant suspicion.
Imagine you are a P.O. The subject you check upon refuse to provide particulars simply because he does not wish to. Would that not cause you to be suspicious?
If one maintains that it is his constitutional rights not to be checked and decide to fight all the way to the court, the only outcome will be a tick off from the magistrate.
Is that what you're saying? -
next time, you tell the judge to imagine that he's the po.Originally posted by prso:Well, one must realise, such is the paradox. Refusal does warrant suspicion.
Imagine you are a P.O. The subject you check upon refuse to provide particulars simply because he does not wish to. Would that not cause you to be suspicious?
If one maintains that it is his constitutional rights not to be checked and decide to fight all the way to the court, the only outcome will be a tick off from the magistrate.
sigh, just cite a statute which specifically states that "(citizens) do not have the right to refuse officer's demand to see (their) ic" and be done with this topic already.
otherwise police officers should go lim kopi instead lar. don't waste my time if they can't even tell me what empowers them to check my ic.
remember; the police enforce the law. without the law they are just a motley crew of renegades.
you wouldn't show your ic to some renegade in uniform now would you? -
Sorry, let me rephrase it.Originally posted by Bamboozler:So essentially, you're saying that the cops can do random checks on ID, they may not have the powers to in certain circumstances, but that cannot be challenged because challenging attributes suspicion.
Is that what you're saying?
1.) When your particulars are requested for, you must provide. (regardless of suspicion by P.O or not.)
2.) If you refuse to provide, or is unable to provide, you will be arrested. ( This is the part where reasonable suspicion comes in.)
You are right that challenge attributes suspicion.
However, P.O does not have a right to demand to see your I.C. But they do have a blanket right to demand for your particulars.
Now.... apologies for not providing the statutes. Let me just do a quick search for it before posting. -
Not true...you have been watching too much American TVOriginally posted by monoslayer:You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. [b]You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
-
Under Section 16 of the NRA
Arrest and search.
16. —(1) Where any person —
(a) is reasonably suspected by a registration officer or police officer of the commission of any offence under this Act or any regulations made thereunder; or
(b) on demand by a registration officer or a police officer —
(i) does not give his name and address;
(ii) gives a name or address which the officer has reason to believe is false; or
(iii) gives as his address a place outside Singapore,
that person may be arrested without warrant by the registration officer or police officer.
Found it. Chap 201. Giving police blanket power to demand for particulars. -
Originally posted by prso:
Thank you!!! finally PSRO has made a worthy contribution to this thread.
Under Section 16 of the NRA
Arrest and search.
16. —(1) Where any person —
[b](a) is reasonably suspected by a registration officer or police officer of the commission of any offence under this Act or any regulations made thereunder; or
(b) on demand by a registration officer or a police officer —
(i) does not give his name and address;
(ii) gives a name or address which the officer has reason to believe is false; or
(iii) gives as his address a place outside Singapore,
that person may be arrested without warrant by the registration officer or police officer.
Found it. Chap 201. Giving police blanket power to demand for particulars.[/b]
Irregardless, note that it does not state that you have to produce your NRIC. Neither does it state that producing your nric is ample evidence of residence.
It specifically asks for a citizen to produce a name and address. Nothing more then that.
still, in light of this new relevation, i have to change the way i communicate with a police. I would provide a name and address, and if they question me farther, i would then have to demand a reason why they believe my particulars to be false.
no need to show my ic.
-
Originally posted by prso:
Actually, Gem already came up with this section; it's on the first page of this thread.
Under Section 16 of the NRA
Arrest and search.
16. —(1) Where any person —
[b](a) is reasonably suspected by a registration officer or police officer of the commission of any offence under this Act or any regulations made thereunder; or
(b) on demand by a registration officer or a police officer —
(i) does not give his name and address;
(ii) gives a name or address which the officer has reason to believe is false; or
(iii) gives as his address a place outside Singapore,
that person may be arrested without warrant by the registration officer or police officer.
Found it. Chap 201. Giving police blanket power to demand for particulars.[/b]
This section does not carry powers to check, it is meant to be used in compliment with other sections of this act and pertains only to NRA offences.
I do believe that our statutes give the cops ample powers to prevent and detect crime. I just think they need to know these powers well or they will face problems when they encounter someone who knows the law.
prso, are you a cop? -
Originally posted by nomood:
If you just provide a name and address and refuse to entertain any more reasonable questions from the officer, doesn't that triggers part (ii)?
Thank you!!! finally PSRO has made a worthy contribution to this thread.
Irregardless, note that it does not state that you have to produce your NRIC. Neither does it state that producing your nric is ample evidence of residence.
[b]It specifically asks for a citizen to produce a name and address. Nothing more then that.
still, in light of this new relevation, i have to change the way i communicate with a police. I would provide a name and address, and if they question me farther, i would then have to demand a reason why they believe my particulars to be false.
no need to show my ic.[/b] Like i have mentioned before, its a paradox. P.Os are charged with the prevention and detection of crimes. Checking of person is just part and parcel of this crime prevention measure. Just bear with it lar uh. 
-
Not 100% true. The reason why this power is stated in NRA is because your NRIC no. is the basis of check. NRIC falls under the NRA.Originally posted by Bamboozler:Actually, Gem already came up with this section; it's on the first page of this thread.
This section does not carry powers to check, it is meant to be used in compliment with other sections of this act and pertains only to NRA offences.
I do believe that our statutes give the cops ample powers to prevent and detect crime. I just think they need to know these powers well or they will face problems when they encounter someone who knows the law.
prso, are you a cop?
Yes, this power allows for police to check NRA offences, but it is also meant for police to screen citizens as part of crime prevention and detection, of which NRIC no. screening is the basis.
I believe our cops are well-equiped with the necessary knowledge to carry out their duties. They may not know the specific statutes that give them the specific power to carry out specific actions, but they can be sure that they are well-empowered by the law. -
If a police wants to conduct a strip search on you would you just bear with it?Originally posted by prso:If you just provide a name and address and refuse to entertain any more reasonable questions from the officer, doesn't that triggers part (ii)? Like i have mentioned before, its a paradox. P.Os are charged with the prevention and detection of crimes. Checking of person is just part and parcel of this crime prevention measure. Just bear with it lar uh.
One phrase: abuse of power! Like I said, police without the law are nothing more then a bunch of renegades. As a citizen i would be more then happy to comply with police if they can reasonably tell me what empowers them to conduct checks on me.
As cited earlier, that would naturally have to be verified with their supervisor.
I am certainly not going to entertain a police with things which are unecessary and unjustified. They're here to serve the public, not the other way round. -
you're saying that the police are unsure about the law.Originally posted by prso:They may not know the specific statutes that give them the specific power to carry out specific actions, but they can be sure that they are well-empowered by the law.
This is what is most worrying, how can we trust an organization to enforce something they are unsure about, or do not know? whatever happened to professionalism? -
"Like I said, police without the law are nothing more then a bunch of renegades."Originally posted by nomood:If a police wants to conduct a strip search on you would you just bear with it?
One phrase: abuse of power! Like I said, police without the law are nothing more then a bunch of renegades. As a citizen i would be more then happy to comply with police if they can reasonably tell me what empowers them to conduct checks on me.
As cited earlier, that would naturally have to be verified with their supervisor.
I am certainly not going to entertain a police with things which are unecessary and unjustified. They're here to serve the public, not the other way round.
Without the law, there will not be a police force lar
Like you said, they are here to serve the public. Conducting check on you is serving you thus. Don't you agree? If one is genuinely in doubt of police action, its proper to verify. However, there are many people who are out just to make things difficult. Then, i don't see the point. -
If i did say the police are unsure about the law, you are going to believe me uh?Originally posted by nomood:you're saying that the police are unsure about the law.
This is what is most worrying, how can we trust an organization to enforce something they are unsure about, or do not know? whatever happened to professionalism?
I'm surprised you are taking my words as authoritative
;p
anyway, what i meant is, there are many many police procedures. It is impossible for each P.O to remember every law by hard. However, there are written instruction manuals that they do follow. And will certainly know how to deal with people who make things difficult wilfully. -
prso,Originally posted by prso:If i did say the police are unsure about the law, you are going to believe me uh?
I'm surprised you are taking my words as authoritative
;p
anyway, what i meant is, there are many many police procedures. It is impossible for each P.O to remember every law by hard. However, there are written instruction manuals that they do follow. And will certainly know how to deal with people who make things difficult wilfully.
why bother to explain? as you can see in my previous other post, its a waste of time and the best part is they will take our words as authoritative.... omg...
If they want to continue behaving like kids, just let them whine and throw their own tamtrum....
One of them will want you to state which section, yet the other will want you to state the powers... its definately that they were being spot checks before and felt that they were being "ill-treated"....
why bother to explain to people which already have bias mindset against the SPF... let them let it the hard way, and i really wish that they are not a bunch of people whom are NATO.... and try to influence the whole world by their "westerner's mindset" about human rights blah blah....
I did remember there is this article in TNP stating two EX SPF officers challenge the PO regarding their powers conducting check on them during road blocks, no doubt in the end they were acquitted... they regret for their actions as its a waste of time for all the court procedures....
let them learn the hard way.... then they will grow up...
my 2 cents... -
Originally posted by M©+square:Don't give IC can. Give verbal infomation to them.
I won't give IC but i'll give my particulars verbally. -
If my memories doesnt fail me, you should be helping....Originally posted by M©+square:
Hows ur KINS? -
Originally posted by nomood:
Don't show la...the policeman will simply arrest you on suspicion that you have given a false name and address. Without your IC, how do you prove you are who you are?
Thank you!!! finally PSRO has made a worthy contribution to this thread.
Irregardless, note that it does not state that you have to produce your NRIC. Neither does it state that producing your nric is ample evidence of residence.
[b]It specifically asks for a citizen to produce a name and address. Nothing more then that.
still, in light of this new relevation, i have to change the way i communicate with a police. I would provide a name and address, and if they question me farther, i would then have to demand a reason why they believe my particulars to be false.
no need to show my ic.[/b] -
The day that efficiency takes precedence over proper respect for individuals' rights, is a very sad day.Originally posted by qazplm:prso,
why bother to explain? as you can see in my previous other post, its a waste of time and the best part is they will take our words as authoritative.... omg...
If they want to continue behaving like kids, just let them whine and throw their own tamtrum....
One of them will want you to state which section, yet the other will want you to state the powers... its definately that they were being spot checks before and felt that they were being "ill-treated"....
why bother to explain to people which already have bias mindset against the SPF... let them let it the hard way, and i really wish that they are not a bunch of people whom are NATO.... and try to influence the whole world by their "westerner's mindset" about human rights blah blah....
I did remember there is this article in TNP stating two EX SPF officers challenge the PO regarding their powers conducting check on them during road blocks, no doubt in the end they were acquitted... they regret for their actions as its a waste of time for all the court procedures....
let them learn the hard way.... then they will grow up...
my 2 cents...
The mindset in Singapore should be that the govt and her agencies are there to serve the people, and it's not an obligation for the people to make their lives any smoother.
That's why it's called Public Service. Somewhere along the line, some figures of authority decided to play God and twist it to ensure the people make the Govt's life better.
I'm not degrading anyone here in particular, just trying to raise some awareness amongst fellow Singaporeans who always think they must not make life hard for the government and actually burden themselves unnecessarily.