Dog Shot At Wendouree Home

[BlackJaq]

What was their legitimate reason? There is no mention of "questioning" somebody being a legitimate reason. They were here to question me, too. But they can summon you to the station if it is really necessary.

I do not dislike the police but I enjoy my peace and quiet, especially on my own property as I believe I have a right to. As does everyone else.

Edited September 6, 2013 by BlackJaq

[Alyosha]

They were obviously not there on some random drop in. Police are busy, and attend premises according to their work. There is no information in the article about why they were there - but as has been said, police can lawfully attend houses for so many reasons. Things as diverse as a toddler is missing in the neighbourhood, to ask if they heard anything from a neighbouring domestic, to check on the welfare of someone suicidal. The list is endless. They don't just knock on doors to question people about crimes.

[BlackJaq]

Police said two members attended a Wendouree West property at 8.55am this morning to make inquiries in regards to an investigation.

This is from the article in the OP.

[Salukifan]

What was their legitimate reason?

Police said two members attended a Wendouree West property at 8.55am this morning to make inquiries in regards to an investigation.

You've answered your own question.

[BlackJaq]

But that is not a legitimate reason as per the law. *sigh*

I think this argument is pointless if you are going to ignore the exact wording of the law and chose your own rules.

[Alyosha]

It is BlackJaq. It just means that they were not sharing any more detail than that with the media.

Don't forget that we're not talking about a power of entry to premises here. To approach a front door does not require a legislated power of entry.

[Cody]

Don't twist my words.

Seriously?????????????

Unintentional gold.

I can't quite convey how wild I am at what you have done with SOMEONE ELSE'S words, but I assure you I will find a way if you ever do it to mine.

I don't care enough about strangers on the internet with differing opinions to mine. :)

[Are You Serious Jo]

BlackJaq, look up the spirit of the law, it explains why you cannot always take the literal legislation as absolute in all cases.

[Roova]

How do you suggest then that the police conduct their investigations? By yelling from the road?

If they weren't allowed to enter properties to speak to those who live there in case a dog exists wouldn't every 'criminal' make sure they have a dog in their front yard??

[raz]

I think this argument is pointless if you are going to ignore the exact wording of the law and chose your own rules.

I'm pretty sure Whippy has a damn good idea of what the law is.

[Alyosha]

I would think that the right to approach the front door of residences possibly comes under Common Law in most states and is not necessarily in statute.

[Are You Serious Jo]

As it's a simple and correct explanation I'll paste a quote from the dreaded wiki, "The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording."

[BlackJaq]

The point is probably moot anyway as I did not see any "No Trespassing" signs.

However, if I am going to argue in court I would rather stick to the letter of the law, not the interpretation of individuals.

The officers that attended my property must have felt the same, as they left.

I was not summoned to the station either, which means whatever they wnted could not have been that important after-all

Edited September 6, 2013 by BlackJaq

[Alyosha]

I can only speak for NSW. But a common misunderstanding there is that trespass is a criminal offence for entering land or property. In NSW, the offence necessitates the request of the property owner for the person to leave that property, and for that person to remain. Without that request and failure to leave there is no offence.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Well judges go by the spirit of the law too, they are the ones that decide outcomes. If you don't believe me look it up. I won a civil case based on the spirit of the law so have first hand experience on a small scale. The officers coming to your place might have had something that wasn't important enough to argue with you over, so they didn't push it.

edited for derp

Edited September 6, 2013 by Reverend Jo

[Alyosha]

And Common Law still cover a whole host of things. Because writing every possibility into statute is not necessarily helpful. We talk a whole lot about over-legislation with regard to dog ownership, and how misguided it becomes. So you can see how Common Law is still an important part of our society.

Unfortunately it will probably eventually go the way of it's supporting ideal - common sense.

[Salukifan]

The point is probably moot anyway as I did not see any "No Trespassing" signs.

However, if I am going to argue in court I would rather stick to the letter of the law, not the interpretation of individuals.

The officers that attended my property must have felt the same, as they left.

I was not summoned to the station either, which means whatever they wnted could not have been that important after-all

"The Law" is a complex beast that goes beyond the letter of any particular piece of legislation or judicial decision.

If you're going to argueabout this in Court, your starting point will an understanding of the existing authorities on trespass to property. One of the most important ones in the context of the facts we are discussing is Robson v Hallet.

In Robson v Hallett [1967] 2 QB 939, Lord Parker CJ said (at 951):

"the occupier of any dwelling-house gives implied licence to any member of the public coming on his lawful business to come through the gate, up the steps, and knock on the door of the house." This implied licence extends to the driveway of a dwelling-house. However, the licence may be withdrawn by giving notice of its withdrawal. A person who enters or remains on property after the withdrawal of the licence is a trespasser."

Allow me to interpret. ANYONE conducting lawful business has an implied license to approach your front door, unless you revoke it. The method of revoocation might be a sign, or it might be you revoking the license by asking them to leave. The law allows them a reasonable time to leave.

Police conducting investigations, who attend your property to ask questions, in the absence of a revoked license to enter, are not trespassing. If you tell them to bugger off, the law requires them to leave unless they have another lawful reason to remain.

So where does that leave us. The police were not trespassing. Because the incident occurred on the owner's property, the dog's behaviour would not result in any charges to the owner. So much for the law.

Prevention sure beats cure for incidents like this. For the sake of a sign or a closed door, a dog is dead. The only good that can come of this (as I have said repeatedly) is if people think about these situations and act to protect the safety of their dogs (not to mention the safety of people lawfully upon their property). Anyone who thinks cops enjoy killing family pets hasn't met any cops I know.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[Jed]

Here you go, this is the legal situation for police entering your property in Vic:

http://www.lawhandbo.../ch10s02s03.php

Officials on your land

The law allows some people to come onto your land without your permission.

POLICE

Police are allowed onto your land if they have a warrant, which they should show you when seeking entry to your land. If they don't have a warrant, they may only enter your land if you invite them, or if particular circumstances arise, such as making an arrest, stopping a breach of the peace or ensuring that the SOA is being complied with (see: "Power to search without warrant", in Chapter 3*2 Arrest and Interrogation).

:) So unless Police were invited or had a warrant or a legitimate reason under the law to be there (note: questioning occupants is not on the list), then there may be a case for the owner to bring civil charges of trespass and potentially damage of property as well.

The article seems to imply the owner is pretty emotionally unstable so I doubt she herself will take any legal action in any case....

BlackJaq, like all law, its not that straight forward. Where the line of "private property" is drawn is variable. Generally there is an implied license to enter residential property that goes as far as the front door. You can revoke that license for the general public but both legislation and common law give police and a range of other people limited powers to enter for the performance of particular duties. And of course there are also easements on most properties that permit essential services workers access to maintain them.

Generally a police officer does not need to be invited to attend your property to knock on your front door and ask you a question. They cannot enter your house without your permission unless they are in possession of a warrant that authorises them to do something that would otherwise be unlawful. It's also worth noting that for the incident we are discussing, the police were not conducting a search.

Of course this is far more straightforward in the ACT where, by law, we are not permitted to have front fences.

Not quite correct. If you allow access to your property (ie, the gate is not chained), people may enter. Including the police. If you ask them to leave, they must leave (including the police). the police may enter with a warrant. If the council, the meter man, or an arch angel enters and does not leave when asked, they are trespassing.

In the case of no front fences, you would need to post a sign on the front boundary.

Every court case in Aust has upheld this principle. It is based on Semayne's Law which dates back to 10something, which stresses the right of the sheriff to "seize the body", but everyone else is trespassing.

The link provided by BlackJac gives details of cases.

Incidentlly, perhaps there was no sign on this particular property because the owners considered that the dog, being nice natured, did not need one? And perhaps these particular police would have ignored it?

[Nekhbet]

What was their legitimate reason? There is no mention of "questioning" somebody being a legitimate reason. They were here to question me, too. But they can summon you to the station if it is really necessar

They are an official, they are not a civilian. Civilian laws do not apply 100% to them and some other officials/representatives. Tresspass itself though is not clear cut, there is an implied allowance that there is to be access to your front door in Victoria, anyone has the right to do that unless you have a big fence and a locked gate.

As for being on the property, walking up to the front door to question residents for a police investigation is a more then valid reason. Jumping the back fence or bashing down the front door with no warrant on the other hand is not. The residents have the right to ask even police to leave if they are not breaking any laws that justify officer's attendance on the property.

The issue here is an officer discharging a weapon in public around members of the public for no valid reason. They are all armed with capsicum spray, that is to be his first port of call BEFORE a firearm. I can tell you for the dog to be shot in the back of the head is difficult, nay impossible, unless you are standing behind the dog (unless there is one hole visible and it's actually the exit wound that people are mistaking for the entry wound) Saying that LE rounds are not really clean in/out they're made to stop as someone else said, and fragment easily.

[JulesP]

What if the dog turned at the same time the gun was fired?