Senior Constable Diana Rautley pulled over Mr Richards in his car last November at Warradale in Adelaide, and accused him of using his mobile phone whilst driving..
Peter Richards denied using his phone and advised he had actually left it at home so he didn't have it as a distraction whilst driving. The Senior Constable didn't believe him.
Mr Richards even offered to let her search his person and car so she could see that he didn't have a mobile. Raultey said that wasn't necessary because she actually SAW him using the phone.
Well, it turns out that Rautley was WRONG. She THOUGHT she saw him using his mobile, but was WRONG.
I'm not aware if Mr. Richards accessed his mobile phone records to see if times tallied up (or in this case, didn't tally up) with the time Rautley accused him of wrong doing.
My point is anyone can make a mistake, and Diana Rautley definitely made a mistake that day. Surely bells should have rung when Richards asked her to inspect his vehicle. He couldn't have hidden a mobile that fast and securely, that she wouldn't have found it.
In my opinion, Rautley failed in her duty to properly assess the situation. You can't just go around higgeldy piggeldy accusing people of doing something. And if I was a police officer, and was offered the opportunity to search the car, would have done so. If she had done her job properly, Mr. Richards wouldn't have had to go through all the crap that he's had to.
It goes to show that if you feel you've been wronged by a police officer, fight it. You might find that they aren't all so high and mighty when faced with having to prove their case.
Get Real
Update 29/11/2013
I saw these few paragraphs on the AdelaideNow website and thought I'd share with you:
SA Police yesterday responded to The Advertiser's inquiries about the case, saying Mr Cannon did not find officers had "acted improperly".
"As in all matters, SAPOL proceeded with this case based on the fact there was a reasonable prospect of conviction," a spokeswoman said.
The Advertiser asked police what level of proof was required to prove such an offence and whether the officer involved had been counselled or retrained.
"Police are able to ask a driver to produce their mobile phone, what kind of mobile phone they have and who they were talking to. The driver's mobile phone number can also be taken," the spokeswoman said.
----------------------------
What I find rather damning for SAPOL is the comment I've highlighted in blue. To me, this suggests that SAPOL will take action against a citizen, even if that citizen is truly not guilty of the accusation, however, if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. Bugger it .. lets go for it!!
Is it just me or do people find this rather amazing? I thought the police had to find out the TRUTH behind a matter before exploring the options of fining or charging a person?
Nowhere in the story do police state that they tried to ascertain the TRUTH in the matter. In fact, it was Peter Richards who tried to establish the truth. But Senior Constable Diana Rautley wouldn't have a bar of it. Duh, and they try and say that the Rautley acted properly? If she had acted properly and actually wanted the TRUTH, she would have searched his car, but then a lack of mobile phone would mean she was WRONG in her ASSUMPTION of GUILT. What it boils down to is that if Senior Constable Diana Rautley had done her job properly, Peter Richards would never had to go to court in the first place.
The first thing SAPOL should do is apologise to Peter Richards.
Well, there you have it citizens, SAPOL will take action against you - even if you're not guilty - but there is a good chance of a conviction.
Read the original story here:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australia-police-will-not-apologise-for-wrongly-charging-man-over-mobile-phone/story-fni6uo1m-1226770825325
Get Real
