LAMUSSE Ti IR 01 20 38608 2d.OCGG 20 32 Investigation Practice Guide Redacted.pdf

Organisational Capability Governance Group
Cover Sheet
  Reference   OCGG/20/32
[Obtained from the Executive Services team]
Paper title
Fleeing Driver Events: Investigation Practice Guide
Sponsor
Deputy Commissioner Glenn Dunbier
Presenter/s
Assistant Commissioner Sandra Venables
Prepared by
Nigel Thomson, Public Safety Team, Christchurch
Kelly Larsen, Fleeing Driver Programme Manager
Meeting date  Tuesday 17 November 2020
[Paper is due with ES six working days before scheduled meeting date]

1982 to Ti Lamusse
Consultation required
Unless specifically directed by the paper’s Sponsor, the paper should be presented to at least one of the four sub
governance groups in the first instance, using the appropriate governance group paper template.

If the contents of this paper are such that they are to be presented to the SLB only, consultation may stil  need to be
undertaken with other work groups / service centres / districts to ensure their views have been sought and are accurately
reflected in this paper.

For consultation purposes, please use the following group email addresses: ‘DL_Assistant Commissioners’ and
‘DL_GovernanceConsultation’. These email lists are frequently updated.

Please double click the boxes to tick which groups / individuals have been consulted regarding this paper and include their
feedback in the Feedback Received section.

Police under the OIA
Tick  Group / individual
Specify, if required
  Assistant Commissioners

  Executive Directors

  Consultation Group (SLB Papers)

  District staff (specify)

  External (specify)

  Other (specify)

While a sponsor can exempt a paper from seeking consultation this should be an extremely rare occurrence. If your
Sponsor deems consultation to be unnecessary, a full explanation must be provided below:

by New Zealand

TRACKING: (for ES use only)

Released

Organisational Capability Governance Group
Reference
OCGG/20/32
Title
Fleeing Driver Events: Investigation Practice Guide

10 November 2020
Purpose
1.
The purpose of this paper is to provide the Strategic Leadership Board (SLB) with a nationally
consistent practice guide for post-event investigations following fleeing driver events.
2.
This information will assist the SLB  in considering and approving proposed revisions to the
Fleeing Driver Policy (the Policy), specifically the requirement for mandatory post-event
investigations to ensure driver accountability.
Executive Summary
3.
The Executive Leadership Board (ELB) considered proposed revisions to the Policy on 18 May
2020 [refer ELB/20/35].
1982 to Ti Lamusse
4.
Arising from this discussion, the ELB requested the development of a nationally consistent best
practice process for post-event investigations following fleeing driver events.
5.
A hui was undertaken in July 2020 with a range of District staff to discuss what a best practice
investigation process looked like, to ensure that fleeing drivers and any person enabling this
behaviour, are held to account.
6.
The proposed Fleeing Driver: Investigation Practice Guide (Appendix A) is the result of those
discussions, and wider internal consultation.
7.
The overarching principle of the Fleeing Driver Policy is that public, vehicle occupants(s) and
Police employee safety takes precedence over the immediate apprehension of a fleeing driver.
8.
A key principle of the Policy is that an inquiry is preferred over the com
Police under the OIA mencement of a pursuit.
9.
Increased emphasis on using investigations rather than pursuits to identify and hold fleeing
drivers to account will realign operational practice with policy and wil  have safety benefits. It is
likely that fewer pursuits wil  result in fewer injuries and deaths from fleeing driver events.
10.  This aligns with our  vision and our  purpose, as well as our goals of  safe roads and safe
communities. While there is a risk that fewer pursuits may lead to a decrease in the overall
apprehension rate, this is outweighed by the safety benefits and the comparatively high
apprehension rate currently achieved through post-event investigations.
11.  It is recommended the OCGG  notes this information when considering and endorsing  the
by New Zealand
proposed revisions to the Policy, specifically the requirement for mandatory post-event
investigations.
Fleeing Driver Policy – Mandatory Post-Event Investigations
12.  Proposed revisions to the Fleeing Driver Policy give effect to the agreed recommendations
detailed in the joint Independent Police Conduct Authority and New Zealand Police thematic
Released
review;  Fleeing Drivers in New Zealand: A collaborative review of events, practices, and
procedures (the Review).

1

13.  The Review recommends Police strengthens oversight and post-event accountability processes
for fleeing driver events (Recommendation 5). This includes introducing a requirement for officers
to  record a fleeing driver event as either resulting in an arrest (K9), or requiring further
investigation (K6), where it has not been possible to identify or apprehend the driver. This would
arise in situations where Police signal a driver to stop, the driver fails to stop or remain stopped,
and:
•  Of icers elect not to initiate a pursuit
•  Of icers initiate, but then abandon a pursuit
•  Of icers initiate a pursuit, but the driver subsequently abandons the vehicle and is unable
to be located.
14.  The proposed Policy revisions emphasise that where a fleeing driver event does not result in an
apprehension, there must be a robust investigation to identify the driver and hold them to account.
Where immediate follow up is required, the Pursuit Controller wil  direct an available supervisor
to lead these enquiries. Follow-up enquiries may include obtaining vehicle registration details
(e.g. s.6(c)
locating the vehicle, or speaking with the owner or hirer of the vehicle to obtain
information which may lead to the identification of the driver.
1982 to Ti Lamusse
15.  The rationale for this change is that by requiring officers to undertake robust investigations, rather
than initiating or continuing pursuits Police wil  manage high-risk drivers in a way that:
•
reduces the number of pursuits;
•
increases public and staf  safety;
•
increases fleeing driver accountability; and
•
enhances public trust and confidence.
Fleeing Driver Event Investigations
16.  The ELB requested the development of a nationally consistent investigation practice to ensure
an effective response to fleeing driver events.
17.  A hui was undertaken in July 2020 with a range of District staff to discuss what a best practice
Police under the OIA
investigation process in relation to fleeing drivers needed to encompass. Participants agreed the
current Fleeing Driver Policy was robust.  They also agreed with the need to strengthen the post
event investigations and establish nationally consistent best practice to ensure that fleeing
drivers, and anyone enabling this behaviour, are held to account.
18.  An increased emphasis on using investigations rather than pursuits to identify and hold fleeing
drivers to account wil  have safety benefits. There is a higher likelihood of death and serious
injuries occurring during pursuits compared with other Police responses (besides firearms) with,
on average, six and 41 per 1,000 events resulting in fatal and serious injuries respectively.1
Therefore, it is likely that fewer pursuits wil  result in fewer injuries and deaths from fleeing driver
events.
by New Zealand
19.  While there is a risk that fewer pursuits may lead to a decrease in the overall apprehension rate,
this is outweighed by potential safety benefits and the relatively high apprehension rate already
achieved through post-event investigations [refer Table 1].

Released

1 Based on number of fleeing driver events involving fatal and serious injuries per 1,000 events by year for the
period 2005 to 2017 from the joint Independent Police Conduct Authority and New Zealand Police thematic
review; Fleeing Drivers in New Zealand: A collaborative review of events, practices, and procedures.
2

Resourcing / Staff Implications
26.  The requirement to undertake investigations into all fleeing driver events may result in staff
allocating more time to investigations. However, it is anticipated the revised Policy wil  not have
significant resourcing or people implications overall.
IT Implications
27.  There are no anticipated IT implications as the CARD system and policies around the coding and
resulting of fleeing driver events have already been implemented.
Māori, Pacific and Ethnic Peoples
28.  Police acknowledges there are a disproportionate number of young Māori men involved in fleeing
driver events. Increased emphasis on using investigations (rather than pursuits) to identify and
hold fleeing drivers to account may improve safety outcomes for this demographic due to fewer
serious injuries and deaths.
29.  However, this may stil  result in a disproportionate effect for Māori. For example, an investigation
resulting in criminal charges may be the entry point into the criminal justice system.
30.  In many instances it wil  be appropriate to take prosecutorial action.  Consideration ought to be
1982 to Ti Lamusse
given to supported  resolutions such as alternative justice pathways for young or first-time
offenders to address potential inequities.
Alignment with strategic priorities
31.  Increased emphasis on identifying  and holding fleeing drivers to account through a robust
investigation process is likely to reduce the number of pursuits, which wil  increase the safety of
the public and our people.  This aligns with our vis on and our purpose, as well as our goals of
safe roads and safe communities.
32.  Ensuring fleeing drivers are held to account aligns with our functions of maintaining public safety
and law enforcement, thereby ensuring that we have the trust and confidence of all.
Legislative Implications
33.  There are no anticipated legislation implications.
Police under the OIA
Health and Safety Implications
34.  An increased focus on investigations rather than pursuits to hold fleeing drivers to account is
likely to reduce health and safety risks for our people, as a result of engaging in fewer pursuits.
This wil  ensure our people are safe and feel safe.
Training and Implementation Implications
35.  Development and delivery of appropriate, effective training wil  be required to communicate the
requirement for post-event investigations to be completed,  which adhere to the investigation
process developed.
by New Zealand
Case Management
36   Case management processes are applied to all cases.  When an occurrence is first created in
NIA, the system wil  determine from the offence or incident code the category of the offence or
incident.
37.  Current
Released  ly offences related to fleeing driver events are assigned a category of 9, which includes
all tasks/incidents and minor traffic matters.
38.  Only categories 1-4 are included within the scope of the case management programme
reporting framework. These categories are:
4

•  1 – Mandatory
•  2 – Critical
•  3 – Priority
•  4 – Volume
39.  To ensure the investigation of fleeing driver events is prioritised against competing demand, it
is recommended that all offences relating to fleeing drivers are assigned a case category of 2 -
Critical.
District Implications
40.  Effective District prioritisation and oversight wil  be required to ensure post-event investigations
are conducted in a timely manner and completed to a high standard.
41.  It is dif icult to quantify what impact (if any) the requirement to complete post-event investigations
wil  have in terms of demand and resourcing.  Feedback from some Road Policing Managers is
that they don’t anticipate this will result in a significant increase in investigation time.  In contrast,
other Districts believe the investigation process wil  have capacity and capab lity impacts.
42.  Work is currently underway to develop reporting to support Districts to monitor the status of
fleeing driver investigations, which will help ensure accountability
1982 to Ti Lamusse
Implications for other Agencies
43.  There are no specific implications for other agencies.
Public Relations
44.  Following the approval of the proposed investigation practice guide, Media and Communications,
together with the Fleeing Driver Action Plan Steering Group, wil  develop an appropriate
communication strategy to convey this information to staff nationally.  Delivery of Fleeing Driver
investigation training could be facilitated through a mandated course in My Learning in My Police.
Consultation
45.  As a result of the hui, the Fleeing Drivers: Investigation Practice Guide was developed and
circulated to the working group for review and feedback.
Police under the OIA
46.  This paper and the proposed investigation process were circulated to the Fleeing Driver Action
Plan Steering Group, before being sent out for wider consultation via the Consultation Group
(ELB&SLT Papers) distribution list.
47.  Feedback was received from Counties Manukau, Waitemata, Eastern, Bay of Plenty and
Central districts, as well as from Policy Group, Assurance Group and the Of ice of the
Commissioner. Feedback is summarised in Appendix A.
Recommendations
It is recommended the OCGG:
by New Zealand
(i)
Note that ELB requested development of a nationally consistent investigation process to hold
fleeing drivers to account.
(ii)  Note that this paper is intended to assist the ELT in considering and approving the revised Policy
and should be considered alongside the paper discussed on 18 May 2020 [refer ELB/20/35].
Released
(iii)  Endorse the Fleeing Driver Event: Investigation Practice Guide (Appendix A).
(iv)  Direct that the Fleeing Driver Event: Investigation Practice Guide is attached to the Fleeing Driver
Policy.
5

48. Endorse the recommendation that all offences relating to fleeing drivers are assigned a case
category of 2 - Critical.

_________________________________
Glenn Dunbier
Deputy Commissioner: District Operations

1982 to Ti Lamusse
Police under the OIA
by New Zealand
Released
6

APPENDIX A

FLEEING DRIVERS: INVESTIGATION PRACTICE GUIDE

Fleeing Driver Policy
1.
The overarching principle of the Fleeing Driver Policy is that public, vehicle occupants(s) and
Police employee safety takes precedence over the immediate apprehension of a fleeing driver.

2.
One of the key principles is that an investigation is preferred over the commencement or
continuation of a pursuit wherever possible.
Definition
3.
A fleeing driver is any driver who has been signalled to stop by a constable, but fails to stop or
remain stopped, or a driver who flees as a result of Police presence, whether signalled to stop or
not.

1982 to Ti Lamusse
4.
A fleeing driver event has occurred as soon as a driver signalled to stop fails to do so, regardless
of whether the officer decides to initiate a pursuit with that driver.
Police Powers to Stop Vehicles
5.
The powers Police rely on to stop a vehicle are found in the following legislation:

a.  Land Transport Act 1998, Section 114.  The offence and penalty for failing to stop for an
enforcement officer is detailed in the Land Transport Act 1998, Section 52A.

b.  Search and Surveil ance Act 2012  Section 9 and Section 121. The offence and penalty
relating to stopping vehicles is detailed in the Search and Surveil ance Act 2012, Section
177.

c.  Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Act 2013
Police under the OIA  , Section 8 outlines the
powers, offence and penalty to stop a vehicle to exercise powers of arrest or seizure.

d.  The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, Section 22.  The offence and penalty
relating to the exercise of enforcement powers is detailed in Section 27 of the Act.
Holding Fleeing Drivers to Account
6.
If the driver of the fleeing vehicle is apprehended at the time of the event, the file is to be managed
in the normal manner by the initiating Police unit, with appropriate action taken against the driver
and/or passengers.

by New Zealand
7.
Where there is a mandatory period of disqualification, a prosecution is likely to be the most
appropriate course of action, however this does not preclude consideration of alternative
supported resolutions (e.g. a referral to Te Pae Oranga).

8.
If a pursuit is either a) not initiated, or b) abandoned, an investigation must be undertaken to
identify the driver and hold them to account.
Released
Creating the Fleeing Driver Investigation File
9.
Every fleeing driver event reported to the Police Emergency Centre must be resulted with either
a K6 (reported) or a K9 (arrest).

7

24.  A search of the Police Infringement Bureau (PIB) database may provide avenues for enquiry if
an infringement notice has previously been issued to a driver of that vehicle.  Email PIB Intel at
[email address]

25.  If the vehicle has not been stolen, make enquiries at the address of the registered person as
soon as practicable to establish who is in possession of, or likely to be driving the vehicle.  s.6(c)

26.  Section 118(4) of the Land Transport Act 1998 requires the owner or hirer of the vehicle to provide
all information in their possession or obtainable by them, which may lead to the identification and
apprehension of the driver. The owner or hirer must provide this information immediately.

27.  If the registered person is based in a dif erent geographical area of New Zealand, initiate a 4Q
event through the Police Emergency Centre.  The requirement is to speak with the owner or hirer
of the vehicle and obtain all information which may lead to the identification and apprehension of
the driver.

28.  If initial enquiries to locate and speak with the registered person are unsuccessful, a NIA part file
is to be created and submitted to a supervisor for forwarding to the appropriate District to action.

1982 to Ti Lamusse
29.  Complete a Formal Writ en Statement (FWS) and attach to the NIA file.
Details of Driver Supplied to Police
30.  Where details of driver have been supplied to Police, but the driver is stil  required to be located,
consider digital signage or a FLINT if there is potential risk to the public or Police.

31.  Link the driver to the NIA file.

32.  Enter either a ‘Sought’ or ‘WTI’ alert in NIA, with the text: Required to be arrested / interviewed
in relation to a fleeing driver event at [time] on [date] in [place].

33.  Provide direction in the NIA entry about how the information is to be submitted to the Of icer in
Charge of the file.
Police under the OIA

34.  Update the NIA narrative detailing action taken.
Details of Driver Not Supplied to Police on Request
35.  Where the details of driver are not supplied to Police on request, create a prosecution file
(summons) for ‘failing to supply information as to the identity of the driver’, as required under
Section 118 of the Land Transport Act 1998.

36.  Serve the summons on the person who failed to provide the details to Police. Endorse the service
of the summons prior to submit ing the file.
by New Zealand

37.  Attach all relevant documentation to the NIA file at case level.

38.  Update the NIA narrative detailing action taken.

39.  Consideration ought to be given to seeking discretionary disqualification under Section 80 of the
Land Transport 1998 for the offence of ‘failing to supply information as to the identity of the driver’
Released
on the basis that the vehicle was involved in a road safety offence.

40.  Prepare the file for prosecution.
Vehicle Located in a Public Place – No Person(s) Present
9

41.  The vehicle can be seized and impounded pursuant to the Section 123(1)(b) of the Land
Transport Act 1998 if the driver of the vehicle failed to stop (or remained stopped) as signalled,
requested or required under Section 114, Land Transport Act 1998

42.  There is provision to impound the vehicle for 28 days under Section 96(1AB), Land Transport Act
1998 if an enforcement officer believes on reasonable grounds that a driver of the vehicle failed
to stop (or remained stopped) as signalled, requested or required under Section 114, Land
Transport Act 1998.

43.  There is provision to impound the vehicle under Section 122(1) of the Search and Surveil ance
Act 2012, which allows an enforcement officer to move a vehicle to another place if they ‘find’ or
‘stop’ the vehicle, and have lawful authority to search the vehicle but it is impracticable to do so
at that place.

44.  Section 122(2), Search and Surveil ance Act 2012 also allows an enforcement officer who has
the power to arrest a person, to move a vehicle to another place if they find or stop the vehicle,
and have reasonable grounds to believe it is necessary to move the vehicle for safekeeping.

45.  Arrange for the vehicle to be towed to the appropriate local storage provider.
1982 to Ti Lamusse

46.  Enter an ‘Impound’ alert against the vehicle in NIA as this wil  assist with vehicle movements and
chain of custody.

47.  Depending on the nature of the fleeing driver event, a search of the vehicle contents should be
considered as best practice. Refer to Appendix B. This Legal Memorandum sets out the legal
obligations to consider when searching impounded vehicles.

48.  Al  property seized by Police should be recorded in ‘PROP’ and the owner (if identified) provided
with an inventory receipt within 7 days.

49.  A forensic examination of the vehicle should be considered as best practice to identify the driver
and/or vehicle occupants, as outlined in Section 123(1)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998.

Police under the OIA
50.  Request that Police Communications create a 4F event (Fingerprinting).

51.  Notify the local SOCO.  Advise them of the location of the vehicle and NIA file number relating to
the fleeing driver event.

NOTE: To subsequently review the results of the SOCO examination, the forensic case notes
made by the SOCO examiner wil  be attached under the Forensic Node in the NIA file.  These
notes wil  state whether the identity of any person was identified during the examination.

52.  Ensure all identified person(s) are linked to the NIA file.

by New Zealand
53.  Complete follow up enquiries in relation to person(s) identified as a result of the forensic
examination to determine their relationship with the vehicle and/or people.

54.  s.6(c)

55.  Conduct an interview based on the Best Practice Interviewing Suspects Guidelines.

Released
56.  Where the evidential sufficiency and public interest tests detailed in the Solicitor General’s
Prosecution Guidelines are met, charge the person with the initial offence identified, failing to
stop and any associated offending.

10

57.  Create the appropriate summons / arrest / youth aid / alternative resolution file and submit for
supervisor endorsement and direction.

58.  Attach all relevant documentation to the NIA file at case level.

59.  If the person(s) identified in the forensic examination lives in a dif erent geographical area of New
Zealand, create a NIA part file and submit to a supervisor for forwarding to the appropriate District
to locate and interview.

60.  If the registered person refuses to provide information to Police as required under Section 118(4)
of the Land Transport Act 1998, refer to the ‘Details of Driver not supplied to Police’ section of
this document.

61.  Where the fleeing driver is identified, but is still required to be located, consider digital signage
or a FLINT if there is potential risk to the public or Police.

62.  Enter either a ‘Sought’ or ‘WTI’ alert in NIA, with the text: Required to be arrested / interviewed
in relation to a fleeing driver event at [time] on [date] in [place].

63.  Provide direction in the NIA entry about how the information is to be submitted to the Of icer in
1982 to Ti Lamusse
Charge of the file.

64.  If Police establish the vehicle was used in a fleeing driver event and the vehicle is not registered
in the name of the current owner, or with the current address of that person, a non-operation
order may be affixed under Section 248 of the Land Transport Act 1998.  This prohibits the vehicle
from being driven on a road until such time as it has been registered in the name and current
address of the owner.

65.  Update the NIA narrative detailing action taken
Vehicle Located on Private Property
66.  If the general provisions of entry onto private property under Section 119 of the Land Transport
Act 1998, or under Section 120 of the Search and Surveil ance Act 2012 do not apply (i.e. fresh
Police under the OIA
pursuit, loss/destruction evidence, used in further offending, or impractical), obtain a search
warrant to enter, seize and impound the vehicle as per Section 119(5) of the Land Transport
Act 1998.

67.  Attach an electronic copy of the Search Warrant Application and the Warrant to the NIA file at
case level.

68.  Interview the vehicle owner(s) and/or occupants of the address to determine who had
possession of the vehicle on the ‘applicable day’.

69.  Arrange for the vehicle to be towed to the appropriate local storage provider as per the
by New Zealand
conditions sought in the Search Warrant.

70   Enter an ‘Impound’ alert against the vehicle in NIA as this wil  assist with vehicle movements and
chain of custody.

71.  A forensic examination of the vehicle should be considered as best practice to identify the driver
and/or
Released  vehicle occupants, as outlined in Section 123(1)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998.

72.  Request that Police Emergency Centres create a 4F event (Fingerprinting).

73.  Notify the local SOCO.  Advised them of the location of the vehicle and NIA file number relating
to the fleeing driver event.

11

NOTE: To subsequently review the results of the SOCO examination, the forensic case notes
made by the SOCO examiner wil  be attached under the Forensic Node in the NIA file.  These
notes wil  state whether the identity of any person was identified during the examination.

74.  Ensure all identified person(s) are linked to the NIA file.

75.  Complete follow up enquiries in relation to person(s) identified as a result of the forensic
examination to determine their relationship with the vehicle and/or people.

76.  s.6(c)

77.  Conduct an interview based on the Best Practice Interviewing Suspects Guidelines.

78.  Where the evidential sufficiency and public interest tests detailed in the Solicitor General’s
Prosecution Guidelines are met, charge the person with the initial offence identified, failing to
stop and any associated offending.

79.  Create the appropriate summons / arrest / youth aid / alternative resolution file and submit for
supervisor endorsement and direction.
1982 to Ti Lamusse

80.  Attach all relevant documentation to the NIA file at case level

81.  If the person(s) identified in the forensic examination lives in a dif erent geographical area of New
Zealand, create a NIA part file and submit to a supervisor for forwarding to the appropriate District
to locate and interview.

82.  If the registered person refuses to provide information to Police as required under Section 118(4)
of the Land Transport Act 1998, refer to the ‘Details of Driver not supplied to Police’ section of
this document.

83.  Where the fleeing driver is identified, but is still required to be located, consider digital signage
or a FLINT if there is potential risk  o the public or Police.

Police under the OIA
84.  Enter either a ‘Sought’ or ‘WTI’ alert in NIA, with the text: Required to be arrested / interviewed
in relation to a fleeing driver event at [time] on [date] in [place].
85.  Provide direction in the NIA entry about how the information is to be submitted to the Of icer in
Charge of the file.

86.  If Police establish the vehicle was used in a fleeing driver event and the offender is not the
registered owner, a non-operation order may be affixed under Section 248 of the Land Transport
Act 1998   This prohibits the vehicle from being driven on a road until such time as it has been
registered in the name and current address of the owner.

87.  Update the NIA narrative detailing ac
by New Zealand  tion taken.
District Review and Monitoring
88.  The file holder’s immediate supervisor is responsible for monitoring and reviewing the timeliness
and quality of the fleeing driver investigation in NIA.

89.  Each D
Released  istrict wil nominate a person who is responsible for auditing and monitoring all fleeing
driver investigation files.  In many cases this wil  be the person responsible for reviewing the
District’s Fleeing Driver Notifications.

12

90.  District oversight wil  ensure that fleeing driver investigations are progressed in a timely manner,
meet a consistently high standard of investigation and effectively mitigate the risk fleeing drivers
pose to our communities by identifying and holding offending drivers to account.

91.  As part of the audit and review process, the District reviewer wil  ensure that:

a.  There is a corresponding NIA investigation file for every fleeing driver notification.

b.  On completion of the District Review, the Fleeing Driver Notification form is printed as a
PDF document and attached to the NIA file.

c.  The correct offence code has been used to assist with the national audit process.

d.  Investigations are of a high standard and follow the Fleeing Driver Investigation Practice
Guide.

e.  Feedback is provided to the supervisor to acknowledge good practice, and to address
any identified areas for improvement.

1982 to Ti Lamusse

Police under the OIA
by New Zealand
Released

13

APPENDIX A

Legal Memorandum relating to General Principles of Search and Inventory
1.
Police are entitled to search a vehicle they have impounded in order to make an inventory
of personal property for the benefit of the owners of the vehicle or owners of the property.
Police are entitled to search the vehicle without warrant provided they do so reasonably
and for the purpose of preserving property and identifying its owner. Searches  of this
nature conducted reasonably  and for these purposes, will not breach Section 21 of the
NZ Bil  of Rights Act.

2.
Police have a discretionary common law duty to take possession of items of property in
circumstances where an owner is unable to take steps to secure the safety of that
property.

3.
Where there is no immediate or imminent danger to the impounded vehicle and there is
a high possibility that the property in the vehicle would be stolen, lost or damaged if left
unprotected, the public have a legitimate expectation that Police wil  secure and care for
that property.

1982 to Ti Lamusse
4.
When Police take action to protect or preserve property but not in connection with any actual
or anticipated criminal offending, Police becomes a bailee and is under a legal obligation to
keep the property safe and if possible, return the property to the owner. The legal obligation
arises from the decision to take responsibility for the property, regardless of whether the
owner's identity is known or not.

5.
If it is necessary to conduct a search of the property to ascertain its ownership and/or its
nature, that search must not be done unreasonably.  An excessive search or one conducted
for an ulterior purpose, for example to obtain evidence of criminal offending, would not be
reasonable and indeed may be unlawful.  But if a police officer is genuinely acting for the
predominant purpose of preservation of property, the fact that he or she may suspect wrong-
doing associated with  the  property wil  not, in itself, make the dealing with the property either
unlawful or unreasonable at common law or under Section 21 of the New Zealand Bil  of Rights
Act.
Police under the OIA

a.  If an occupant of an impounded vehicle denies ownership or knowledge of property
located in the vehicle, Police can legitimately inspect the contents in order to
ascertain the description of the property and the identity of its owner.

b.  If, in the course of examining property in an impounded vehicle, an officer finds
evidence of criminal offending, any relevant power to search without warrant under
the Search and Surveil ance Act should immediately be engaged so that that
evidence can be examined and seized lawful y.
by New Zealand
Released

14

Feedback received
Reference
OCGG/20/32
Title
Fleeing driver events: Investigation Practice Guide
Date paper sent for
Wednesday 23 September 2020
1982 to Ti Lamusse
consultation

In the table below, please record the names of those people consulted, their feedback and your action or recommendations. Please clearly state if no response is received from any
parties. If consultation has not been undertaken, a full explanation must be provided on the Cover Sheet.
Key themes
Feedback provided
Action taken or recommended following the
feedback
Support for the paper  Overall, feedback received was positive, with all submit ers expressing

support for the paper and the investigative process detailed.
  •  The practice outlined wil possibly have an impact on reducing
the number of fleeing driver events occurring in our District,
which result in D&SI as a result of the incident.

Police under the OIA
•  The suggested best practise may positively affect the number of
District vehicles intentionally rammed or damaged as a result of
Fleeing Driver incidents.
  •  We support it as positive step forward.
  •  The document clearly identifies actions to be taken and avenues
for enquiry which should provide some consistency.  It would be
good to see more emphasis on the follow up investigation as
these aren’t always completed as they should be.  This may be
addressed in the proposed audi
by New Zealand t process.


15
Released

  •  The practice guide looks good.  The intent of this paper and the
process described are very worthy and thorough. Any steps we
can take to reduce the risk posed by fleeing driver incidents are
worth the ef ort.
1982 to Ti Lamusse

•  This is an extremely sound initiative and aligns with delivering
what the public expect and deserve – especially in reducing
harm to communities and groups where we need to increase
positive interactions e.g. Youths, Māori.
  •  This is great thank you, makes perfect sense.
  •  This has significant frontline safety benefits via giving us more
time to investigate fleeing drivers for potential threats before we
pursue.
  •  Fully supportive – the policy strikes me as being very
comprehensive too, and that’s great.
Police under the OIA

•  We have identified poor investigation practice as a key failing in
identifying offenders, [so this wil  support efforts] to improve our
overall performance.

Resource implications  While supportive of the intent and objectives of the paper, some
A high percentage of fleeing driver events are

reservations were expressed about the resourcing required to carry out  already resolved by way of investigation (30%),
fleeing driver investigations.
however any potential increase in resource

required is difficult to quantify.
•  I would have thought that completing an investigation into a

fleeing driver event is a consider
by New Zealand  ably longer and more resource- Arguably, an increased emphasis on resolving
intensive process than a pursuit?
fleeing driver events by way of investigation may
result in time and cost savings.

16
Released

Eastern
Currently, when someone is injured or kil ed as a
It is resource intensive and wil  require co-ordination across shifts, as
result of a pursuit, Police commit significant
many of these are night shifts and then they go onto days off. This
resources to the criminal investigation and any
makes it challenging to identify who would hold the file.
subsequent prosecution, the IPCA investigation,

the employment investigation, and the coronial
1982 to Ti Lamusse
There is work that ISU could potentially do but with everything this
inquiry, as well as the media response and
would mean a review of priorities
engagement with the victim’s family.

Counties Manukau
From a welfare perspective we also need to factor
in welfare officer time, leave and rehabilitation
1.  The number of Fleeing Driver incidents within our District are
time if one of our people is physically or
considerable, and the subsequent investigation process as
psychologically injured as a result of the pursuit.
proposed would impact and capability.

The broader social cost per fatality is $4.56
2.  In our current environment, frontline staff (who are predominantly  million.  For non-fatal injuries, the average social
the engaging unit) wil  not have time outside of their BAU to give  cost is estimated at $477,600 per serious injury
sufficient investigation action to these incidents.  Bearing in mind  and $25,500 per minor injury.3
that some units may be involved in several fleeing driver

incidents in one shift.
The comparison is a simple investigation and
Police under the OIA

prosecution file, versus criminal / IPCA /
3.  Due to their inexperience, they would not be capable of
employment investigations, media headlines that
completing the entire investigation, which as suggested would
negatively impact trust and confidence in Police,
need Search Warrant applications being prepared, cell-phone
grieving family, friends, colleagues and an
warrants, and visits to various addresses to locate vehicle
avoidable death.
owners and possible driver suspects….whilst continuing their

frontline BAU   They simply do not have the skil  or experience,
In the national hui there was debate about who
nor the time in a frontline PST position.
should hold the investigation file.  Some Districts

wanted these to go to their enquiry office, but not

all Districts have an enquiry office.

by New Zealand

3 https://www.transport.govt.nz/mot-resources/road-safety-resources/roadcrashstatistics/social-cost-of-road-crashes-and-injuries/

17
Released

4.  Currently RP staff do follow up inquiries and Search warrants
The alternative view was that the investigation file
with ISR suspects, and this severely impacts on their BAU.  If
should sit with the officers initiating the pursuit
they were to conduct investigations into the Fleeing Driver
except in exceptional circumstances (e.g. crash or
events they initiate, it would severely impact RP productivity.
fatal pursuit, which generally sit with CIB).
1982 to Ti Lamusse

5.  Fleeing Drivers need to be held accountable, but we would need  There was further discussion that the
a dedicated position/s to effectively investigate files for fleeing
investigation practice guide should not be
drivers.
prescriptive about the ‘how’, but rather allow each

District to determine how to allocate their
6.  By having a single point, they can be easily monitored as
resources, dependant on structure and demand,
suggested in #89 for compliance to the process and good
to achieve the desired outcome.
investigation procedure. Increased knowledge of the process

would lead to more streamlined and effective investigations.

7.  I would suggest 2 x FTE in ISU to undertake the investigation
process to hold the fleeing driver accountable, if the unit who
initiated the pursuit could not resolve it on the shift.

Police under the OIA
Consistent approach  It was noted the paper was not specific about how fleeing driver events
Refer above.
to assigning files
would be assigned for investigation.

  •  What’s our expectation about how the matters are passed on to
investigation / enquiry units?
  •  A nationally consistent (at the very least a TM consistent)
approach to assigning these files for investigation [would be
useful].

  by New Zealand

18
Released

For example, if a car registered to Orewa is pursued in Papakura
who should hold the investigation? And which workgroup wil
take on the investigations?  These matters could be prescribed
at a national level to set clear expectations.
1982 to Ti Lamusse

Priority of
How to prioritise fleeing driver investigations against competing demand  Paragraphs 36 – 39 added to include a
Investigations
was raised several times.
recommendation that all offence codes relating to

fleeing drivers be assigned a case category of
•  I’d like to see the policy address the priority of these
‘Critical’.
investigations from a case management perspective.

•  What priority wil  be afforded to these [investigations] against
other demand?

Case Management
It was noted that robust case management wil  be required to ensure
Paragraph 42 added.

files are resolved within appropriate timeframes.

A new reporting platform is being developed for
Feedback identified that national reporting would be useful to assist with  Fleeing Driver Notifications.  This is expected to
Police under the OIA
oversight and monitoring of investigations.
be operational by April 2021.  There wil  be

internal reporting built into the programme, and
•  It would be helpful if a reporting tool (Business Objects or SAS)
SAS reporting will also be available.
could be built and sent out to Districts on a monthly basis to

assist with the auditing to ensure consistency and accountability.  An interim solution wil  be explored.

•  Central District provided a potential solution for consideration.

The following suggestion was proposed to enhance the audit process:

•  With the large number of PREC c
by New Zealand  odes for actual offences
Work is underway with the Police Emergency
available, could we have a new incident code for any fleeing
Centres and Assurance Group, Strategy and

Service to identify the best solution.

19
Released

driver event?  I would propose 6U (close to 1U but stil  distinct),
Currently the code ‘PURS’ is used in CARD,
which is currently not in use.
which enables the transfer of event data from

CARD through to NIA.
Then any fleeing driver event, regardless of what the correct
1982 to Ti Lamusse
offence PREC code might be, could be entered 6U into CARD
A fleeing driver event is not able to be recoded by
by Comms, which would streamline the data retrieval/review
officers via mobility, however these events can be
process.
recoded by the Police Emergency Centres on

request.  For example, where an elderly driver is
A failsafe could be included whereby a 6U could not be recoded  not aware of the Police signal to stop, or in the
or K1d without supervisor approval (much the same as 5Fs
event of a visiting driver, who did not understand
currently).  With the opportunity to conduct this review on
the correct action to take when signalled to stop.
procedure and with the high risk fleeing driver  ncidents pose, as
well as to promote and allow for a robust auditing process, I
would think a mandatory supervisor approval for recode is
appropriate and would also look good from an external scrutiny
(i.e. IPCA) point of view.

Language and format  Policy Group provided recommendations for rewording to enhance
Recommendations incorporated as appropriate.
Police under the OIA

clarity.

The Police Instructions team identified the term ‘good practice’ is
Paper amended to Fleeing Drivers: Investigation
preferable to ‘best practice’.
Practice Guide and all references updated.

The Police Instructions team also identified significant repetition that

occurs under different fleeing driver results / situations.

•  The policy could be significantly reduced in content if [we could]
The working group discussed the issue of
process map and convert to tables. This would deliver enhanced  repetition, but felt it was helpful for people to be
readability to users and when added to the Fleeing Driver policy  able to follow through the process for a given
by New Zealand
wil  have consistent style and language.
situation i.e. vehicle located public place.

20
Released

Once the Fleeing Driver: Investigation Practice
Guide has been approved, we will work with the
Police Instructions team to integrate the content
into the Fleeing Driver Policy in a way that
ensures consistency and maximises readability.
1982 to Ti Lamusse

Alternative
A question was raised around whether an additional recommendation
If an offence carries a penalty of mandatory
Resolutions
be made that this change is specifically considered as part of Te Pae
disqualification, then only the Courts have

Oranga/Community panels, to see if changes can be made to
jurisdiction.
accommodate.

Contravention of section 114 of the Land
Transport Act 1998 (i.e. failing to stop or remain
stopped when signalled to do so) carries a
mandatory period of disqualification.

However, paragraph 7 of the Fleeing Driver:
Investigation Guide refers to alternative
resolutions. Te Pae Oranga has been added as a
specific example for consideration.
Police under the OIA
Legislative Change
Feedback received from one District was that legislative change would
Forwarded to the Policy and Partnerships team

assist with the investigation process, enabling a greater number of
for assessment and follow up.  Response below.
offending drivers to be identified.

Registration to ‘persons unknown’
•  It is currently the purchaser’s responsibility to change ownership  This is an interesting proposal. We’l  get this
of the vehicle   As a result, a significant number of vehicles on
logged on the issues register for further work
the road are registered to ‘persons unknown’. This is regularly  given it clearly relates to supporting investigations
seen when dealing with impounded vehicles.  This wil
into fleeing drivers and our shifting preference
automatically result in the investigation being halted.  Therefore,  towards this, rather than pursuit.
I believe legislative change needs to occur to place the onus on

by New Zealand
the vehicle seller to ensure correct ownership of the vehicle is
Other options being explored in terms of
recorded.
legislative change include:

21
Released

Comment was made that the judiciary regularly ‘convict and discharge’
-  Minimum sentencing option (penalty) for
defendants for failing to stop matters.
failing to stop

•  Until there is a decent penalty in place, there is no accountability.
-  Minimum non-concurrently served
1982 to Ti Lamusse
There is not even any point in following up with a prosecution,
imprisonment for intentionally driving at an
but we do.
enforcement officer or emergency worker,

including the ramming of a police car
It was also noted that if the owner or driver fails to provide details it’s a

fine only penalty through the courts.
-  Vehicle seizure for vehicle owners who fail

to identify driver details of a vehicle that
•  It would be a benefit is a change could be made to the penalty
has failed to stop
for a breach of 118(4).

-  A change to the penalty for a breach of
118(4)

Police under the OIA
by New Zealand

22
Released