Plod can gather evidence wherever they find it whilst investigating a possible offence. Where a warrant fits into the picture I would have to defer to a higher authority.
They need a warrant to gain access to your house for a search. You could also construe your car as being a private space (which it pretty much is). I can't see how they could seize your GPS just because they wanted to, but then I'm not a lawyer.
Cops with cameras type programs have no problem stopping and searching cars. I have no doubt that seizing a GPS would be well within the rules if it was in the investigation of a suspected offence. Without supporting evidence I don't think it would stand up in a court of law for speeding. Maybe andyb might like to comment ?
Matt - get caught on the first flash, but not the second, and you'll still get nicked - as they can show that you would have to have been travelling way over the limit to get out of shot in such a short time. I seem to remember from To Gear's experiment on this that if you are travelling over 185 then you don't even appear on the first flash - that's the way to go ! (Not that I could possibly condone or encourage such reckless behaviour, obviously...)
Makes me laugh that a perfectly sensible geezer can do porridge for the crime of going too fast, yet some twat who breaks into your house and steals your possessions gets sent on fucking safari! Tell a lie, it doesn't make me laugh, it makes me puke.
i think you need to be poking at the people the evidence is presented to then not the evidence gatherers.....
Search warrants are about access to private premises (houses, factories, offices, shops, etc) and each search warrant is authorised by a judge or magistrate for a specific purpose, i.e. to gather evidence in connection with some specific suspected offence. A car is not premises, and nor is a bike.
Never mind the technology installed in the car/bike, the phone in your pocket can supply a lot of information about where you have been and what you were doing. That can also be evidence. For example: a driver caught up in an accident on M1 not her fault - police check her phone records - find she had been speaking on the phone while driving along 10 miles previously - prosecution - found guilty on the phone evidence.
Pete how can they had proved she was not using it hands free? People are so often so naive, and just admit guilt instantly.
So true. There is a movement coprocessor in the more recent iPhones which surely records the speed it is travelling at. Nasty, once a vote goes through Parliament that the forces or law and order should be able to access it. After all, if you're not guilty, you can't have anything to hide...
The sooner we are all doing less than the speed limit, the sooner the death and serious injury tolls on our roads will dwindle away to nothing. Good Goat, I'm all tingly with the thought of how safe we'll all be. I've got fucking goosebumps.
The point was not about how often this happens (so far), or about the likelihood of prosecution. The point was about what might constitute evidence, what information phones hold, and what the consequences of that might be.
To a wear some questions raised, yes the police can confiscate a satnav, but they would only do so in the worst accident cases. The satnav will show where and when and at what speed you were doing,average speeds don't count,you might stop for fuel etc. but if it shows you were doing 130 mph in a 30 zone,that is dangerous or reckless driving. If you have an accident or worse, then that is counted as a form of evidence.
