shift comander and vki

[bradley]

can any1 tell me what i.m.s stands for when a transit guard asks for a name check.and does shift comander have access to every1s details just like vki and wapol does.

[htfuc]

Thats correct. Shift Commander as well as some supervisors on the rail network have access to IMS, or Incident Management System, which in the past was referred to as, N.I.S or Name Inquiry System.

All staff, not including Wilsons Bus Security, but including CHUBB Revenue Staff are able to request a name check via Shift Commander for the purpose of verifying given details.

However, CHUBB Revenue officers have no legal power in any way to detain you once you have provided a Name, Address and Date of Birth. Once you have supplied them those details you may be on your merry way. Any attempt by them to detain you while they verify those details would constitute an unlawful detainment.

[bradley]

thanks for that.

[htfuc]

Not a problem. The easiest way to indentify who is requesting your details is to look at the badge on their shirt. If you see anything other than Transit Officer, once you have supplied details you are free to leave.

-htfuc

[written_ficton]

Not a problem. The easiest way to indentify who is requesting your details is to look at the badge on their shirt. If you see anything other than Transit Officer, once you have supplied details you are free to leave.

-htfuc

Quite frankly beside the relevant authoritys [WAPOL comes to mind] and including the Transit Guards I would have thought you could decline to give name / address details if requested and simply walk away? I can be proven wrong though, but I see no need for a member of the public or 'security' or 'customer service' have the right to ask for your name & details as simply they do not have authority?....

[robbage]

Quite frankly beside the relevant authoritys [WAPOL comes to mind] and including the Transit Guards I would have thought you could decline to give name / address details if requested and simply walk away? I can be proven wrong though, but I see no need for a member of the public or 'security' or 'customer service' have the right to ask for your name & details as simply they do not have authority?....

I'm fairly sure you are required to provide reasonable proof of identity to police when requested

[written_ficton]

Quite frankly beside the relevant authoritys [WAPOL comes to mind] and including the Transit Guards I would have thought you could decline to give name / address details if requested and simply walk away? I can be proven wrong though, but I see no need for a member of the public or 'security' or 'customer service' have the right to ask for your name & details as simply they do not have authority?....

I'm fairly sure you are required to provide reasonable proof of identity to police when requested

I know the police & transit officers.... but what I am saying is the customer service officers etc

[htfuc]

For your info

57. Obtaining details of certain offenders
(1) A person who is a security officer or an authorised person may
investigate —
(a) an offence against this Act; or

(b) an offence referred to in section 58(2) committed in the
circumstances described in that provision,
and that person’s office is prescribed for the purposes of the
Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 and in
particular the definition of “public officer” in section 3 of that
Act.

(2) The person may exercise powers under the Criminal
Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 Part 3 but only in
relation to a person’s personal details as defined in
subsection (3).

(3) In subsection (2) —
personal details means —
(a) the person’s full name;
(b) the person’s date of birth;
(c) the address of where the person is living;
(d) the address of where the person usually lives.

Now in this case, a Security Officer and/or an Authorised Person is a Customer Service Officer, Passenger Ticketing Assistant, Revenue Officer, or Transit Officer.

However, the only people who have the Authority to detain you should they beleive the details to be insufficient or false, is a Transit Officer. Any other employee of the PTA has no legal authority at all to detain you.

Also bear in mind, that recently there has been some conjecture in relation to the power that Transit Officers hold under the CI Act, or Criminal Identification (Identifying Peoples Act), and the fact that they are not Authorised Officers under this Act. All this means is they are unable to proceed with preferring a charge or Providing False, or Failing to Provide Personal Details, under the CI Act. They are however able to prefer a charge of Obstruction under the PTA Regulations.

-htfuc

[robbage]

For your info

57. Obtaining details of certain offenders

How do they determine whether a person is an offender or not... due process, reasonable suspicion or... I guess he mighta done something.

Anyway.. interesting information and it seems to match up pretty closely with the U.S. code.

I was following a thread written by a guy in the U.S. who was asked by store security to prove the item he had in his possession was purchased. He decided to be a twit and ignore the guard. Long story short, the guy had a receipt but decided to assert his right to proceed, the security guard detained him, the police came, they also detained him and in the long run, the guy was in the right to tell them to all go jump except for supplying ID to the police. Was it worth it? I don't think so. The other thing to came from it was that if somebody decides to inspect your bags or pockets, you can politely decline unless they are going to arrest you, or have you arrested. If they do, they better have reasonable grounds. (In the US anyway)

[htfuc]

For your info

57. Obtaining details of certain offenders

How do they determine whether a person is an offender or not... due process, reasonable suspicion or... I guess he mighta done something.

Anyway.. interesting information and it seems to match up pretty closely with the U.S. code.

I was following a thread written by a guy in the U.S. who was asked by store security to prove the item he had in his possession was purchased. He decided to be a twit and ignore the guard. Long story short, the guy had a receipt but decided to assert his right to proceed, the security guard detained him, the police came, they also detained him and in the long run, the guy was in the right to tell them to all go jump except for supplying ID to the police. Was it worth it? I don't think so. The other thing to came from it was that if somebody decides to inspect your bags or pockets, you can politely decline unless they are going to arrest you, or have you arrested. If they do, they better have reasonable grounds. (In the US anyway)

57. Obtaining details of certain offenders
(1) A person who is a security officer or an authorised person may
investigate —
(a) an offence against this Act;

So if an authorised person, or security guard as defined in Sect 56 of the Public Transport Authority Act can investigate an offence against the act if they a) Witness the offence, or b) Have a complainant in regards to an offence.

Minor matters like Ticketing Offences are easy to prove because the onus is on the Member of Public to produce a "Valid Ticket" on request.

-htfuc

[written_ficton]

Its all right throwing the certain laws around but as robbage wrote.

If say a) the security guard detains you because simply you declined to show them your bag and the cops are called. If the security guard isnt 100% certain you have stole something and it proves otherwise then the company the security guard works for and the shop would be up for damages....

Rule of thumb generally beside transit officers and WAPOL, Federal police etc you dont have to give names & details out unless you want to, nor do they have power to detain you.

[htfuc]

Perhaps I'm not making it clear enough. Any person, who is appointed by the CEO of the Public Transport Authority, as an Authorised Officer, or Security Guard, Under Sect 56 of the Public Transport Authority Act 2003, has the legislative authority to ask you for your Name, Address and Date of Birth, in relation to offences against the Public Transport Authority Act or it's regulations.

What Robbage was referring to, in my opinion is a case of general security guards who are employed under the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996. They have no power to ask for your details should they beleive you have committed an offence, and are purely employed under a "Observe and Report" mentality.

I'm not "throwing the certain laws around" just defining what I previously stated. Under relevant legislation certain people are entitled to ask you for your Personal Details.

-htfuc

[written_ficton]

No....

I understand the Transit Guards [Security Guards have no power of arrest?] but what I am saying is that anything other than Transit Guards no-one has 'legally' the right to ask for your details and you can simply walk away.

Although if they detain you, then they are going to be up sh** creek

[htfuc]

Thats simply not true Written Fiction......You need to thoroughly read what I am saying.....Although what I am saying only applies to the Public Transport system, I would be hard pressed to beleive that the Public Transport Authority Act is the only act that bestows any legal authority for "Authorised Persons" to ask for certain details.

Agencies like Fisheries, Customs, Rangers, FESA would be likened in authority under relevant legislative powers to ask people for their Name, Address and Date of Birth.

To assume that noone but Transits or Police are legally entitled to request such details is naive and a dangerous way to approach such an issue.

-htfuc

[written_ficton]

I should have expanded my etc

Of course Customs / Rangers etc are allowed to ask for personal details and have part power of detain under certain circumstances but what I am trying to say and what I think is true is that beside the Transit officers under the PTA only Transit Guards have the power to arrest / detain and ask for details?