KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: UNDERSTANDING THE LAW AROUND TAPING THE TTPS

[00:00:00] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. [00:00:04] Speaker B: The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5. [00:00:08] Speaker A: You see the gentleman in studio with me. This is a very serious conversation here and it's understanding the law. A wrong taping of the Trinidad and Tobago Police service in the in their tour of duty. Our guest is Zahir Ali, attorney at law, police officer and director. Oh, Davey boy, you killing me with these sex toys and condom talk. Yes. My girls are in the car 5 and 6 and we listen after this interview. Listen folks, I didn't see anything that was, you know. Let me bring in the goodly officer boy. He's in the studio. Good morning. Just pull that mic for you. The mic? Yeah, go ahead and pull it to you. You can adjust it and just bring it down if you want to, right? No, bring it up to your mouth, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah, let's bring it to you can adjust. Right. So good morning to you, Officer Zaheer. [00:00:57] Speaker B: Well, good morning to you, Davey. It's, I must say it's a pleasure, it's an honor to be here this morning. [00:01:01] Speaker A: Indeed. So thank you so much. [00:01:03] Speaker B: It's unfortunately that, you know, I'm going to deal with or respond to a very sensitive matter and it's my maiden voyage on this particular programs. But keep up the good work as always. [00:01:11] Speaker A: Welcome on board, man. Glad to have you, man. Glad to have you. Glad to have you. [00:01:15] Speaker B: My pleasure. [00:01:16] Speaker A: Before I go forward, I mean we're going to talk about recording of police officers. I'm not going to ask anything where active investigations is happening. But you are sitting down here as an adult. You have been, no, he has been in the studio with me before the news and stuff. So I want, did I say anything on air that would be disrespectful or distasteful to children in a car with. [00:01:38] Speaker B: Their parents listening to you? Davi, I mean I wasn't here for the entire process. [00:01:43] Speaker A: But what you heard. [00:01:44] Speaker B: But from what I heard, you know, it's a matter where you are in your media capacity. You are speaking about the issues that are facing Trinidad and Tobago. And I'm sure every stakeholder will be interested in matter. But you know, from my recollection, I didn't think that you went, you know, beyond what you know, you are jurisdicted to do in terms of bringing the issues to the people of Trinidad and Tobago. But what I'll say to you is that if perhaps there may have been kids in vehicles is this unfortunate and you know, I'll apologize to you, to them in terms of raising issues that is of benefit to the people of Trinidad and Tobago. [00:02:13] Speaker A: And I thank you for that. The thing about it is we have to have conversation with our children. We are no longer living in an era where we continue to taboo down the thing. We must talk about it respectfully and age appropriate information. And by that, even if you're speaking to your children about their body parts, I encourage you to use the correct terms and let the children know. [00:02:33] Speaker B: All right. [00:02:33] Speaker A: Age appropriate information. And if you choose to carry a children down for carnival, that's on you as a parent. Kitty's carnival is Saturday. It had Kitty's carnival weekend gone. [00:02:45] Speaker B: Go there. [00:02:46] Speaker A: All right. Good morning to you again, Officer Ali, Attorney Ali, Director Ali. Three hats in one. And I love that. I love the fact that you can multitask. This topic is one that has been in the media for quite some time. Not just with recently with the renewed calls about it, but in times gone by where officers, where a person is recording, you know, what does the law permit with taking somebody's image? And I'll tell you why I asked that question so you could think about it. If a news item is happening, an accident or murder takes place and the news camera, CNC3 News shows up on the scene and starts recording persons in the background, they're not required to get your permission for your image to appear on tv. This is a news item, they're recording the accident. If a commercial, a television show or something else is being shot and you are in the background, we are required to get your permission. We are required to hand your talent forms or release images forms fit assigned, given the media house or the promoter, whoever, permission to use your image as the law. Right. That's supposed to be the case. So one police officer on one occasion with one circulating video says, you need my permission to record me and went after the person's camera phone. It, it was damaged. I saw it. It happened on the. With some incident. What does the law require where these things are concerned? [00:04:14] Speaker B: So Davi, before I respond to that question, permit me, please. I need to, I need to place and correct the public record. It's something that would have transpired over the last couple of days. And I want to thank you and the producer, Melissa. Yeah. For the opportunity to do this. David, let me say at the outset that with reference to this topic, in terms of recording police officers, I made previous public comments and statements just now. [00:04:39] Speaker A: Let me start you out. Okay, so you want to talk about recording police officers? Go ahead. [00:04:44] Speaker B: Yeah. So in terms of the, the issue of recording police officers. I made previous public comments and statements on this matter on other media houses. And over the last couple days, I recognized that I was alerted to inaccurate and materially misrepresented headline of on the online social media platform, which attracted a lot of derogatory statements and also even threats in my personal and professional capacity. Now I need to set the record very, very clear. And I also take this opportunity to impress upon not only the formal media, but the social media users to be responsible exercise responsible journalism. Now, I was very clear when the honorable Justice Frank Si Pasad issued statements calling on the citizenry to record police officers. And may I make it abundantly clear, or I should say pellucidly clear, which has been a favorite word these days that I welcome. The honorable Justice Frank CPASAD called to record police officers and I understood where he was going in the direction of protecting the public purse because emerging from that particular matter, the state incurred damages, costs that had to be paid out to the claimant. Secondly, I recognized that he was promoting the rule of law in terms of ensuring that there's full transparency and accountability where police actions are concerned. I mean, I might not be naive to what's happening currently in Trinidad and Tobago, but as an officer of the court, I recognize that there is, there was a need to strike a fair balance to ensure that that option, that discretion that has been afforded to the public is exercised responsibly in a given situation. And this is where I went down to basically indicate that one, that if the citizenry are not careful in terms of or responsible in exercising that option and discretion, they can land themselves or commit serious criminal offenses under the Police Service act as amended. We are speaking about things in summary. Obstruction, threatening, impeding, intimidating, and matters along those lines. Secondly, in exercising that option and that discussion, I also ask the citizenry to consider that their safety, especially where there may be a low light, dark conditions, their safety can be placed at prejudice or even the persons around them in terms of when they're exercising that option, which calls for very careful consideration. And finally, I spoke about ensuring that crime scenes are not compromised or prejudice to ensure that there is successful prosecution and convictions, because the public interest also requires successful prosecutions and convictions. Could you imagine, Davy, that a crime is committed against you or your family? As a person, you will need the police to ensure that they do a diligent, thorough investigation and be able to raise all the available evidence to be able to bring justice to you, to your family, and by extension, the people of Trinidad and Tobago. So it was very clear that I welcome, in summary, the statements of the honorable Judge and I basically offered, and I want to make this point, offered, further positions, all geared towards promoting the right safety and security of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago and by extension, the police officers. When I heard and I was alerted to the misrepresented, inaccurate headline on social media and the derogatory statements that flowed from it, including threats. As I said before, I want to also recognize that I was forced to make communication with the media houses that was responsible and caused an immediate removal of the headline and a headline that was replaced consistent with what appeared in the Duly newspaper. So that we. [00:08:36] Speaker A: Well, let me ask you, before you go forward, the listening public. [00:08:40] Speaker B: Yes. [00:08:41] Speaker A: Can you say what that headline was? Because I read the article where you were cautioning citizens about being careful with using your cell phone or taking your cell phone out because it can be seen as a weapon. [00:08:52] Speaker B: Yes. [00:08:52] Speaker A: Explain to persons what this headline read that caused you to contact media houses to rectify the issue. [00:08:58] Speaker B: Yes. The headline read, and I quote, pulling phone on police could land you in jail, warns Ali. End quote. Very, very serious headline. Now this, if any person may have had the opportunity to read the article that appeared in the daily newspaper would have recognized that it was inaccurate and materially misrepresented the substance and the balance position that was taken. So if you're looking at this just in its entirety, the issue is not about pulling phone. What should have been appearing here is irresponsible conduct can land you into consequences along those lines. But do not, do not, do not omit me indicating to the public the need for a responsible application or the option of recording police officers. So, all right, this is what alarmed, I guess, the citizenry, and this is why I am here this morning to correct that particular position. [00:09:53] Speaker A: All right, so in clarity, you didn't say that taking out your phone could land you in jail. That is not the. That is. That was wrong. You are actually encouraging persons to use their phones and record police officers from a safe distance in the execution of their duties. I want to be clear. [00:10:14] Speaker B: Most certainly, Davy. And I want to endorse that, that my call was not to suppress the citizens from having the option to use their phones to record police officers. What I did is ask them to be responsible in exercising that option and that discretion so as to promote their own safety, their security, and to avoid a breach of the laws of Trinidad and Tobago. So it was deeply embedded to protect them, promote their interests, not suppress their interests. [00:10:41] Speaker A: All right, so let's talk about these laws that you're talking about, you say it was to protect them, the laws against breaching any laws. What are some of the laws persons can breach in taking their phones and recording police officers? [00:10:54] Speaker B: Great, great question. So I'll take you immediately to the Police Service act as amended, section 59. And may I say, even in the article and my public comments and statements, I cited that statutory provision to guide members of the public. And that basically simply says that particular provision, a person who obstructs, impedes, intimidates or threaten a police officer in the execution of his official duties may commit a criminal offense that attracts a penalty of 10 years and a fine. So the immediately it was to identify that it wasn't to suppress or say that you cannot do it, but if you are doing it, you must be cognizant. You must be aware that if you are not aware of section 59 in terms of the obstructing, the impeding, the intimidating and the threatening, you can be landing yourself in a situation where you may have to answer very serious questions. So that basically was the statutory provision, and let me quote the statutory provision that came in 2019, not too far ago, to be able to ensure that there was a proper balance, ensuring that the police do their work for the members of the public and to ensure at the same time that the public are not caught in the line where they are actually trampling on a crime scene or obstructing the police. In other words, causing the police to deviate from what they came to do and have to deal with you. Those were the things that I placed in the public domain. So I want to urge the members of the public, Davy, and perhaps I probably will lean on you as well for further support with this Section 59, as amended in the Police Service act, to continue to bring it to the attention of the public. Because I want the public to be able to hold the police accountable and there must be full transparency, especially in the given situation. However, in doing so, I want to ensure that they do not run afoul of the law or place their safety, are prejudiced. [00:12:43] Speaker A: All right, Examples of how somebody recording can interfere with police. I want you to give me examples, not just tell me impeding, for one, you know, you use the term impeding person may not understand what it means to impede someone's from executing their duty. Give some examples as to what they. If they pull out the phone and recording and you do this, this is what it means. [00:13:06] Speaker B: Well, perfect question, Davy. Let me answer it like this. The, the qualification I should say the exercise, while the law, was very broad and generic and you are right to be asking now to flesh those different operative words down so that the public can understand. I made a call for an immediate formulation of a policy that should be communicated to the citizenry so that they have a clear understanding as to what may ignite or impact that obstruction, impeding, intimidating, threatening and so forth. And I'll tell you why I'm saying that if I were to give and identify what is an obstruction, what is intimidation and a factual scenario, what you may have is that these matters should be impacted in my respect for view, by the nature of the crime. So you may find a situation where, if it's a crime of murder, and I'm giving this as an example, and a vehicle was involved and the vehicle was subsequently abandoned after the murder, you have the deceased maybe at a particular point, then you have the vehicle maybe about 30 or 100ft away, you may have spent shells, you may have. Matters may have been discarded. So what you may find if I use the, the, the mathematics and say, okay, 10ft, it may not be applicable for a particular nature crime or what a crime scene may entail. So what I want to say is that the policy that I call for will be able to clearly distinguish that when there's a crime scene, it should be clearly marked off. So that Whether it's a 10ft circumference, whether it's at 100ft, it will depend on what the police information is, what they are required to do in terms of the investigation, how wide they intend to go. Because you may have some situation, and we have seen that in first world countries you have sometimes entire street, entire neighborhood which is cordoned off because perpetrators may be coming to the crime and then using another way out. So you have two pieces, two pathways basically that you must secure because you can be finding very relevant and admissible evidence to help support your crime. So to answer your question, if I'm going to identify any given situation, I think that the policy will answer that clearly in terms of, based on the nature of the crime that we are dealing with, that will determine what the crime scene, what may be a possible obstruction. Now, as you did substruction, you use the issue of the phone, if I'm attending to you, Devi, let's say for example, you commit an act of obscene language and your producer, I'm engaging you, it was annoyance to the public and other persons in your vicinity and I approach you, I tell you of the offense and I move to arrest you and then your producer steps in with the phone, pushes the phone between you and myself that is always causing me now to not be focused on you. But now I have to deal with someone who is now obstructing me because they are what impeding or causing me to be redirected from the matter that I am dealing with in terms of the obscene language on the beach of the law. So that is the a simple example in terms of what an obstruction may be. Now let's compound that a little bit. You didn't only push the phone in my face, the police officer's face, that would affect the arrest. But then you said I will do for you, I will kill you. Those are now actions that are going to be accompanied by serious threats to be able to have the officer place in a level of fear or to cause him to be, to deviate from what he's obligated to do in law. So very simple examples, Davy. But I will trump it by saying that there's an immediate need for a policy to bring that particular provision into effect so that the public is fully aware that when they see a yellow tape I'm just giving a reference, it means that I need to stay away from that. I cannot encroach or go into that particular zone or if police officers are on the scene of a murder the senior officer will communicate clearly to everyone around in terms of what could be done and what cannot be done in a given circumstances. So that is the point that I want to drive home here this morning. [00:17:01] Speaker A: Loving it. So officers that we see attempting to grab citizens phones. [00:17:06] Speaker B: Yes. [00:17:07] Speaker A: And stop recording me. Door, record me. Give me that phone. And they want to snatch the phone even though the persons are a few feet away, they are not obstructing, they're quarreling. Officer, what you're doing? Don't touch the man. And they're recording. You're wicked. They ain't threatened. I'm just giving you a scenario. [00:17:24] Speaker B: Yes, yes. [00:17:25] Speaker A: In that instance, does the officer have the right to confiscate the phone if it is not obstructing and the person are trampling in the immediate vicinity of where the crime or the perpetrator or the suspect is. [00:17:36] Speaker B: Well, Davy, you have answered it. You have answered it. By the way that you have asked the question and the way that you have placed the matters into context. Once there is no obstruction, once there is no intimidation, once there is no impeding the police officer. When you are in the public domain and let me make this. And you were, you were very, very on point when you said it and I smiled when you were explaining the commercial aspect as opposed to a public interest on a crime issue. Once you are venturing into the public domain, you cannot be claiming an issue of privacy. And may I say that the police officer is executing not a private function, a public function. May I say that Sir Robert Peel quite in the 1900s said that the police is the public and the public is the police. What the public is doing is policing the public to ensure that there's full transparency and accountability. So persons who are not impacting the law has the full authority and autonomy, like the honorable judge would have indicated, to record the police officers. And especially so where I am not naive to the public calls for body cams and may I say as well, I'm a very strong advocate to ensure that body comes, are procured expeditiously and implemented to be able to ensure that there's full transparency and accountability. But in the public domain you cannot claim a privacy. So put persons who are recording police officers at a distance on where there is no impact to the criminal law, you are free to record the police officers. The issue arises when you are what we have just spoken about where you are now obstructing, intimidating, impeding and matters along these lines. So hence why I was very strong in my call that I welcome and I want to repeat this Devi please permit me. I welcome the Justice Frank Sipersad's call to record police officers. But I, as an officer of the court, I took the position to further the call to ensure that the citizenry are safe and secure. And I just want to make one example. You know, you excited me this morning in this studio, Davy, you know, in terms of your line of questions, any way we engage in discussion. I just wanted to digress a little bit from the citizenry who are listening to me this morning. And in the law we have a freedom of expression and opinion. Then why it is that there's an offense of obscene language if there's a right to freedom of expression. So that's number one. I'm bringing that to demonstrate that while you may have a constitutional right, this Parliament have recognized that if we allow that right to be absolute, an obscene language, if not looked at, can provoke persons to breach the peace. That's number one. Number two, end there's a freedom of the press. Why it is then that the law lords in England and which we are guided by, recognize, and I spoke about it this morning, the need to exercise responsible journalism. Why didn't it be an absolute situation and the courts have been very clear that the journalists and even the social media activists and users, we have seen judgments issued against them for derogatory statements. [00:20:36] Speaker A: Justice Frank himself too loving that guy. [00:20:39] Speaker B: Davey, you could not put it better. [00:20:41] Speaker A: Love that guy. [00:20:42] Speaker B: So the same Justice Frank Sipasar that gives the authority or call for the recording of the police officers, and quite rightly so, I want us to also look at the said Justice Frank Sipasad have pronounced in judgments they need to be responsible in terms of how we are publishing, republishing, circulating not only on the formal media, but even on the social media platform. So, you know, and Davy, I love this citizenry, you know, when I'm on other platforms is a citizenry that I defend with my heart. And when I saw what commentary came as a result of this inaccurate, materially misrepresented statement, it pained me. And I looked at it over the weekend and I say, you know, it's not unfortunate, but my citizens have been misled. [00:21:30] Speaker A: But listen, I got in here, Paul, when I read the article, I was like, is this man encouraging citizens to be scared now to take out their phone because it could be perceived as a gun, as a weapon? Are you trying to intimidate citizens in a very smart, technocratic way where you know what, be careful, they might pull out all your phone and they might seize a gun and shoot you? Yes, I wondered. And when I saw my producer talking to me yesterday about this interview, I felt happy because I think the man in the taxi, the conversationals in the barbershops, those in the rum shop that might drink a beer and talk about the issue, I think they were misguided by that headline and that entire article because I had a different opinion. [00:22:13] Speaker B: Well, Devi, you know, I have to look and see how these citizens respond to a situation. And if you see in a headline that is, you know, inaccurate and misrepresented and you know, sometimes person may not have the option or the opportunity to read the entire article immediately, you are attracting them to go down a particular direction. And we cannot be, as a country that is grappling for safety and security, we cannot be doing things in my respectful view that, you know, will invoke a misrepresented position. You, if you want to have the citizens be strong in exercising this option, give them all that they require. It's like a child who's going to write an SC exam. You do not only qualify the child in terms of what the child is going to write on the day of the exam, feed the child properly, let the Child sleep properly the night before. [00:23:00] Speaker A: So that's correct. You 10. [00:23:02] Speaker B: That's correct. So you have all the consideration. So I think that that's the point. I want to drive women to the citizenry. I'm speaking to you directly here that I understand that you know, that that sometimes people may maybe, you know, attracted or gravitated towards a headline like this. But I'm asking you, you know, kindly reconsider, look at it in depth, look at the matters that I've placed on the public domain on this particular platform and please be guided accordingly. Hold our police officers to account. Yes. But do not in the process place yourself at prejudice. [00:23:37] Speaker A: I love it. And this interview would be on our freedom social media page. It has been recorded, so we will have it finished, finalized and produced. And it will be there so persons can refer to it. It will be on Facebook, Instagram. You can check out our TikTok feeds as well. With this interview this morning, I'm now going to invite a couple calls. Respectfully, I don't. Do I have you for the next hour? You busy? I can keep you a little bit. [00:24:02] Speaker B: Well, Devi, you know, because I. [00:24:04] Speaker A: This information is important. [00:24:06] Speaker B: This opportunity that you have given me, I am very happy for it. And you know, and as I said before, this station, when I reached out, immediately recognized that there was an issue and brought the conversation on, I think it was last week, Thursday, to an immediate end. And I salute them for that. That is responsible journalism. [00:24:21] Speaker A: Of course. You see, sometimes we as radio pronouncers or presenters and media houses, we get it wrong and we're not perfect. We do our best to I, I, I. And I'll talk for myself. If I am sitting on the morning rumble here and I make a statement and I'll tell you one of the statements I made. There was a time I called for the then opposition leader Kamala Posad Bisesa to resign. Give up the thing, you can't. You're not winning. No elections. And then I had to eat my words and come back and say, madam, you have proven us wrong. Congratulations. So if I earn anyway, we say sorry. So if the article was misrepresented as misrepresented, your words, your thought process, I'm happy that you are here to correct that so the authors of these articles can get it real. And that's why we recorded it. So we want it to be clear, no misconception, no wrong interpretation as to what Zaheera Ali is saying this morning. Respectfully, good morning to you. [00:25:16] Speaker C: Good morning, Devi. I'll tell you. This Kari vlog was with you a little while ago. I hope she is still there and you can listen carefully to what I'm saying. In a contribution I made with Caravi on this matter is identical with what Mr. Ali said. Identical. Caribbean questioned me with good journalistic questions and I answered all scenarios. Let Carvey play it back for you and you'll be shocked. Identical with Mr. Ali's. Thank you. [00:25:50] Speaker A: Good. Great minds come up with great ideas and great thoughts. Hello, Good morning. [00:25:55] Speaker C: David Boyd. [00:25:56] Speaker A: Good morning. [00:25:57] Speaker C: Listen to your host, Mr. Ali. Mr. Ali is unbiased and he's the most intelligent police officer I ever hear on any media platform. Mr. Aliyah Wal question here for you, sir. If there's a serious accident or. Right. And the police demand. Could the police demand the footage from the household? Because you see the. Now, the house, the person with the house with the footage, I have no problem giving the police the footage because you had both police and the public. But this is an offense not to give the police the footage and if they do give the footage, these idiots and the man got attacked the whole. Watching from the angle, you could know where that video came from. So I think that might be a little. No, nobody, you know, making it compulsory, but yet it is important as to give the police the video. All right, thanks for. [00:26:53] Speaker A: Thank you. Now, let's talk about that. We saw what happened on the socials where officers in droves, about three van loads went to this house to get this dvr. They didn't get it because Ion was there first. And I want to speculate. But, but what does the law require with officers confiscating private property like that? Now you tell me. Before I say anything else, you tell me. [00:27:16] Speaker B: Well, Davy, so it's so, it's so. It's so interesting. And you know, to the callers, thank you very much for your positivity this morning and your support and the caller to the question. It's my intention to deal with this question Devi in a at a later date to ensure that I am very clear and detail in terms of the question as to the. The property or evidence that the police may be in pursuit of that may be in the possession of persons who are in a private capacity in their private residence. But just to, you know, just to start the discussion, what I'll say is that when the police is investigating a matter, they can pursue any direction or angle where they believe there may be relevant and admissible evidence to be able to prosecute a crime, including in a private premises. Agreed. Or in private Context. Now, we have always heard the call, if you say something, if you see something, sorry, say something. And we have always heard that the citizen has a civic duty to assist the police in discovering by who a crime may have been committed and perhaps in some cases provide evidence. No, I'm not, I'm not naive also to the situation where when we're speaking about crime, persons may be very concerned for their safety and security in terms of supporting the police. Now, I place that deliberately in the context to recognize that if in a private premises, and this is in no way speaking to the scenario that we are, we all are reading about in terms of the ongoing investigation, I want to be very. [00:28:36] Speaker A: Yeah, we know that, you know that that's not what we're touching, that, you. [00:28:39] Speaker B: Know, they say sometimes you subjugative before the court. Well, this is subject to an investigation and I want to ensure that there's impartiality in terms of where that investigation is concerned. But generally speaking, if there's a CCTV camera on a private premises, the police can engage the occupier or the owner, indicate what they're investigating and ask for the possession of the cctv or even to have a view to see whether the CCTV on their premises picks up anything that may be relevant to assist any crime. Now, if the occupants or the owner is reluctant for safety issues, and I'm putting something into the equation, the police can go before a court of competent jurisdiction and obtain a search warrant to enter the premises to search, because that evidence, the public interest is greater than the individual interest where we talking about very serious crime, murder, kidnappings, terrorism and so forth. So the individual may have a claim, a claim to privacy, but that privacy has to balance with a greater public interest that if I don't get a CCTV camera, I may not know who the perpetrators may have been or how they conducted the crime. So a warrant could be obtained to execute it on the premises to be able to get the CCTV footage. Now, where the issue lies in terms of this question have been posed in the public domain. I know that other experts are responding to it. They have reached out to me and I told them that where the need for a statement from the occupier, when the CCTV is taken by a warrant, or even where they consent and giving the issues where the statement should record it from the occupier, bearing in mind that we have an issue of fair, we have an issue of persons reluctant because the criminal elements may be saying, okay, you're supporting the police. So this is what I want to deal with at a subsequent occasion and perhaps why I'm. I want to deal with it a subsequent occasion. It may require, and I say in me, it may require the parliament to have a look at the evidence act again, to be able to treat with that, to protect the citizen, but at the same time to get access to the evidence that is required. So in summary, private promises. Yes, you can pursue it. Speak to the owner. Sir, ma', am, we investigating a crime of murder. We believe your CCTV may provide useful information in relation to solving this particular crime. Okay, I will support you. I'll give you a come, come, come. That's one, two. Sir, while I want to support you, I am very reluctant because I'm fearful the persons know me, they live in the area. Okay, no problem. We go get a warrant, we make an application, get the up warrant where judicial officer now say you, you can enter the premises, you can take possession of the CCTV for the purposes of your crime. And may I say as well, if there are private issues that are occurring on the premises, not illegality private issues, and there's a claim to privacy, discussions could be had with the judicial intervention to qualify the CCTV camera to say, okay, let's say you are a person and I want to be very figurative, Jackie. [00:31:29] Speaker A: Davy. [00:31:29] Speaker B: Davy, that is you, you know, you enjoy your premises fully, right? You know what I mean? [00:31:37] Speaker A: I got you. [00:31:37] Speaker B: You're in a, you know, pool setting. [00:31:39] Speaker A: I got you. [00:31:39] Speaker B: And you enjoyed fully. Right. The question is in viewing the cup, that may not be relevant to the crime, but what may have occurred subsequently to you entering your pool. [00:31:49] Speaker A: Right. [00:31:49] Speaker B: Is where the evidence lies. So the, you know, your privacy could still be protected because it's not to say that you're just taking and you're going to now reveal the entire CCTV for a court of law, a court can get involved to be able to protect privacy. [00:32:01] Speaker A: I love what you said. So two things I want to say to that. And then, guys, in the next hour I'll be taking some of your calls, respectfully, to the officer and the lawyer and director and we will talk. All right, you stay with me a little bit after the news. Here's the thing, as you mentioned, I thoroughly enjoy my premises. And the police officer have this now. Yes, they're seeing all of that. The fact that we can't know who rogue, who is not. And then my images gets released. Yes, by accident. And now my business is all over the place. On social, we see it happen. [00:32:31] Speaker B: Yes. [00:32:32] Speaker A: So you can understand why persons Are cautious. [00:32:35] Speaker B: Yes. [00:32:35] Speaker A: One, two. I would say to citizens this morning if like. Like for that instance where that CCTV footage picked up that evidence. I don't want to taint it, but if you download it and remove those parts of you enjoying your premises and give them what is needed, it could be seen that you edited. [00:32:54] Speaker B: But. [00:32:54] Speaker A: But you remember you had to protect you too. Those things are recorded in certain batches and time frames. I am just suggesting police officers can act with a sense of due diligence to citizenry and privacy as well. That whole fanfare. You come in with van load and then I get it and everybody see. How about a phone call? How about private closed persons Pull up. Good morning. We understand your concerns. We don't want to alarm the neighbors, but could we get a copy? We don't want to take your whole thing that is yours. You paid for it. Yes, but could we get a copy? Are we allowed to download so we can have this? Yes, I am thinking that would have been the better approach. I don't know how you feel. [00:33:37] Speaker B: Well, Davy, I must. You know, when you. When you. When you take a position like that, you know, a very incremental position and hence why. It's exactly what I said before in terms of we on the same page, that if you're investigating crime, the citizen has a duty to assist and sometimes the situation may qualify tactical. That's a strategical approach to be able to get what you want as opposed to, you know, using a more stronger arm. Now, if you do not get what you want in a soft touch, of course you will have to apply the law in terms of the obtaining, of course. [00:34:03] Speaker A: And then, I mean, I had to go for the news. But outside of that, of that, as you mentioned, diplomacy as it relates to that. Think about 555 tip anonymously. We offer an incentive, $10,000 if you give credible information. Right. [00:34:17] Speaker B: So. [00:34:17] Speaker A: So you're still being incentivized to give information. Yes, but anonymously. So that's a soft touch that the police uses and engages the public for assistance. [00:34:27] Speaker B: Yeah. David, can I just say something quick. [00:34:29] Speaker A: Before we go to 30 seconds? [00:34:30] Speaker B: Quickly, when you spoke about, you know, the concern about whether a police officer officers will disclose information that may be private in obtaining the warrant as well, the judicial officer is also required to stipulate very clear conditions as to how that material is to be obtained way and how we should be treated. So if there's a breach, those police officers could also be held accountable. [00:34:51] Speaker A: There you go. So if that. If that get leakage Problems. That's correct. All right, we take a break, your news to the top and the officer will be with me in the next hour. Stay with us. [00:34:59] Speaker B: The best insight, feedback, accountability, the all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5. [00:35:06] Speaker A: If you're just joining us, we are chatting with know your rights, understanding the law around taping the the ttps in the execution of their duties. And we are speaking to Zaheer Ali, attorney at law, police officer and director as well. All right, so a lot of information coming in into the public space. He's staying with me a little bit into the 8 o' clock hour. Your questions, your comments, your any queries you have. We, we urge you at this time to reach out to us at 625-2257 or 627-3223 or you can send a voice note at 305-306-1065. Hello, good morning. Respectfully good morning. [00:35:40] Speaker C: Good morning, Davy. [00:35:41] Speaker A: Good morning to you, sir. [00:35:42] Speaker C: Good morning to erudite guest Corporal Ali. [00:35:45] Speaker B: Good morning to you, sir. [00:35:46] Speaker C: Corporal Ali, I've viewed you on another forum and I think that you are an asset to the police service. But a couple things that I have in mind here. You know, one has to be really and truly dumb to pull out your phone in a way where police officers believe it's a gun. The last time that happened there was a Haitian immigrant by the name of Amadeoba. He was at a nightclub in New York. He pulled out his phone and the officers gave him something in excess of 60 bullets, which was crazy. I think it was just because he was a black man. But the question that has to be answered here, why do we keep playing games with the public if police officers must wear body cam, can't say, well yeah, they must wear it. But if so and so Alexander say, well, yeah, you know, there are certain things that body cam must fail and these are foolish things. We are behaving as though we are banana republic or infant wonderers on the world stage. Part of your kit is a body cam. You don't want to wear it, okay, we go to parliament, we put legislation in place. You don't wear the bodyguard. Well, it's either your discipline, maybe you lose part of your salary. And the next occasion you go home, you find another job. NASA want astronauts. You know, there are many other jobs around. The man could become a doctor, an attorney at law like you, whatever he could. He doesn't have to be a police officer, right? His father didn't dead. And even a will that you must Be a police officer. If you cannot comply, find another job. [00:37:14] Speaker A: All right? [00:37:14] Speaker C: And that is the biggest problem we have in this country. [00:37:17] Speaker B: Okay. [00:37:17] Speaker A: All right. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. I have a text from overseas. Let's hear what question he has. [00:37:23] Speaker D: Hey, good morning. David, good morning to your guest. I am so happy for this interview, but I think what he's sharing songs, good in theory, but oftentimes is not the reality because we have in Trinidad a very rogue, aggressive, abrasive, untrained police force that thinks they're a law unto themselves. And I'm talking from experience here where you try to film and even though we know what the law is and dofi, the policemen don't know what the law is as it pertains to the ability to film the. They carry out their duties based on fear and based on aggression. So they will talk down to you, they will scream at you, they will try to take your phone from you. And if you behave in a particular way or if you resist or if you are reluctant to follow their orders, then it's an obstruction of duty. It is resisting arrest. Sometimes they will slap obscene language charges on you even though you have not used them. I'm telling you this from what, what happens on the street, there needs to be some actual legal process that is that causes the police service to be held to account. And this has to be carried on or executed by the state, supported by all arms of the state, not one National Security police, whatever his name is Alexander Webber talking nonsense about he the one OPC and then the Prime Minister saying something else and then PC saying something is it is chaotic. So in theory it sounds good, but in reality, my friend, that is not what happens and citizens still are unprotected. [00:39:14] Speaker B: Your response, thank you very much to those two calls and, you know, very significant matters. I'll take the last caller first. Devi, I will always, you know, welcome, you know, critical thinking. And if the caller is advocating for looking at police officers, I think that what we may have to do is now invest deeper in terms of education and training, customer service and, you know, most importantly, ensuring that the teeth of accountability and transparency is sinking deep when persons, you know, run a fall of the law. And the previous caller also indicated something that is very significant, that this is a police service, that if you are, if you're joining the police service, you must be ready and prepared to comply with the terms and conditions that you are binded by, whether in law or whether from a TTPS context. So it's very important to continue to strengthen accountability and transparency in the police service. I made a statement some time ago, David, when you look at the Police Service act regulations and illegal framework, it has been around since 2006, 2007, so on an average we have 20 years. And I think that it may be based on what the callers are saying, and I want to agree with them to a certain extent that there may be a need for a radical reform of the legal framework that governs police operations in Trinidad and Tobago. Now, it's important based on what the two callers have said as well. And thanks for your kind comments as well. Callers and persons making contribution daily. Davy, I want to emphasize this point in terms of obstruction, impeding and intimidating, that these things can only service if the police officers are in the lawful execution of their duties. And I want to repeat that the law that protects police officers are further impacted where the police officers must be viewed or must be looked at in the lawful excess size of their duty. So if they find they are engaging in a situation, case in point, there's no reasonable cause to believe or suspect that an offense has been committed, then why are you engaging the individual? Why are you coming to contact with the individual? That's not the lawful exercise of your duties. And the said justice, Frank Sipasad in several judgments and other High Court judges and even Court of Appeal would have identified that your protection can only be afforded to you as a police officer if you are in the lawful exercise of your duties. You are a law enforcement officer. So if there is no justification, there is no ground to be engaging an individual. You cannot, if there is any response from the citizen, you cannot hide behind an obstruction, impeding, intimidating, because, yeah, in the first instance, you had no jurisdiction to intervene. [00:41:49] Speaker A: All right, let's get a call. Okay, I lost it there. One other text and I love how you're explaining it this morning. I'm so happy that we went the distance with this. [00:41:59] Speaker B: Good morning. What is your guest's opinion about persons wanting to film officers inside the police station? There may be persons who come in there to give information and hoping for confidentiality. Right. That may be compromised. What's his opinion on that? Very critical point as well. Davy, you may have to be bringing me back here frequently. [00:42:32] Speaker A: I. I'm not gonna execute the call. [00:42:34] Speaker B: I. I think this may be the better for our mind and I enjoy the engagement with the public. And I'm saying that just as we are speaking things in the general open public in terms of promoting accountability and transparency and to ensure that the police are operating professionally with respect, integrity, dignity and excellence in terms of the core values, pride. That pride should also be exercised in the station, in the charge room. We have always viewed the charge room as the window to the public. So if the public, who has access to that charge room, that police station, the same professionalism is required even in the precincts of the police station. [00:43:08] Speaker A: Yeah, I used to do a program with Sergeant J.C. small. [00:43:13] Speaker B: Yes. [00:43:14] Speaker A: Called Police and you. It was a segment we had and then he got busy before that was Ishmael Pitt. [00:43:18] Speaker B: Yes. [00:43:19] Speaker A: And then others. So yeah, we can look at revisiting that model and having you with us a little more regular. As the public is seemingly wanting to ask questions. Hello, good morning. [00:43:29] Speaker C: Yes, good morning Mr. David. Good morning to Andrew and morning Mr. Ali. The first time I'm hearing you, I must say, and I must say that you sound like a bright prospect for the police service. If what you are saying is true to heart and that is your practice. I am saying that is totally opposite what is practiced on the outside here by police officers. I am very much involved in terms of. In terms of. I don't condone nonsense by the police officers but I give kudos where they are due. You follow? I'm saying and I hear it from you. I'm taken aback. As if we really have this kind of teaching, this kind of knowledge in the police service because it is totally different from what we get on your side here. You know, I'm saying up till yesterday we saw on social. Thank God for social media. The public is aware what is taking place where two police officers, one standing up on top of man, the man on arm and because he have a joint, a wheel or something that two police officers come out in plain clothes armed with guns standing up on top of a man kicking him. Now I am said we don't need this bag of police that we have. Sorry about traded to it. If we have 40 efficient working police officers, John probably going to bind to the police service. But when you're here you don't have people buying into a police office. The police service is good as dead and all right what you are saying. I am happy that there is a spark of life in this. Have a great day, be safe on your journey. That. [00:45:08] Speaker B: Thank you very much sir. [00:45:10] Speaker A: You know one of the things I want to say and I am quite certain Korporal will echo the sentiments. Sometimes when you get a social media clip, bear in mind the clip often starts in the middle of the frakker. Sometimes it starts as the thing is unfolding Okonoma Gama phone. So you don't see the build up. You don't see what aggravated the situation in the first place. It's a you. When you're hearing the cursing and the talk, the police only catch him at a little joint. But you don't know if something else was done before. And they try to. They want to arrest him on that or to engage him on that and he started pushing back or fighting. And remember, they want to go home. However you want to feel it, they need to go back to their families. So they will do whatever is necessary to neutralize a threat to life and property. Neutralize it. I didn't say kill, I didn't say shoot. But once the threat is no longer there, that's their job. They're going to neutralize the threat, bring that person into restraints as best as they could. And if you fighting back and you pushing up the what you expect, boy. [00:46:20] Speaker B: And I want to agree with you, Davey as well and, and to, you know, to merge you with the previous caller, I spoke about reform. Perhaps, perhaps a lot has been, you know, in terms of where the operational part is concerned, but in terms of the CD theory and understanding the law, I think that's a significant point. And you know, this may cause me to make a statement this morning in terms of looking at our recruitment and training, whether in fact it is doing justice and whether it is answering the call for members of the public for ensuring that we have a proficient and professional police service. It may be something that we need to look at. Let's look at the curriculum, let's see the contact hours. Let's see how deep we are going in relation to fleshing out the law. Because if you are a law enforcement officer, Davy Reheartorical, what is important of you not understanding the law? If you are a law enforcement officer. [00:47:13] Speaker A: That'S the first thing you know. You're a police officer. You're here to enforce the law, but you interpreted it badly. You don't understand. You are your police officer standing, telling citizenry you have no authorization to record me. It's as though there's a stark miscommunication or disco or disconnect with the police service. Like you don't have a corporate communications department that sends out memos or, you know, instructions and information and policies and procedures updated and amended for different stations. Because if a police officer is telling you don't record me, you have no. That is obstructing me. But there's a distance. But you obstructing him and he's recording you. I mean, what is that? [00:47:52] Speaker B: Yes. [00:47:54] Speaker A: Now here's our next thing. I'm not playing devil's advocate, but I often want to appeal to the middleman in the tax, you know, who don't really understand certain jargons. I want to reach to you on your grounds, on your level. If it is the police is engaging you, they come in to you for maybe a cursing public loud. They caution you and you still continue. You're threatening, well don't come, whatever. But they engaging you and you take out your phone to record the police who is trying to put handcuffs on you or get you in restraint D. I say you are guilty of obstructing the police officer in the execution of his or her duty. I want to repeat her. Corporal Ali, Attorney Ali, Director Ali is sitting in the studio. If the police officer is. Is coming to you, you are the subject of the entire debate. [00:48:56] Speaker B: Let me just qualify that word for you to be accurate. That's not using what. You are the subject, you are the suspect. [00:49:02] Speaker A: The suspect. [00:49:03] Speaker B: And let me just define what suspect means. Where the police officer has reasonable cause to believe that you may have committed a criminal offense. So you are a suspect. [00:49:12] Speaker A: So they come into you. [00:49:13] Speaker B: Yes. [00:49:14] Speaker A: They want to arrest you. They engage in you, you, you and you take out your phone and claim and have rights at that moment, you are now also guilty of impeding and obstructing the officer and resisting arrest. Am I a police officer? No, I'm not. But I read a lot and I talk to goodly gentlemen like this guy before me, Ishmael Pitt. It is called the blue eye, you know. [00:49:43] Speaker B: Yes. [00:49:43] Speaker A: Yeah. I'm a boy, went to school with him and others. So I want all you to understand if you are the suspect in the incident, take out your phone, open your camera passing somebody let that person record for you. [00:49:57] Speaker B: And David, that where it trumps you would be responsible in what you're doing. [00:50:02] Speaker A: You see, I want people to be clear because they will say but I have my right. The officers say on the radio the that I could have take out my phone and. But you are the subject, you are the suspect is you. So you are now interfering. If somebody else wants to record, that's them. But you can't. [00:50:17] Speaker B: That's correct. [00:50:18] Speaker A: Because you are the subject. And I want to be very clear saying subject are saying suspect. You are the individual engaging the police's attention at that point in time for some thing that you would have done that the police believe you breached the law. They have reason to believe you breach the law and they're coming to you. Hello. Good morning. All right, call me back. Good morning. Quickly. [00:50:39] Speaker C: Hello. [00:50:39] Speaker A: Good morning. Good morning. Welcome. [00:50:44] Speaker C: Prove that the police need to have the body car so in. In the interim of nobody didn't need to pull out no phone. Right. The recording could be rolled up in court nothing to hide whether they are friends rate half this recorded that's my choice. [00:51:04] Speaker A: All right, thank you so much. Let me hear this voice note here quickly before the corporal response. [00:51:10] Speaker B: Morning, Davy. And I guess just a question I raised it before I don't think I got an answer. Tell me something and is the the law? I understand where there's a double white line in the middle of the road, for example Arapita Avenue or some of the major routes Western main road in St. James proper. Right. If you're parked on the opposite direction that is facing the traffic it means that you need to cross the double white line which is against the law. Except at intersections which allow you to and you can be charged. However, if I'm on a side street, a minor road, there are no double white lines. They may or may not have a white line and there are no signs indicating that you cannot well notwithstanding Monday, Wednesday, Friday or Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday parking and that you cannot park on the opposite side of the facing traffic. Is that so? And thirdly, Arpita Avenue for the majority of it the double white lines are erased over time they have not been upkeeping it. So there are certain sections, for example between let's say Murray street and almost up the Front street you can't see any double white line. Some places you could probably. [00:52:27] Speaker A: All right, I want to cut that quickly. That's a traffic conversation one we. We all know in the regulations double white line, double yellow is do not cross. Unsafe to cross. Broken center line is you can overtake when when safe to do so. Parking facing oncoming traffic is an offense. Alright. So even if there's alternate parking and you have to park on the other side of the road on any given day you would turn your vehicle to face the. You know, with the back of the vehicle on the oncoming traffic, you still could park. You don't have to park against the traffic and break the law. You could turn around and face the other direction unless it's a one way road. But it can be a one way road, any road. So that question, I mean I do understand. Here's the next thing and the officer might be in the absence of visible signs and a person there's a. This is a one Way street. But for some reason a car had knocked down the no entry sign. So there's no sign there. And somebody out of the area comes and drives up the street and police, hey, this is our one. We are going. And then you see. But I didn't see a sign. And the officers realized ignorance is no excuse of the law. But they didn't. But they have also there's no signage. And you look at the person driver's license, they in Prince's Town come in to check some store. But they're from Diego or Maloney. [00:53:51] Speaker B: Yes. [00:53:51] Speaker A: How does the law treat with that? [00:53:53] Speaker B: That's a very interesting question as well, Davy. And how I look at it is that, okay, signs are in my respective view, a further signal or identification of how one should behave in a particular situation. But if we look at the, and I use a very strong term in terms of when these roads are gazetted, that is where it hits the law in terms of what the law, what that particular road entails. [00:54:20] Speaker A: Right? [00:54:20] Speaker B: What whether in terms of traffic signs, whether it's a one way, you know, do all that and that sort of thing. So it's important for us to start the conversation there in terms of where the state must ensure that they're supervising timely publication of the gazette that governs a particular road. Because at times, like for example, we're coming to carnival season, you will have adjustments. It's important in the proclamations and the gazettes that it is properly published, widely published and brought to the attention of the citizenry so that they have a clear understanding as to those situations. So the signs are just to further the regulation that governs that particular road. Now I will say that if there's a situation and someone encounters law enforcement officers, let due process take its course. You will have an opportunity, if you feel a grief, to be able to tell that story to the most important people, the court of competent jurisdiction to explain the circumstances because not because there may have been a breach of the sign, you didn't see a sign. Tell your story. That's why we have due process. That's why there's a criminal justice system or even a system to deal with traffic violations. So, you know, let the system work. But I want to emphasize the point that you make that the state must continue to understand the importance of ensuring that. For example, where we'll big on road safety now, one of the important factors is ensure that they are clear signs and signage to be able to remind the motorists, remind the pedestrians in terms of what is expected of them and Law enforcement agencies, programs like these let us identify. Remember when I was going to school we had road safety classes. Is it the time has come now for us to revisit that. I agree, you know, in a, in a. In a frequent manner so that it continue to be a part of the citizenry of Trinidad and Tobago. But excellent position Divi and I like that. [00:56:13] Speaker A: And in the motorist defense, the road, the roads that are gazetted are often chained. Sometimes a one way road that was heading into east to west can now go in a different direction or become a dual carriageway. So you not seeing a sign also could mean that hey, they change it. [00:56:30] Speaker B: That's right. [00:56:30] Speaker A: So you don't know. But in hindsight there is a rule of law that says comply and then complain. They often tell you that in the workspace you agree, comply and then complain, do, do what they tell you to do and then come. So being an officer of the court, due process is what his advice is. So the officer who could exercise due discretion and say well all right, you're correct, there was no signage and based on what I see and you're not from the area. So here's what. Turn around your vehicle, go the next direction, be mindful for the future. That could be, that could be the officer's position and you don't have to take it. [00:57:07] Speaker B: And let me, let me, let me endorse that for you, Davy. You could not have placed it better in the present Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act 9 of 2017 as amended, including the regulations. It is very clear that they use that. And the officer, the officer, there's a critical wooden law, not shalino me. So it gives you, the police officer the option to say okay, let me look at these circumstances clearly. So again it comes back to education application consideration. Excellent, Davy. [00:57:37] Speaker A: So that, that's the point. [00:57:38] Speaker B: Yes. [00:57:38] Speaker A: Not shall give in while you might me must have to. That's as basic as I could break it down. But if in the event the officer did not exercise due discretion then you would have your say in court and you can take your pictures. Look, I'm standing at the corner two and two time. The officer gave me this ticket and there is no signage. I'm not from the area and I told him and I didn't get a warning. And you explain that to the judge. That's the magistrate. [00:58:08] Speaker B: That's correct. [00:58:09] Speaker A: And then the due, due process. I mean there's a saying that ignorance is no excuse, but there's leeway. There is, there is things that the, the at a magistrates level, at that high level of the court, they can understand, well, hey, who heard in this Ministry of Works or they didn't realize this, or they're not doing checks. County, county not doing. And then if too much people passing up the street, then there is a co op that's a problem because somebody in the government, government arms agencies not doing their job because you suppose, as you rightfully say, road safety, paint the street, the street, the lights, the signage on the road, paint it properly. People must have no excuse. [00:58:48] Speaker B: That's correct, Davy. And Davy, for breaching the law. You induce me into something here, tell me that. Let's go back to that situation where law enforcement may have interacted with that individual in the, the scenario that you give in terms of where there's no sign but decides to proceed against the individual, the individual takes the matter to court in keeping with his due process and right access to the court, you know, when that matter is filed, that matter is not filed against the individual police officer, you know, or even if it's like, let's say we're dealing with a crime, it doesn't file against the individual officer per se, you know, it is filed against the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago. So, so the Attorney general is an advisor to the government, but also represents the public's interest. Now, why I'm making that point, I'm making a point to say that when there's a, a state agent acts inappropriately or do not apply the law properly, it's a state issue and not an individual issue. So, you know, it wouldn't be a situation where look what the police did again, because as you rightly said, it may not have been the police. It may have been what, another ministry, state agency that was responsible to ensure that signs were properly. Yeah, that's correct. To a particular situation. So we must appreciate where, when we speak state, we, we are not really treating it in an individual context. We are treating it as a state has been impacted by actions of its state agents. [01:00:11] Speaker A: There you go. I love that. We have a question coming in. [01:00:14] Speaker B: Marie, good morning to you and the guest there. My question is, what is your address? Do you have as a person, if you ask a police officer for their correct name and badge number? Because apparently a lot of people don't know that it is your right as a citizen to ask an officer for his correct name and badge number in the event of, you know, something taking place that is not supposed to. [01:00:38] Speaker A: All right, good question. [01:00:40] Speaker B: And David, the, the, the caller has also answered that question for me and caller thank you very much that you have said that the police officer has a right to. I should say the. He's obligated. Sorry, you have a right, but he's obligated to identify. The constitution the statutory provision speaks about. The police officer must clearly identify himself to you and what that identification entails. Let's go to the policy of the police service now in the standing orders, when I am approaching Devi. Who am I? My name is Zahir Ali. I am a police corporal attached to where I'm engaging you because I have reason to believe that you may have committed an offense. What's the offense? You may have just littered in the. The heart of Port of Spain that gives rise to a criminal offense under a particular section of a particular act. You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so. Whatever you say may be put into writing and given in evidence. Then you proceed now to what if. If there's non compliance to arrest and move. I'm just breaking it down as we go along. So, yes, that is how that conversation start. Otherwise, how do you want me to comply with you if I do not know who you are? [01:01:50] Speaker A: Badge number must be given. [01:01:51] Speaker B: Most certainly. Badge and id. [01:01:53] Speaker A: There you go. Hello. Good morning. Good morning. Respectfully, please. Good morning. And quickly. [01:01:58] Speaker C: Yeah. Pleasant morning, Mr. Davey. And. Pleasant morning. Tail? Yes. No tail. [01:02:02] Speaker B: Death. [01:02:03] Speaker C: Right. I been a victim of police abuse. I've been locked up, charged. Go down, Raymond. Until today, my matter cannot be found at Arima Magistrate Court. Cannot be found. I've been abused. Okay, well, police officers. [01:02:30] Speaker A: Let me. Let me. Let me cut you there. [01:02:32] Speaker C: Remorse. All this. [01:02:34] Speaker B: All right. Okay. [01:02:34] Speaker C: This. Nice talk. [01:02:35] Speaker A: All right. I have to cut you there. I don't want to go down too long. Yesterday I interviewed the director of the Police Complaints Authority, Mr. David West. He was on the program yesterday. So when you feel aggrieved by police officers in any way, abuse of power. Please lodge your complaints with the Police Complaints Authority under the tutelage and directorship of Mr. David West. He was on the program yesterday. He spoke about it. He explained how there is absolutely no active police officers employed there. You have retired officers and persons that resigned from the police service that got jobs in there. So, yes, I asked him and comparable. Ali. Permit me briefly. [01:03:21] Speaker D: I. [01:03:21] Speaker A: And you was batch. We was bachelor. We. You become a corporal for years, I think. But we was real good in the thing, training barracks, we think. I come out, I lead the police and I know the authority. But then somebody bring up a complaint against you for something real serious and we had to investigate. I am now to disclose that as my friend, I just normally hang out with him. So this could be a conflict of interest. What the director also said, it is also investigated to know who the assigned investigator is and their relationship to the said officer because they were a former police officer. If there is, if there is no evidence to support that that person even knew the officer or they were not friends, fine. The investigation continues. But there is a tiered level reporting system. [01:04:06] Speaker B: Yes. [01:04:06] Speaker A: So you reported this. They pick up the report date. They fact find on what you bring. It goes to another. So it is a Big Brother system where they, you don't, you're not even sure what senior person gonna get you a file that you have to look at. But you have been assigned to the case of Zaheer Ali and if you are found to have ever had connection with this man in a very favorable manner, you could face discipline reaction. So the David west was very clear. So any complaints you have against the police, please feel free lodge it with the independent body known as the Police Complaints Authority. Good morning. [01:04:41] Speaker C: Morning. A quick one, quick one. Two days ago I got a ticket for unsecured load. When I was talking to the officer, she did say who she was and do all the formal stuff. However, every time I go to go to the vehicle to find out what was the problem with the load because I drive a branded vehicle and I'm particular about that when every time I go to ask and to come out the vehicle, mom, go to your vehicle. I will come to you. Mom, go to your. And I just need to know and let me tell you something. I got, sorry I got that ticket and you telling me unsecured and dangerous load. But you allow me to leave with that, you know, when I reach home, you know what was the problem piece of the plastic that got dislodged and was swaying in the, in the, in the air now. And you could, I could have gone and do something about that because it is a, it is hazardous. So why you allow me to go with something that is going to cause problems to other drivers. [01:05:40] Speaker B: Thank you, David. Brilliant, brilliant point from the caller. And I'll tell you why it's a brilliant point. If you detected an offense or traffic violation, as the case may be, you should not allow a continuation of it. So immediate intervention to be able to. Because the whole issue of a traffic violation is to protect what safety and security of the public. So if you detect that, why are you allowing the offensive continue. I remember, you know, in my, you know, previous years, Davy, you Know sometimes I'll be on an exercise any parity bus route. You stop one a person on the parity bus route you issue a fixed penalty notice. Because there's no authorization to use the bus route. But immediately at the next intersection you have to turn off. You cannot be going down and continue along the bus route. So the offense must be brought an end. Otherwise you are not really fulfilling the public interest and you spirit and intent of of why the traffic violation was issued. [01:06:28] Speaker A: You hit the nail on the head. I was not about to make a bo shoot you know. Yes analogy on it because I experienced it. I don't line I was about shoot you know when east west the traffic Yes I ain't going there now it's 4,000 but I ain't playing mad but in the past and the thing is when they give you the fixed penalty notice them time it was written not the one for the electronic was written they let you know sometimes according to where this where the static is is done. Yes they will give. They give you the ticket and turn you around, go back up to the next exit. They don't even allow you to continue to the one down the road. They send you a backup. Yes, I have experience being told to go down and exit and I've also been told to turn around. They make it turn around, stop in traffic. They pull your side, hand your back your documents until you exit on the next one. [01:07:12] Speaker B: And I'll respond to that right away. What they look for is the shortest route to get off the bus route. [01:07:16] Speaker A: That's it. [01:07:16] Speaker B: So they may sometime it may be going back sometimes maybe just going forward. Excellent. [01:07:20] Speaker A: But they're watching you. [01:07:21] Speaker B: That's right. Just come off or sometimes they ask if they have enough resources they escort you out, just leave to ensure that. [01:07:26] Speaker A: You leave that you leave. So not because you're paid if you get a fixed penalty notice authorizes you to continue on the on the breach of the offense. No, no no no no it does not. Hello. Good morning. [01:07:35] Speaker C: Hey per insurance normally sometime they make a lady vehicle and get a driver but I see case they allow them to continue going. So as you were saying the offense supposed to be stopped as far as practically possible. I mean I'm like practical but as far as I practically possible. [01:07:53] Speaker A: All right. Morale. [01:07:53] Speaker C: So I mean so moving forward I mean we. We need to really obey the guidelines because you know we had this tenants called here in China to break guideline or take what we call in China. All right. [01:08:05] Speaker A: I don't mean to cut you but I want to get more. All right, so here's something he just said that I I can't agree with the police stop you and you don't have insurance and they allow you to go ahead. I that is almost zero to me. I've never seen that. [01:08:18] Speaker B: And this again David comes with education and understanding the spirit and intent of the law. If what's the purpose of a certificate of insurance? To ensure that what that the vehicle. [01:08:26] Speaker A: Is insured in the event of any emergencies or any accidents or incidents. Persons are covered. [01:08:30] Speaker B: That's correct. So if there's a true intention and purpose for the certificate of insurance and there's no that vehicle is not fitted with a certificate of insurance at that point that vehicle is not road worthy. That's correct. [01:08:44] Speaker A: What what I have I have seen in the past persons and I want to be clear we're wrapping up now but I'm glad I have you hopefully again next week too. Persons come with a driver's permit and they take a picture of it and have it on the phone. Maybe they send it to the bank for whatever reason. [01:09:00] Speaker B: Granted. [01:09:00] Speaker A: You switch pans. You may forget your wallet at home. It happens. You forget it and the police stopped you in a roadblock. And officer I forget my wallet, my permit home, my license. But I have ain't no and the officer says no no, no, I don't want to see no picture. You are to give me the physical document that I'm asking for. That is law. You must surrender your license when asked by an authorized officer which is only three we have the army can ask you for it unless you're going into their barracks. Police officers, license officers, traffic wardens. [01:09:37] Speaker B: But transit police as well. [01:09:38] Speaker A: Well like under police too. [01:09:40] Speaker B: Well okay if you want to broaden transit. [01:09:41] Speaker A: All right, so transit police, police, municipal police officers. Once you have on a police uniform with a police badge and identification badge they can request your driving documents. The license officers can Traffic wardens have the authority to no defense force create a static all a static gesso unless it's martial law has been declared or you're going into their base. Then they're required to see your ID and whatever. So if a police stops you I've seen it you don't have your license on here. They especially now they you get you might show them a picture. They might give them your name on your your number. They could pull it up. They realize your permit is active. I have seen where officers depending on what the situation is rain about to come down say all right, go ahead, try your best. Make sure you get your permit on you, that is apply. That is not law. You're not required to do that. He has, he and all could find himself in some problems following it to continue. However he checked it, he realized you're active, you're not suspended or disqualified. So it's merely a forgotten. But you do have one, because in the event of an incident, you could produce it. You could physically get it and bring it. Somebody can bring it for you could get it. So he may or may not. That is not law. He is not supposed to park the vehicle there. He can then issue you with a fixed penalty notice for failing to hand him the documents in the on person. If you see a fixed penalty, he could tell you here what you have. Anybody else in this car could drive. You have a license. Okay, go ahead, let that person drive. You don't drive or make you call somebody according to where you are, bring the license for you, or if you have time, go and get it and come back. [01:11:22] Speaker B: Davy, I'm seeing, I'm seeing your depth of experience and knowledge in terms of understanding the situation. You see that last part, you talk about looking to see whether there's an available driver, you know, sometimes. And again it is supposed to be factored in where as police officers, law enforcement agencies, yes, we have to uphold the law. But, you know, there's an element in terms of looking at the circumstances. And that is why those core values, and let me repeat them, professionalism, respect, integrity, dignity and excellence. If those things are factored into a given situation, you will find that you most times will be making the proper decision because you're understanding the situation, but you couldn't have placed it better because I've heard that question many times. Perhaps, perhaps. And I just seen. Perhaps we are looking at, you know, progressing. Nilo, should it now be looked at to say, okay, in terms of where a person is required to produce their driver's permit as opposed to producing it physically, could we now have the option to produce it electronically or through a device? Those are things, you know, you're looking at to see where the best balance may be, you know, struck, you know, but you couldn't have placed it better. Thank you very much for that. [01:12:27] Speaker A: I, I love that, you know, I, I mean, this is where the, you know, conversations like this broadens the thinking and the horizon of thought. Because when you look at. You ticketed me electrically, electrical, electronically. Electronically, yes. Why can't I produce something to you minus the certificate of insurance? Huh? Forget that. Hand me that. But the permit itself, because if you See why people might say, but Davy, if you could do the license, why not the insurance certificate? Because here's the reason why. That is not supposed to leave the vehicle. That is something that is stapled in your car. [01:13:01] Speaker B: It stays there. [01:13:02] Speaker A: But your driver's permit or your license that don't want to stay in the car because you use it for banking purposes, you use it for other things. It's a show ID and all these things, so it moves with you. But the insurance certificate stays there. That is stationary and fixed. You're not supposed to take out all the car for what reason? [01:13:17] Speaker B: And if you have the driver's permit, as you said before, and we are interested in the driver's permit number, what should be equally important is having a active database that is current so that you can look at the nervous movement number, check it on the database and say, okay, this person is legitimate. [01:13:29] Speaker A: They're legitimate. They just probably really forgot it at home. [01:13:31] Speaker B: That's correct. [01:13:32] Speaker A: Right. So that is understandable again based on law. People say, but I could show you my picture. That is not law. Yes, let's be clear, that is not law. Law is handing them the document physically for examination. When they call upon you for it, that's the law. And if you do not have it to give it to them physically, they can proceed with action against you. Even if you have it on your phone, the discretionary measures comes in. This person is legitimate. Now if they pull it up on your phone and show them it, they say, okay, so you have a valid driver's license. The date is not expired. So you're authorized to use the road because that what the license gives you. You have license authorized to use the road. And they check it on the system. But wait, no, you had some demerit point and they disqualify you. Yes, that is another arrestable offense. You driving with a suspended by the courts or disqualified permit is not a ticketable offence at that stage. It is an arrestable offence. [01:14:34] Speaker B: That's correct. [01:14:34] Speaker A: And you are taken before the magistrate. And I remember in the early onset of the demerit point system, a gentleman was in Barataria sixth Avenue in a playing some loud music. Police officers coming up during a van. The music was really loud and annoying. Could add the speakers out the back window, but the car tinted black and ting boy, the police stop him and say, hey, you know the longing music now, right where's and the caution him whatever. And I watch it. And then he go to drive off and one officer say wait, hold on, let me see your Driving documents. I saw it in the papers a couple days after he was suspended for the married boy for six months and end up getting 15 months in prison for. And the persons were. I mean it happened to people. People get a little suspension for the demerit point system. They still drive got caught and end up with more jail time than the suspension that they got. Yes, it happened. I saw it, I read it, I heard about it. I interviewed persons that I went through it at one time. My license was suspended in the very onset. But I was grateful to it. It didn't matter because it was Covid ain't going away. I was home, I wasn't going anywhere, you know but I. I remember going and sitting in the rehab, you know the course that he was doing corporal at the end. [01:15:50] Speaker B: Yes. [01:15:51] Speaker A: I saw inspectors, I saw business a businessman and some. Some prominent persons. It was five of us because it was co had to separate. [01:15:58] Speaker B: Yes. [01:15:59] Speaker A: And the businessman said. He said boy, we talking outside now he didn't realize I inspector in the room until after the second half. He realized it was. He said he tried to pay somebody couldn't pay nobody. Nobody could I get moved your custom getting it off. It couldn't happen. He had to sit down in the rehab class and through the process. Yes, you know, so I say that to let persons know listen, the discretion of police officers is not mandatory but not for everything. So if they catch you driving under the influence they can't be discretionary until they well, sleep it off a little bit now. [01:16:32] Speaker B: No, and I think it's important to factor Davy, what you're saying as well in terms of while there may be a discretion and look we speaking in the realm of motor vehicle and road traffic issues here, right. Specifically we have must look at the degree of the infraction and I'm happy that you use the point driving under the influence of alcohol because the degree of impact had we not come into contact with you there may have been what foreseeable consequences where persons are life may have been threatened so including yours. So. So that is an important factor when you exercise indiscretion looking at the nature of the violation or as the case may be and you know this will take me to a. A point where when you are considering from a criminal context whether to initiate criminal proceedings there are normally two tests or two limbs that one will have to pass. The first one is whether you have sufficient evidence. That's the first limb everyone knows but a lot of people miss this point in terms of whether any public interest that one should Initiate proceedings. So sometimes people see well, but there's evidence, it's clear and hope they didn't factor in what are the considerations for and against under the public interest? Because the public interest may require that these circumstances say well, in the public interest it doesn't require initiating proceedings. Maybe there's an alternative. So these are things when you're really discussing law. [01:17:54] Speaker A: Well, we'll come back. [01:17:55] Speaker B: David. Yeah, I'm very, very happy and you know, I don't know how much time we have but. [01:17:59] Speaker A: No, we're good. Time is running. I will finish at 9. [01:18:02] Speaker B: I will just want to close with, you know, with your permission with this, you know, just I will give some. [01:18:06] Speaker A: Comments but I want to ask you something before you close. [01:18:08] Speaker B: Sure. [01:18:10] Speaker A: And this is not on the investigation of the latest killing. This is police policy I'm asking on here. [01:18:17] Speaker B: Yes. [01:18:18] Speaker A: When police engage in a suspect in vehicles and the vehicle crashes. Yes, but I'm just painting it to you. I'm giving you a scenario. No shots from vehicle to officers or even if there was, when officers come out of their vans, what is the first thing they're supposed to do when that vehicle has been brought to a halt? Whether it be a blown out tire, the crash or another group of police officers roadblock the vehicle, stop the officers chasing. What is the first rule of policy for them to engage the occupants or occupant of the vehicle in front of them? [01:18:59] Speaker B: David, that's an interesting question and while I would love to answer it, I prefer at this stage because it is closely resembling a particular factual scenario I want to reserve comments until that matter comes to an end and I'll tell you subsequently what should be the practice as we go forward. [01:19:15] Speaker A: I will accept that in closing. [01:19:18] Speaker B: Well, Davy, as always I want to thank you very much you and you know, 106.5 freedom for the opportunity to, you know, clear the public record. Well, I should say, you know, correct the public record, clear the air a. [01:19:31] Speaker A: Little bit on these matters. [01:19:32] Speaker B: Yeah, it was really disturbing over the last couple days and I, you know, I'll say this publicly, there are a number of attorneys who would have called me and say you're ready to take the instructions to proceed against, you know, those persons who were committed on social media, even the formal media. And I told them, I say no, I say hold, I say I need to look at this in context and the citizenry, I have a love for the citizenry. I am not naive to what they are grappling with and I think that if we are in this together this is a way of educating in each other and ensuring that we correct the public record. So I thought this was the best way to correct the public record by having the forum to, to be able to indicate clearly the balance and responsible position that I took with a reference to recording police officers. So to my fellow citizens in Trinidad and Tobago, I want to thank you for listening to me, for engaging in the conversation and I hope that you will take the time for those who may not have had the opportunity to listen to the program, to educate them, share in the positive discussion and continue to uphold the rule of law and hold the state agencies accountable for the actions that you are seeing that they are taking. And finally, David, just on a soft note and you know, just to be a little bit humorous at 14 years old, Davy, and probably to share something with you as well, you have identified me in three contexts at 14 years old. I was facing up at the time to one of the fastest bowlers in the world, Mr. Ian Bishop. When I was 14 years old and Ian Bishop was armed with a cricket ball that has the capacity to injure if not be fatal in a given circumstances. And I say that, to say this, that you know, the greatest of humility, that I'm not easily moved. I'm not easily moved when the truth is placed in the public domain. So, yes, I saw the comments. People called out to me, they asked me and I say, you know what? To God be the glory and God will find a way to correct that. So I'm really grateful for this. Thank you to you again and the producers and may God continue to bless you all, continue to do the good work for the people of Trinidad and Tobago. [01:21:37] Speaker A: Definitely taking that. Somebody is now messaging me an exemplary officer. I want to thank him because I mean, I chat often with Russell, I can't remember his first name, but I chat with Russell sometimes times he's normally on CNC3. [01:21:49] Speaker B: Yes. [01:21:50] Speaker A: And I, I will kidnap him a little bit and send him come downstairs and check me. He come downstairs, he smile and he speaks with me. But sometimes he's a bit reserved, you know, I'll ask him something and you know, I respect him but I thank you very much and I do respect the position you took with the question. We will see what on earth going forward and we'll understand policy and procedure in at a later date. So thank you very much, Corporal Zaheer for coming in. The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. [01:22:16] Speaker B: The all new new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.