Fatal attraction

Many of you are probably sceptical of the "magnetic attraction" theory currently gaining momentum in certain sub-cultures. Broadly speaking, the view is proposed that certain individuals have a magnetic attraction to police, and subsequently receive a disproportionate amount of attention by law enforcement agencies. Before dismissing the notion, I ask you to consider the following.

The year is 1954. Footscray displaces Collingwood as reigning premier, Bill Haley records "Rock and around the clock", and a constable in a remote Australian police station listens to a radio broadcast of the first cricket test as it unfolds in Brisbane. Several miles from the police station, a four year old boy removes a registration sticker from a car windscreen (ostensibly to improve his aunt’s driving visibility) and sets himself on a path that will see him attract an unprecedented level of police attention for decades. Within hours, the officer's cricket fixation is interrupted by a request to attach a new sticker - a task he undertakes with some haste lest he miss another wicket. The degree of irritation displayed is sufficient to alarm the boy's aunt and her recollections half a century later prompt investigators to speculate that the officer may have filed the child's name in the "to be harassed in future" file. The innocent victim in this instance is the subject of our case study, and will hitherto be referred to as “X” - an ordinary citizen with an extraordinary ability to attract the attention of authorities.

Fast forward to 1965. Thousands of teenagers challenge authorities by growing their hair long and spending their pocket money on Beatles records rather than public transport fares. The majority escape detection, but “X” is one of the few targeted by ticket inspectors. Apprehended for fare evasion, he is summonsed to the State Children's Court, convicted, and penalised with a moderate fine. An embryonic feeling that he somehow attracts undue police attention is suppressed by the view that the incident is an aberration.

In his last year of schooling (1967 ),  a holiday to Brisbane provides "X" with the opportunity to explore the city with the type of enthusiasm that only youth can dispense -- only to be apprehended and interrogated by Queensland police . Although the officers involved contend that X's sibling's long hair sparked their attention, X harbours fears that his mere presence may be a factor.

As our troops feel the heat of the February 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam, “X” celebrates his 18th birthday in the relative comfort of an Australian city. Dutifully accorded the dual privileges of legal drinking and licensed driving, he, like many of his peers, finds it difficult to separate the 2 activities. Within months he is apprehended by police officers who find him sleeping in a bogged car on the banks of a lake. Although not satisfied with his explanation that a companion dumped him there whilst he himself sought refuge in an unlocked Mercedes Benz parked in a nearby carport, the police decide not to press charges.

In October 1968 “X” flees a Chinese restaurant prior to settling the bill, claiming he was goaded by less scrupulous companions. Police apprehend him, but agree to drop charges on the condition that retribution is made. Authorities may have been drawn to the incident by the pursuant restaurateur wielding a meat cleaver, but it is notable that his companions comment that they have “done runners” many times before and never attracted any police attention.

In 1969 he witnesses a surprise Collingwood victory over the reigning premiers (Carlton) in the 4th round of the VFL season, and celebrates accordingly. Buoyed by the experience, he attempts to board a train home but is apprehended by rail inspectors who claim he does not have a valid ticket. Berated for hours, he is eventually released on the condition he appears in the city Magistrates Court. The Magistrate appears to share the view that “X” has been unfairly targeted, and dismisses a charge of fare evasion (whilst simultaneously upholding a charge of "using offensive language to a railway employee").

A few months later, police intercept a vehicle travelling through Geelong and allege that a passenger (identified as “X”) has shouted obscenities at a police car. They agree not to press charges on the condition that he relocates beyond the city limits and does not return.

In a matter of weeks “X” is observed at Young and Jackson's Hotel where he is drinking with some old school friends (one of whom has a police record). Police who descend on the infamous watering hotel arrest most of the group and transport them to the city watch house in a “divvy van”. In the absence of an obvious offence, the arresting officers give the incarcerates a choice of a charge -- "drunk and disorderly" or "offensive behaviour", but eventually allow them bail with no pending charges.

Faced with compulsory military service in 1970, “X” joins thousands of others in a peaceful demonstration against the war. Perhaps attracted by his presence, law enforcement officers form a barricade to block the march at the bottom of Bourke St., and "The Age" publishes a photograph of him grappling with police.

Entering military service later that year he finds the task of defending the country arduous, and fails to return after weekend leave. Military police agree to drop AWOL (absent without leave) charges after a medical certificate is produced.

Returning to civilian life in 1972 his vehicle is unexpectedly intercepted by police who declare it unroadworthy. Facts remain shadowy but questions arise as to why police are waiting on a remote rural road the very day “X” chooses to travel on it.

A short time later he is approached by an acquaintance to participate in bizarre scheme to push a car over a cliff and claim the insurance. His role as "getaway car driver" ends prematurely when police intercept both parties on the cliff top. Were they tipped off, or was it the attraction factor?

In 1974 he attends a friend’s 21st birthday party in a regional town. The party is interrupted by the arrival of a dozen police cars and “X” has his own vehicle searched. An attending officer comments that the car holds "everything but the kitchen sink", but fails to lay charges or give any explanation as to why police may have chosen to raid this particular party. We now think we know why.

In 1975 drug squad detectives raid “X’s” inner suburban shared house and detain the occupants for questioning. An American house mate is interned and threatened with deportation, but later released. Eventually no charges are laid and questions as to why the house was targeted remain unanswered.

Eight months later “X” offers a friend a lift home, but is intercepted by police who charge him with drink driving, and detain him in a suburban lock up. The arresting officers give no explanation as to why they are patrolling that particular stretch of road at that time of night, but do comment that they had observed him almost collide with a parked car.

In 1976 his suspicion that he has some kind of attraction to police gains credence when “X” visits a friend’s house after a day`s drinking at a suburban hotel. Shortly after his arrival narcotics agents leap the fence and arrest the occupants at gun point. “X” is interrogated but not charged, and left to ponder the coincidental timing of the raid.

A paucity of encounters in ensuing years convinces “X” that his capacity to attract police has abated to an acceptable level, but in 1982 an ominous pattern returns. A random breath testing station mysteriously appears on his preferred route home, triggering a second drink driving charge. Protesting his innocence, he is summonsed to court. This time the magistrate agrees with him and dismisses the charge on a legal technicality. Believing the tide is turning in his favour, “X” relocates to the country in the hope that such a move will reduce the chance of detection. The plan works for some years, but in 1986 police eventually zero in. For no obvious reason his vehicle is intercepted on his regular drive home and authorities once again arrest him for drunk driving. The magistrate suspends his license for 2 years, but ignores police calls for 4 year suspension.

“X” encounters limited police interaction in the 1990s and comes to believe he is once again in a safe zone. Unbeknown to him, a slight legislative adjustment introduces compulsory licence suspension for offences involving speeds greater than 25 ks over the limit. Police photograph him allegedly travelling at 87 kmh in a 60 zone and suspend his licence for 1 month. Unlucky, a victim, or .......?

As the new millennium unfolds “X” is routinely detained for minor incidents such as driving at night without headlights and failing to indicate. At a regional music festival police try in vain to come up with a viable charge after intercepting his vehicle allegedly travelling on the wrong side of a roundabout. No legislation seems to mention driving at night with sunglasses, and no alcohol or drugs are detected. Investigating officers comment that they have not seen driving like that from a sober person.

In 2002 “X” witnesses an incident with national political implications and is forced to go underground to avoid confrontation with both the prosecution and defence attorneys vying for his support for their opposing views. He eventually turns himself in to a local police station and makes a statement.

As technological advances afford inks between databases, other agencies join the fray. The fire brigade attends “X”s home on no less than five occasions, usually without need. In one instance police arrive at his workplace with the news that his "house is on fire" and insist that he accompany them in a police vehicle. His image is not helped by the fact that his previous manager has recently been similarly escorted from the workplace on child sex charges.

In 2010 the State government issues “X” with a Seniors card bearing the inscription “The holder is a valued member of our community -- please extend every courtesy and assistance”. The police apparently have a distorted view of what assistance may mean, and intercept “X” for speeding on three more occasions - at one stage alleging that he has led them on a high speed chase in dangerous conditions.

In 2012 “X” turns 62 but experiences little relief. The police and the fire brigade descend on his home after a family wedding, yet seem confused as to what offence has precipitated their intrusion. Traffic control authorities patrolling a remote stretch of road on Anzac Day Eve intercept his vehicle but are not specific about the reason for the stoppage. The fact that the officers ignore some obvious car defects (a mirror attached with adhesive tape and a side window supported by wads of newspaper) suggests that they have been attracted by some unseen force.

As fellow Victorians celebrate the Queen's birthday in June 2012 (when it is not actually the Queen's birthday),traffic infringement authorities seize the opportunity to photograph X allegedly breach the speed limit on the outskirts of town and subject him to further financial and demerit point penalties.

A holiday in far north Queensland in October 2012 is marred when police tale "X" for 15 kilometres before stopping his vehicle, breathalysing him, and issuing a caution. Although there is some suggestion that  an attempt to drive on the wrong side of a divided road may have triggered police attention, a more likely explanation is the "attraction theory".

In November 2012 "X" flees to South Australia in search of anonymity, but within an hour of his arrival Adelaide he is cautioned by police for walking across a street outside of marked cross-walks. The police explain that under s 87 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 it is an offence to walk without reasonable consideration for other road users but  fail to indicate why, of all the people in in the city, "X" has come to their attention.

In a bizarre development less than 8 hours after the jaywalking incident,  "X"  receives a text message from police in his home town regarding an alleged offence involving leaving the scene of an accident.

In January 2013 "X" visits some friends camping in a foreshore park at a seaside resort. The campers maintain they have not seen an authority figure since their arrival, but within minutes a security guard appears at the camp asking if everything is under control. Coincidence, or ....?

April 2014 -- a vehicle allegedly driven by "X" is photographed going through a red light in Parkville -- did this happen, or was in part of a larger conspiracy?

Move forward several months and:   It is not the first time "X" has encountered a law enforcement officer posing the question "Do you know why I've pulled you over today?", but a warm October morning in 2014 experience proves no buffer to the unnerving intensity of the probe.  At 8 am that morning "X" had risen from a fitful sleep at a truckstop perilously close to constant highway traffic and had availed himself of adjacent roadhouse facilities before purchasing some over priced fruit and driving blissfully into the future. About the same time, 200 kilometres away, a Senior Constable from a regional Highway Patrol was issued his assignment for the day. Although verification has not been possible at this stage, it is likely that this assignment was to intercept "X's" vehicle somewhere en route and issue a penalty. It is also likely that a rural town equidistant between "X's" current position and his predator's control room was nominated as the interception point, and a radar equipped vehicle dispatched accordingly. Not having estimated that "X" would get lost on some back roads west of his commencement point, the officer has a considerable wait before his prey eventually looms on the horizon. The unwitting "X" is stunned into immediate curbside submission by the traditional flashing light/siren method and given the opportunity to reply to the abovementioned question  (ie "Do you know why I've pulled you over today?") His response that "maybe I was doing a little over 60" is greeted with derision and the suggestion that "X" guess again about the speed. Before he can think of better answer the officer offers a figure of 79 and goes a step further by identifying the exact location -- "passing the pub". He then asks an even more difficult question -- did "X" have a reason for driving at this speed?  Thinking more clearly as his adrenalin rush kicks in, "X" volunteers  that he has a drinking problem and has been hypnotized  to  speed away  from hotels lest he be tempted to stop and imbibe. The immediate reaction of the officer is to reach for his breath testing device and command his suspect to blow into the beckoning tube. His disappointment at a negative result is barely masked before hastily issuing a $295 fine and adding "3"  to "X's" escalating accumulation of demerit points Finally freed to drive "X" continues on his journey, but has not ventured far before being subjected to the humbling gesture of the officer overtaking him on his return to his home base -- mission accomplished.

A pleasant afternoon's drive on a warm Autumn day (May 26th 2018) is punctuated by a police officer alleging "X" has been driving at a speed of 115 kph. Despite have presented to him an argument that the 35 year old van is incapable of such a speed, the police officer issues a $317 fine. Interestingly a few days later the news breaks that police have been falsifying breath tests. Whilst in no way related to the speeding incident,  it is an indicator of police honesty in the pursuit of quotas and one could be excused for thinking "X" has been a victim of such an action.

As “X” is still alive, this case study must be considered a work in progress, but should serve at least to validate the theory as a possibility. I ask you to keep an open mind and be aware of any similar cases before dismissing the idea.