Police should be allowed to continue photographing young people, president of the Police Association Chris Cahill says, despite an independent investigation finding they are acting illegally.
Cahill said the report and its criticisms of police practices should be ignored, as it had taken the rules too far.
The investigation was carried out by the Privacy Commission and the Independent Police Conduct Authority, and found systemic problems with police illegally collecting and storing photos, video and information about young people and adults.
Earlier today, the country's top policeman, Police Commissioner Andrew Coster said the organisation accepted some of the report's findings, and were in the process of making changes. But would have to consider other finding from the report, which "present significant challenges to our staff being able to carry out their duties successfully."
Cahill told Checkpoint's Lisa Owen he did not believe recommending police ignore the report and continue the practices was making allowance for police to break the law.
Chris Cahill Photo: Kevin Stent / Stuff / LDR
"We're not accepting that this report is correct in saying police are currently breaking the law... It's the interpretation of the law that we don't agree with - it's gone too far, it lacks common sense."
"These are photographs of people in public places, these are photographs of gang members gathering together, these are photographs of juveniles out late at night in circumstances that they are probably up to no good.
"These are things that the public would probably expect the police to be able to do to actually respond to the crime that's actually going on out there - prevent it and to solve it."
The report clarified police could take photos, but said they must make sure there was a reasonable possibility the suspect could be relevant to a current investigation.
Cahill said that rule was not clear.
"The prime example that I'll use - that they say we can't do is: police stop a group of youths, [it's] one in the morning in Auckland, and they take photographs of them - 'cause they think they're up to no good," he said.
"Currently we would do that.
"And if there was a ram raid that night we'd compare those photographs and say: 'Are these the offenders?'"
But, Owen challenged Cahill: "They haven't committed a crime, have they? - At the time you were gathering that information they haven't committed a crime. Nor are they reasonably a suspect in a current investigation at that time - so it's illegal."
"Well, I don't believe it is illegal," Cahill said. "That's their view, it's not our view.
"It's a public place, and we believe we should be able to gather that information."
Cahill said he did accept that how the information police gathered about people was kept needed to be looked at.
"They're probably retaining it too long, retaining it after it's actually of value, either evidentially or for intelligence purposes. If there's no ram-raids that night you would argue that there's no need to keep the photograph for a lot longer.
"But gang members for instance - the intelligence you gain from gang members - photographing them gathering together can be relevant for all sorts of reasons. We've just got new legislation around asset seizures, well proving someone's a gang member a gang associate is part of that legislation - taking photographs of them proves that."
Cahill said that according to his understanding of the report's interpretation of the laws, police could not take and store fingerprint data even where people signed a waiver to say it was given voluntarily. Including not even being able to take voluntary fingerprints from a homeowner at a burglary to rule them out from any other fingerprints collected there.
He said stored voluntarily provided fingerprint data had been used to solve hundreds of cases, but rigid interpretation of the rules could mean that evidence would not be available to be used and those people would get away with crimes.