Off-duty officer breached policy during petrol station arrest
Tuesday 29 September 2026 · 2 outlets · 2 reports · updated In this story Independent Police Conduct Authority
An IPCA investigation found that an off-duty officer's use of force to restrain a man at a Waitaki petrol station was legally justified. However, the officer's decision to intervene breached police policy. The incident occurred after the officer mistakenly linked the man's vehicle to previous burnout activity.
Key facts
3 facts
- The incident took place at a Waitaki service station on 7 February 2024
- Officer A was the sole charge officer in a rural community
- Mr Z was convicted of resisting police and threatening behaviour in April 2026
The full story
1 min read · 2 outlets
An Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) investigation found that an off-duty officer's decision to intervene during an arrest at a Waitaki service station breached police policy. While the officer's use of force to restrain a man was deemed justified, the Authority concluded he should have deferred to an on-duty colleague.
The incident occurred on 7 February 2024, when an off-duty officer, identified as Officer A, attempted to impound a vehicle linked to previous burnouts. Officer A, who was in plain clothes, approached the driver, Mr Z, at a petrol station after a uniformed officer, Officer B, pulled the car over.
During the interaction, Mr Z allegedly made verbal threats, telling Officer A he would "get him" and that he "wouldn't see him coming". Officer A pushed Mr Z's chest to create space and later pulled him to the ground and restrained him after Mr Z challenged him to a fight.
Mr Z was convicted of threatening behaviour and resisting police in April 2026. Although Mr Z claimed the officer intentionally stood on his glasses, CCTV footage did not support this, though he did sustain a small cut to his eyebrow.
How it developed
- Tue 29 Sep, 3:22pmThe report notes that the officer mistakenly linked the car to burnouts because the new owner had acquired it after the incident occurred.
Where reports differ
- One report states the officer stood on the man's glasses, while another states CCTV did not support the claim that the officer deliberately stepped on them
Compiled from reports by Stuff and The Press.
