Police Stops - Festive Drink Drive Campaign

Leebobs

Dear All,

I'm not wishing to be an awkward pain, but, I would like to know under what power the Police can set up random roadside stops where they can require drivers to give a breath test?

I have seen a number of "random checkpoints" set up during the festive period, but I am under the impression that a Police Officer can only require you to give a sample if they reasonably believe that you have exceeded the limit or you have committed any other motoring offence.

So how can such "random" tests be justified?!?

Leebobs

custardy

bring it on,more the better

Police Powers

For the police to be able to require a breath test, a driver must have either:

(a) committed a moving traffic offence, e.g. speeding, failing to observe a stop sign, having a defective light etc.,
(b) have been involved in an accident to which the police were called, or
(c) have given the police grounds to suspect they had consumed alcohol above the legal limit, e.g. by draving erratically or walking unsteadily before getting into the car. It is questionable whether the mere fact of having driven out of a pub car park constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion

Although there have often been calls for the police to be given "unfettered discretion" to administer breath tests, this has never been implemented. However, in practice the police interpret the powers above very liberally - and who never exceeds the speed limit by at least a few mph? It is difficult to conceive of circumstances under which the current law prevents police from carrying out a breath test where they believe there is any chance of obtaining a positive result.

Although there are restrictions on police powers to require breath tests, the police are entitled to stop any vehicle without giving a reason. This allows them to operate anti drink-driving roadblocks, particularly over the Christmas period.

What the police would typically do is to set up an checkpoint, and then stop vehicles at their discretion - which they are perfectly entitled to do. They will then ask the driver whether he has been drinking. If he says "yes", or "just the one", then they have grounds for suspicion and will administer a breath test. If he says "no", the police officer replies "then you won't have any objections to taking a breath test, will you Sir?" While the driver is entitled to refuse, most people - particularly if they were confident they had nothing to fear - would decide that discretion was the better part of valour, and accede to the test. Few people want to be branded as a troublemaker in the eyes of the police. This is pushing the existing powers beyond where they were intended to go, but has now become a widely-used tactic.

The law applies to a "road or public place", so you can be convicted of drink-driving anywhere the public have access, including private car parks - you do not have to be on a public road. Specifically, and contrary to popular myth, the police can require a breath test on a pub car park. However, it is not a specific offence on private land to which the public do not have access, although various charges could be brought if driving under the influence of alcohol led to death or injury.

hewhoisnotintheknow

takes less than a minute, saves lives, well worth it

Ian_W

Leebobs wrote: »

but I am under the impression that a Police Officer can only require you to give a sample if they reasonably believe that you have exceeded the limit or you have committed any other motoring offence.

So how can such "random" tests be justified?!?

Your impression would be wrong then. Random breath tests can't be justified - but as the police can stop any vehicle on a road or public place without reason then random vehicle stops can be.

If the driver has committed a moving traffic offence or been involved in an accident they can require a specimen of breath without even the need to suspect the driver has been drinking (routinely done after all RTA's). In other cases they must form a suspicion that the driver has been drinking to require a BT - they don't need to believe you're over the limit, after all it's an arbitrary figure and only a BT or urine sample can decide. Good explanation - HERE.

Although the breath limit is 35mgs/100mls prosecutions only take place where the lowest evidential test is 40 or more, so anyone caught by these unsporting and unbritish sneeky methods (which are usually well publised in the local news) isn't likely to lose their licence unless a fair bit over the limit.

You may think the police would be better employed catching "real criminals" but I'm sure you wouldn't if you were a close relative or friend of someone maimed or killed by a drunk driver.

I must admit I feel a tad sorry for those very marginally over the limit the morning after, after all no-one knows their individual metabolism for alcohol. However I'm not a close relative ... well, you get my drift!

Leebobs

Thank you all for your help. Just to clarify, I am not against such test, I too believe that drink driving is abhorrent and that strong action should be taken to reduce it.

However, it is clear from the above that whilst the police can pull over any vehicle they cannot require a breath test just because it is a "festive crackdown".

My concern is based on more libertarian principles. I don't like to see the police interpreting their powers above "very liberally" - just look at how many innocent photographers are being stopped under s44 Terrorism Act!

I'm afraid the argument, if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear doesn't cut it with me. The state (and arms of the state) have to have a good reason to interfere with individual liberty.

I think there is a good argument that "hewhoisnotintheknow" made, the social benefit of these stops (IE: it takes very little time and has the possibility to deter drink driving or catch those who are doing it) could be strong enough to mean that there should probably be a change in the law in this area to allow such random checks (like in Australia).

Although, until there is, I would have to think very carefully before consenting to such a BT. (Again just for clarity - I NEVER drink and drive - if there is any alcohol in my system, I don't get in the car)

I think that Parliament should debate this in the future and bring forward a new Law to allow it.

N9eav

Can the Police carry out random breath tests?

The Police only have to show that they reasonably suspect a moving traffic offence or the consumption of alcohol or drugs. Consequently, if there is anything that the Police do not like about the manner in which a vehicle is being driven (ie too fast, too slow, erratically etc) this gives the Police grounds to stop the driver and carry out a breath test. The important issue is the Officer does not have to prove or even "believe" that an offence has occurred, merely that he "suspects" an offence.

'SUSPECTS' is so broad that it opens the door for most scenarios

Random roadside checkpoints will have been approved by the chief Constable and defined. PC's will not just be able to set up a road block when and where they feel.

pompeyrich

Random breath tests have been going on for years, although they wont admit it. 30 years ago I used to get stopped almost nightly, my crime? Being young and driving a Mk 2 Cortina, which is probably one of the easiest cars to steal ever. "We stopped you because you were driving erratically" was the usual line, they could never tell me exactly what was erratic about my driving, or offer any advice as to how I could improve my driving skills. Once they had me stopped it was open house, maybe a breath test, maybe a quick search of myself or my car, whatever they fancied really. Have to say it never led to anything more than a bit of hassle, taught me to have all my documents up to date etc. I never dreamt of challenging them, it wasn't really the thing to do back then and even if I did, who would the Courts believe, an 18 year old lad or 2 of Hampshires finest?

N9eav

pompeyrich wrote: »

Random breath tests have been going on for years, although they wont admit it. 30 years ago I used to get stopped almost nightly, my crime? Being young and driving a Mk 2 Cortina, which is probably one of the easiest cars to steal ever. "We stopped you because you were driving erratically" was the usual line, they could never tell me exactly what was erratic about my driving, or offer any advice as to how I could improve my driving skills. Once they had me stopped it was open house, maybe a breath test, maybe a quick search of myself or my car, whatever they fancied really. Have to say it never led to anything more than a bit of hassle, taught me to have all my documents up to date etc. I never dreamt of challenging them, it wasn't really the thing to do back then and even if I did, who would the Courts believe, an 18 year old lad or 2 of Hampshires finest?

At least the law protects you. When I lived in W Africa, I would get stopped all the time because I was white. (White people must have money) They would tell me I was driving erratically and impose an on the spot fine of about £10. If you argued they would take your documents and walk off. Then you could not go anywhere. The more you argued, the more the fine. All they wanted was a bribe, but you could not complain..... You could usually get out of it with some humility and telling them how good they were and that, but daily is got rather tiresome....

sebdangerfield

Leebobs wrote: »

Thank you all for your help. Just to clarify, I am not against such test, I too believe that drink driving is abhorrent and that strong action should be taken to reduce it.

However, it is clear from the above that whilst the police can pull over any vehicle they cannot require a breath test just because it is a "festive crackdown".

My concern is based on more libertarian principles. I don't like to see the police interpreting their powers above "very liberally" - just look at how many innocent photographers are being stopped under s44 Terrorism Act!

I'm afraid the argument, if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear doesn't cut it with me. The state (and arms of the state) have to have a good reason to interfere with individual liberty.

I think there is a good argument that "hewhoisnotintheknow" made, the social benefit of these stops (IE: it takes very little time and has the possibility to deter drink driving or catch those who are doing it) could be strong enough to mean that there should probably be a change in the law in this area to allow such random checks (like in Australia).

Although, until there is, I would have to think very carefully before consenting to such a BT. (Again just for clarity - I NEVER drink and drive - if there is any alcohol in my system, I don't get in the car)

I think that Parliament should debate this in the future and bring forward a new Law to allow it.

Exactly, Police can stop any vehicle to speak to the driver. When the vehicle is stopped, if the officer thinks the driver has been drinking then they can request a specimine of breth for analysis.

As you say,

Although, until there is, I would have to think very carefully before consenting to such a BT.

You'd just be arrested for failing to provide a specimine and then, if you still failed to provide at the commencement of the station breath test procedure then you'd be charged with the offence. On conviction, it's looked upon very badly by the magistrates and the strongest sentence is normally issued.

With regards to;

My concern is based on more libertarian principles. I don't like to see the police interpreting their powers above "very liberally" - just look at how many innocent photographers are being stopped under s44 Terrorism Act!

What about how many innocent photographers are stopped? If they stop every photographer in the country twice but foil a terrorist attempt then surely it's a success? It's views like those that have left this country open to abuse by so many who want to cause terrorism.

sebdangerfield

Firewallrob wrote: »

Quote .......What about how many innocent photographers are stopped? If they stop every photographer in the country twice but foil a terrorist attempt then surely it's a success? It's views like those that have left this country open to abuse by so many who want to cause terrorism "


Oh dear - are you going to stop people with camera mobile phones also then :rolleyes:

Yes. I'm a one man Police force and nobody, cameraphone or not will stand in my way of ensuring the longevity of freedon for the gentle folk of this country. Great Question by the way.

sebdangerfield

Officer_Dibble wrote: »

The power of arrest for failing to provide only comes from the officers suspicion of alcohol. If they don't suspec alcohol it's a report for summons and no station test.

If you read the entire post the "hypothetical" officer in the instance would not be requesting a roadside breath test if he didn't suspect alcohol. We're talking about festive drink drive campains where an officer must suspect the use of alcohol before requesting a roadside breath test. As opposed to when a moving traffic violation has occurred or after an RTC.