Police Stops - Festive Drink Drive Campaign

sebdangerfield

How do you know the officers couldn't smell alcohol?

derrick

How do you know the officers couldn't smell alcohol?

Because he hadn't been drinking, it was a Thursday morning 0700, (taking out a full lane on the busy into town road), and his last drink was the previous Saturday.

This was a "random breath test" stop only!

sebdangerfield

derrick wrote: »

How do you know the officers couldn't smell alcohol?

Because he hadn't been drinking, it was a Thursday morning 0700, (taking out a full lane on the busy into town road), and his last drink was the previous Saturday.

This was a "random breath test" stop only!

so it was only a stop, no actual breath test? It's perfectly legal for them to stop anyone. They can form a suspision from the way your friend was driving or anything. It's not really fair to say it was unlawful when you can't prove they had no reason to suspect from either his manner ofdriving or smell etc

derrick

sebdangerfield wrote: »

so it was only a stop, no actual breath test? It's perfectly legal for them to stop anyone. They can form a suspision from the way your friend was driving or anything. It's not really fair to say it was unlawful when you can't prove they had no reason to suspect from either his manner ofdriving or smell etc

No, read my post #65, he, (and others over about a 2 hour period), where stopped and required to take a breath test without a request for anything else under pain of arrest if they did not, I know this because I phoned the police to ask them if the law had changed and random BT where now allowed and was told no, but these stops where planned and not random, as I said to him, the stops may be planned but without any offence or suspicion of DD and the only request at that time for a BT was outside the law and above the authority of the police, he would not agree, but did admit that they where stopping vehicles with the sole intention of doing BTs.


Three questions; -

1) are random BTs allowed in this country? answer NO.

2) are the police carrying out random BTs under the guise of a random stop, when that stop is a cordoned off lane and pulling in cars 6 at a time over a 2 hour period? answer YES.

3) By doing so are the police acting outside the law? YES.

If the police require us to not break the law, then they should set an example by also not breaking the law.

mrmichaelf

Here here. The Police love to abuse their powers. I had a traffic officer reverse out of a pub car park the other week, without lights on, causing me to break suddenly and lock my wheels up. I had the kids in the car.

I got on my horn and shook my head at him. He saw this and proceeded in pulling me over and ordered me to a breath test for driving erraticly and decided to give me a good dressing down. Don't worry, I told him politely exactly what I thought of him.

I tried complaining to West Yorks Police but was told the officer had been acting within his rights.

Shortly after pulling me up, the same officer over took slower moving traiffic on double white lines on a blind bend. Pure madness!

sebdangerfield

derrick wrote: »

No, read my post #65, he, (and others over about a 2 hour period), where stopped and required to take a breath test without a request for anything else under pain of arrest if they did not, I know this because I phoned the police to ask them if the law had changed and random BT where now allowed and was told no, but these stops where planned and not random, as I said to him, the stops may be planned but without any offence or suspicion of DD and the only request at that time for a BT was outside the law and above the authority of the police, he would not agree, but did admit that they where stopping vehicles with the sole intention of doing BTs.


Three questions; -

1) are random BTs allowed in this country? answer NO.

2) are the police carrying out random BTs under the guise of a random stop, when that stop is a cordoned off lane and pulling in cars 6 at a time over a 2 hour period? answer YES.

3) By doing so are the police acting outside the law? YES.

If the police require us to not break the law, then they should set an example by also not breaking the law.

I read post #65, it was when you later posted "Stop only" that confused me and made me think the driver was "only stopped" and not breathalysed.

Whats so significant about the Police not requesting anything else from the driver?

They asked for a breath test. They can stop any vehicle for any reason. Once stopped, they have the power to request a breath test if they believe the driver may have been drinking. This is subjective and the opinion if the officer, obviously that officer thought he'd had a drink. I don't see how what they've done is remotely unlawfull?

I don't understand this bit;

where stopped and required to take a breath test without a request for anything else under pain of arrest if they did not

derrick

sebdangerfield wrote: »

Whats so significant about the Police not requesting anything else from the driver?

It proves they are doing random BTs, otherwise they would inform the driver why they where stopping him, as they only asked if he had been drinking, then told him to blow into this, proves they where random tests, also as explained in my post #69 when I spoke to the police.

They asked for a breath test. They can stop any vehicle for any reason. Once stopped, they have the power to request a breath test if they believe the driver may have been drinking. This is subjective and the opinion if the officer, obviously that officer thought he'd had a drink. I don't see how what they've done is remotely unlawfull?

Yes they can stop for anything, but they then need a reason to suspect alcohol had been consumed, asking " have you had a drink, then when the answer is no, still processing to demand a BT, every body they stopped was told to supply a BT, no request for anything else just random BTs! Again in my post #69, also the quote in #65 from LAW on the WEB

I don't understand this bit;
Quote:
where stopped and required to take a breath test without a request for anything else under pain of arrest if they did not

A common enough phrase, in this instance it means, if you refuse we will arrest you for a refusal, even though they where breaking the law by administering random BTs.





.

sebdangerfield

asking " have you had a drink, then when the answer is no, still processing to demand a BT

And nobody would ever tell porkie pies to the feds now would they!?

I still don't see how it's unlawful? Are you comming from a legal background or just this law on the web thing you refer to?

Maybe if you feel they were not within the law you should report it to the IPCC? I doubt anything's going to change by posting it on a moneysaving website.

where stopped and required to take a breath test without a request for anything else under pain of arrest if they did notA common enough phrase, in this instance it means, if you refuse we will arrest you for a refusal, even though they where breaking the law by administering random BTs.

I've never heard that phrase. Whats it got to do where the were stopped? I dont get what the typo at the end's supposed to mean either?

MadMikeshalfhour

Leebobs wrote: »

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

If you ain't guilty of drink driving youve nothiung to worry about. Give the police force any chance to get idiots of the road and stop death.

MadMikeshalfhour

To many idiots are on teh road an to many idiots are being leftie wishy washy fools who go on about peoples rights on the road.

yoiu ever seen what a driunk has done to my body because he was over the limit. I would show you the scars but you wouldn't have the bottle to look at them.

drunks equal death and destruction.

you may think to yourself that this bloke is talking rubbish but I was being trained to be a surgeon in orthopaedics and have lost my job, memory and parts of my body.

police should stop everyone full stop