Police Stops - Festive Drink Drive Campaign

brightonman123

in all the years i have been driving, only stopped 3 times- once when i was young and stoopid, cruising alongthe motorway with everyone else doing 70ish..

i guess my car had the wrong colour, at that moment.. (ask a copper about speed trap snooker...lol)

other two times was at christmas, part of random stops-
one i had a back light out- fitting was getting filled with rain water, shorting out the bulb (hadnt noticed that, so a good call).

..the other was a catch all roadside event..

breath tests were all clear, each time. if you drive for a living, its just not worth risking the fines, repairs / cost of damage, loss of car, and possibly life.

MadMikeshalfhour

derrick wrote: »

Back on track and from the OP;-
"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?!?"

They can't, the police are acting outside and above their authority and the law!


From LAW on the WEB: -

So does that mean that the police can just stop your car if you are driving along and insist on giving you a roadside breath test? The answer is NO. They are entitled to randomly stop your car, but they can only insist on a breath test if they have reasonable cause to suspect you have committed a traffic offence, or have consumed alcohol (eg they can smell it on your breath), or they reasonably believe you have been involved in an accident (eg the description of your car matches that given by a witness).


From post #2; -
"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 driving 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 "

Round here they have been doing them for the past 3-4 years, my BIL was pulled 2 years ago and all they asked was "have you been drinking", (answer was no), "then blow into this, a refusal will result in arrest". No mention about was he the owner,or ask for any documents, or even if he owned the car, just a blatant "random test" meaning the police themselves showing utter contempt and disregard of the law as it is!
Now this is a "random breath test, (not allowed in this country)!

Now I am against DD, but until the law is changed to allow random testing, the police should obey the law that is in force and not make up their own "rules" to get around it, if they want us to obey the law, then then should do so also.

Go to casualty saturdya night and see what happens before you go on any further. see how many bodies are lying dead or injured because the police dont have the right to stop you. its not you that has to pick up the pieces or tell the families. who has to pick up teh bodies off teh road. yes not you or wishy washy idiots who sit in there nice warm homes complainig about a job that the police should be doing.

tripled

MadMikeshalfhour wrote: »

Go to casualty saturdya night and see what happens before you go on any further. see how many bodies are lying dead or injured because the police dont have the right to stop you. its not you that has to pick up the pieces or tell the families. who has to pick up teh bodies off teh road. yes not you or wishy washy idiots who sit in there nice warm homes complainig about a job that the police should be doing.

This must be an emotive issue for you, but the debate is about whether police are acting within the law, not whether breath tests are justified - I haven't seen anyone say "there shoudn't be breath tests and everyone should be able to drive pi5sed", or words to that effect. If people believe any law should be different, then Parliament should be lobbied to this effect, rather than the police flouting the laws they are supposed to uphold.

derrick

sebdangerfield wrote: »

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.


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?

He had no reason to lie, and the police never tell porkies do they?

No legal background just know SOME of the law, nowhere near everything, but I do know that random BTs in this country are illegal.

In 2003 a similar thing happened to me, although they never actually BT me, I did send a letter to the Chief Constable and the Home Office and received the usual whitewash reply, but from the reply letters, it was stated in the reply from the CC that "random breath tests are unlawful", and from the Home Office "Random stopping for traffic checks is therefore permissible, but random breath testing is not".


On pain of arrest if you do not comply.

Just because you have never heard of it does not mean it does not exist, there are lots of phrases that I have never heard of and I suspect lots you have never heard of, this one being one of them, try these for some explanation; -
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+pain+of

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+pain+of+death

http://www.answers.com/topic/on-pain-of

10. on, upon, or under pain of, liable to the penalty of: on pain of death.

It has nothing to do with where they were stopped, maybe I should have used the word "when", (or maybe it was a typo, like yours that I have highlighted were you meant THEY not THE, or where you missed the apostrophe in DON'T, which spellchecker picked up), but it is irrelevant, random BTs are illegal in this country!


The OP wanted to know if random BTS can be justified,they can't because they are unlawful!

mustrum_ridcully

We could be here all day debating the legality of random breathtesting. I've said it on MSE before and I'll say it again we don't have a system of Napoleonic law in the UK it's common law based on what the courts find reasonable.

So the courts in theory could conclude that a breath test after a random stop is perfectly acceptable. It could go all the way to the Supreme Court and if they decide that a random stop followed by a breathtest is legal then it is - fullstop, period, the end. It doesn't matter what the written law says and what wannabe lawyers think the common law says it is legal through precedent.

IANAL but I had to study law for a year as part of my degree...

sebdangerfield

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

We could be here all day debating the legality of random breathtesting. I've said it on MSE before and I'll say it again we don't have a system of Napoleonic law in the UK it's common law based on what the courts find reasonable.

So the courts in theory could conclude that a breath test after a random stop is perfectly acceptable. It could go all the way to the Supreme Court and if they decide that a random stop followed by a breathtest is legal then it is - fullstop, period, the end. It doesn't matter what the written law says and what wannabe lawyers think the common law says it is legal through precedent.

IANAL but I had to study law for a year as part of my degree...

Exactly. Police can stop anyone they want and should be able to, its difficult enough for them to stop people as it is without any more hoops to jump through. The examples by Derrick in no way show the officers broke any part of the law.

sebdangerfield

derrick wrote: »

He had no reason to lie, and the police never tell porkies do they?

No legal background just know SOME of the law, nowhere near everything, but I do know that random BTs in this country are illegal.

In 2003 a similar thing happened to me, although they never actually BT me, I did send a letter to the Chief Constable and the Home Office and received the usual whitewash reply, but from the reply letters, it was stated in the reply from the CC that "random breath tests are unlawful", and from the Home Office "Random stopping for traffic checks is therefore permissible, but random breath testing is not".


On pain of arrest if you do not comply.

Just because you have never heard of it does not mean it does not exist, there are lots of phrases that I have never heard of and I suspect lots you have never heard of, this one being one of them, try these for some explanation; -
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+pain+of

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+pain+of+death

http://www.answers.com/topic/on-pain-of

10. on, upon, or under pain of, liable to the penalty of: on pain of death.

It has nothing to do with where they were stopped, maybe I should have used the word "when", (or maybe it was a typo, like yours that I have highlighted were you meant THEY not THE, or where you missed the apostrophe in DON'T, which spellchecker picked up), but it is irrelevant, random BTs are illegal in this country!


The OP wanted to know if random BTS can be justified,they can't because they are unlawful!

Derrick, I'm only asking you to explain something to me I didn't understand. There's no need to get all silly now.

All I'm trying to ask is how you know the officers acted unlawfully?

So what part of what happened to you in 2003 was wrong? You say it's similar, however, you were stopped but not breathalyzed. What did you have to write to people who have far more important things to do than discuss why the Police legally stopped you and didn't administer an unlawful breath test? I really can't see what you have to complain about and I can't see how you can say the stops discussed were unlawful? Especially when you have no legal training!

eamon

I'm not that much in favour of random checks either but all drivers that drink should be aware that they could still fail a test the next morning. Please give yourself enough time to sober up. It takes an average male on average 1 hour to process a 1/2 to 1 pint of beer. Therefore do the maths. Aslo you may have confidence in you ability but that doesn't account for other drivers. If you are unlucky to be involved in an accident and the police are called then all drivers will be breathalyzed irrespective of fault.

Dave101t

what, your questioning the legality of random tests when people stone drunk are driving their cars illegally, and know it?
the police should stop every car. maybe that will send the message out load and clear enough.

derrick

sebdangerfield wrote: »

Derrick, I'm only asking you to explain something to me I didn't understand. There's no need to get all silly now.

All I'm trying to ask is how you know the officers acted unlawfully?

So what part of what happened to you in 2003 was wrong? You say it's similar, however, you were stopped but not breathalyzed. What did you have to write to people who have far more important things to do than discuss why the Police legally stopped you and didn't administer an unlawful breath test? I really can't see what you have to complain about and I can't see how you can say the stops discussed were unlawful? Especially when you have no legal training!

Not getting silly, you could not understand the phrase "on pain of", hopefully I have now explained to your satisfaction.

In relation to my BIL, I have no reason to suspect he is lying, he was stopped and required to take a BT, IMO that is a random BT!

Re 2003, I said "similar" because I was not required to take a BT, (the cordened off lane was the same principle), but that could be because I said to the sergeant when stopped and the only question he asked was "have you had a drink",why are you stopping people and only asking if they have had a drink? He said as I cannot smell drink on you then you can go, I then said, if it is a random stop why are you not asking questions about the driver or the vehicle as one would expect from a random stop? Now in all honesty I cannot remember much more of the conversation except that I told him I had his collar number and I would be writing to the CC because in my opinion they where conducting random BTs, hence why I did complain to the CC and the Home Office, a right I have as a taxpayer who is paying for this sort of thing, don't forget as a public service these people are accountable to the public.

In my case they did not conduct a BT, but as said above it could have been because I made a point, plus I had not been drinking, but in my BIL case they did do a BT which IMO was random!

Think about it a random stop would/should be just that and you should then expect to be questioned on the vehicle,driver and any passengers, not just "have you been drinking,bow into this", by doing only that"at random" they are conducting random BTs under the guise of a random stop without the usual questions re a random stop, therefore in my BIL case an unlawful random BT!

I trust this puts an end to this part of the thread because the original question was "So how can such "random" tests be justified?!?", and the answer is, "random" tests cannot be justified as they are unlawful! Which is the point I have made throughout my posts, the police should not break the law just because they can, after all who is going to complain and get a result, because they will just close ranks and deny, or use some loophole/work around, to justify it, but if no one complains then they will just carry on regardless.