Random breath tests!

derrick

"The fact that you've started a thread complaining about them would suggest that you do have a problem with them.."

There is always one!
I would not have a problem if the law allowed them, but at the moment it does not, so the police are abusing their powers, as they do regularly, mostly without repercussions on themselves as it is very hard to make a complaint against them stick!

Yes they can stop a vehicle without reason for a spot check, but if the vehicle is legal and the drive has not committed a moving traffic offence or the constable cannot smell alcohol or have reason to believe alcohol has been consumed, then they have NO right to request a breath test!

Q, who are the biggest law breakers in the country?
Answer, the police!

Tough if you don't like it, but it is true.

.

JimmyTheWig

derrick wrote: »

The latest is this small article form our local rag

What makes you think that your local rag have got what they are doing exactly right?
Sounds like they are setting up a checkpoint to catch drink-drivers. This is legal.

They can randomly pull over a car to see if the driver has been drinking.

If they then have suspicion that the driver has been drinking then they can brethalise them.
If they don't have that suspicion then (a) they can't and (b) there seems little point in them doing so anyway.

Trebor16

derrick wrote: »

There is always one!
I would not have a problem if the law allowed them, but at the moment it does not, so the police are abusing their powers, as they do regularly, mostly without repercussions on themselves as it is very hard to make a complaint against them stick!

How are they abusing their powers?

derrick wrote:

Yes they can stop a vehicle without reason for a spot check, but if the vehicle is legal and the drive has not committed a moving traffic offence or the constable cannot smell alcohol or have reason to believe alcohol has been consumed, then they have NO right to request a breath test!

What evidence do you have to show they are breath testing drivers who have not committed a moving traffic offence or there is suspicion the driver has been drinking?

derrick wrote:

Q, who are the biggest law breakers in the country?
Answer, the police!

Tough if you don't like it, but it is true.

.

And you have evidence to prove that?

pogofish

coinxoperated wrote: »

I don't see why people want to argue against them? Surely its better than them not checking?

I can understand that people get narked when stopped on a pretence, only to have the police nitpick over something quite spurious, till they deliver the "have you been drinking" line and then require a breath test.

Its happened to me enough times over the years and every time I would have been happy for them just go straight to the test and get it done with.

JQ.

derrick wrote: »

There is always one!
I would not have a problem if the law allowed them, but at the moment it does not, so the police are abusing their powers, as they do regularly, mostly without repercussions on themselves as it is very hard to make a complaint against them stick!

Yes they can stop a vehicle without reason for a spot check, but if the vehicle is legal and the drive has not committed a moving traffic offence or the constable cannot smell alcohol or have reason to believe alcohol has been consumed, then they have NO right to request a breath test!

Q, who are the biggest law breakers in the country?
Answer, the police!

Tough if you don't like it, but it is true.

.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I'm glad you've cleared that up, it's quite clear you definitely don't have an issue with the Police.

derrick

My quote button is not working.

What makes you think that your local rag have got what they are doing exactly right? I don't, but do know that they do this regularly.
Sounds like they are setting up a checkpoint to catch drink-drivers. This is legal. No it isn't, see my link in the OP

They can randomly pull over a car to see if the driver has been drinking. No they can't, see my link in the OP

"If they then have suspicion that the driver has been drinking then they can brethalise them. Yes but I know they 1) ask if you have been drinking, and nothing else, from personal experience.
2) demand the test even though no evidence or traffic offence, from my BIL.
If they don't have that suspicion then (a) they can't and (b) there seems little point in them doing so anyway." They are fishing, which in this case is not legal, see my link in OP.


.

derrick

How are they abusing their powers?By breaking the law, see link in OP

What evidence do you have to show they are breath testing drivers who have not committed a moving traffic offence or there is suspicion the driver has been drinking? See post #5

And you have evidence to prove that? Google it.

Joe_Horner

The thing is, the law DOES allow them to do what they're doing:

(1) They can stop without reason

(2) Having stopped, they can require a breath test if they have suspicion

(3) Even without suspicion, they can still ask you if you'd mind voluntarily blowing into the bag. You're perfectly free to refuse such a request but why bother?

I'm pretty sure that politely refusing a request for a voluntary sample (ie: in the absence of previous suspicion) would not amount to grounds for suspicion in itself but the only time that would be tested is if they tried to use it as grounds and you subsequently failed the test. In which case all sympathy goes out the window I'm afraid


eta: I guess it might get tested if you were asked, hadn't been drinking, refused and they then arrested you for failing to provide. But only a complete anti-police !!!!!! would get themselves arrested in a situation like that

derrick

"I'm glad you've cleared that up, it's quite clear you definitely don't have an issue with the Police."

You really have a problem in that you think everyone lies,, go and take your meds.

Trebor16

derrick wrote: »

How are they abusing their powers?By breaking the law, see link in OP

That link is not proof.

derrick wrote:

What evidence do you have to show they are breath testing drivers who have not committed a moving traffic offence or there is suspicion the driver has been drinking? See post #5

That is your evidence? Now that is funny!! In your own case you were not even breath tested. In your BIL's case you fail to mention if the police had other legal grounds for requiring a breath test.

derrick wrote:

And you have evidence to prove that? Google it.

In other words, you don't have any evidence:rotfl: