Random breath tests!

Honeydog

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Why ask a bunch of random people on here? If you feel so strongly then you should write to the Chief Constable who will provide you with a comprehensive reply. Believe me, you WILL get a response.



Serious allegations - surely as a responsible citizen who knows of such illegal acts you should refer the matters to the IPCC.

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/your_complaint_.aspx




i agree - from the 'rant' it is obvious that the OP has no real idea of the regulation and process involved in everyday law enforcement.

If he really does believe that there is an abuse of process / power then there are clear and transparent ways in which to report the issue and have it thoroughly investigated.

He probably has an axe to grind over some other random issue. Not interested in the truth of what he's saying just needed to get it off his chest.

thenudeone

LordSVS wrote: »

Your post is somewhat laughable. A voluntary sample does and can be used as evidence. That is coming from someone who sits in courts.

I said it was very questionable. I didn't say it could never ever be used as evidence. But I expect a decent solicitor could cast serious doubt about any prosecution where a breath test was obtained where no legal power existed.

The closest analogy I can think of would be where someone volunteers to be searched by police where no statutory power exists.
This would be a breach of the PACE Codes of Practice http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/pace-codes/pace-code-a-2011?view=Binary which states in :

An officer must not search a person, even with his or er consent, where no power to search is applicable. Even where a person is prepared to submit to a search voluntarily, the person must not be searched unless the necessary legal power exists,
and the search must be in accordance with the relevant power and the provisions of this Code.

Whilst this doesn't specifically say that any evidence found during such a search is inadmissible, IMO a court would probably take a very dim view of evidence gained by the police acting outside the statutory procedures and powers. Otherwise - what's the point of laying down statutory police powers if people can be convicted by evidence gained by the police acting outside those powers?

I'm sure we'd all like to see a reported case where a voluntary breath specimen was contested but accepted by the court and used to convict, if such a case exists. Please enlighten us all.

SteveJW

It appears that the stopping of motorists at random may be more widespread.

The local free press has an article on drink driving, it states. "Officers will be carrying out random stop checks at all times of the day and night. Roads Policing Inspector Paul Sergeant said." This is in relation to the Driffield area of East Yorkshire.
I suppose he used to be Sergeant, Sergeant could have had some intresting conversations when asked for his name

And no I don't condone drink driving, get them off the road. Problem is some of them totally ignore any ban and carry on driving

atrixblue.-MFR-.

the police can ask for a specimen of breath if they have reasonable suspicion,

driving in an abnormal mannor.

alchohol present in vehicle open or unopened and package sealed.

presence of alchoholic odour on the person(s) breath in the vehicle.

they cannot however, pull you over if the above do not apply and demand a breathtest if there is no reasonable suspicion of alchohol being consumed or have been consumed.

they can however ask your authority to take part in a voluntary breathtest, you can deny this, but upon refusal gives the officer reasonable suspicion to use his powers to take a mandatory breathtest and this ladies and gents is where the loop hole for the police comes in.

because they can set up roadside check, check your vehicle seek your documents are in order then last not least ask you to voluntary supply a specimen of breath, refuse give reasonable suspicion and you end up giving one under law.

Joe_Horner

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

they can however ask your authority to take part in a voluntary breathtest, you can deny this, but upon refusal gives the officer reasonable suspicion to use his powers to take a mandatory breathtest and this ladies and gents is where the loop hole for the police comes in.

That's the bit that I'm not sure would hold up in court, depending on how switched on you were at the time. I'd suggest that if you:

* Confirmed when they asked whether they had suspicions you'd been drinking (presumably they'd say no at ths point)

* Refused the voluntary test

* Then refused one "required" by their "new" suspicion.

You would obviously be arrested for failing to provide but I don't see there would be much chance of conviction because the Courts (the real ones, not necessarily the Mags) will be well aware of the danger of allowing the police to form suspicion based only on you exercising a legal right.

Crabman

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That's the bit that I'm not sure would hold up in court, depending on how switched on you were at the time. I'd suggest that if you:

* Confirmed when they asked whether they had suspicions you'd been drinking (presumably they'd say no at ths point)

* Refused the voluntary test

* Then refused one "required" by their "new" suspicion.

You would obviously be arrested for failing to provide but I don't see there would be much chance of conviction because the Courts (the real ones, not necessarily the Mags) will be well aware of the danger of allowing the police to form suspicion based only on you exercising a legal right.

It does hold up in court. From what I've seen of local cases, failing to provide a specimen of breath always leads to a loss of licence for a year or more.

Trebor16

Crabman wrote: »

It does hold up in court. From what I've seen of local cases, failing to provide a specimen of breath always leads to a loss of licence for a year or more.

As long as they have the proper grounds for requiring a breath test then a refusal should hold up in court. But asking for a voluntary breath test when there are no grounds and then when this is refused claiming that as grounds for suspicion would be an interesting one to be put before a court.

Honeydog

If someone hasn't been drinking then I don't see why they would refuse to take a breath test. It only take a couple of minutes and you get a souvenir mouthpiece!

Sometimes the attitude a person has when stopped dictates the next course of action.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That's the bit that I'm not sure would hold up in court, depending on how switched on you were at the time. I'd suggest that if you:

* Confirmed when they asked whether they had suspicions you'd been drinking (presumably they'd say no at ths point)

* Refused the voluntary test

* Then refused one "required" by their "new" suspicion.

You would obviously be arrested for failing to provide but I don't see there would be much chance of conviction because the Courts (the real ones, not necessarily the Mags) will be well aware of the danger of allowing the police to form suspicion based only on you exercising a legal right.

You can't arrest for failing to provide if there is no suspicion of alcohol in the first place. It is a summary only offence.

Joe_Horner

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

You can't arrest for failing to provide if there is no suspicion of alcohol in the first place. It is a summary only offence.

Agreed, but that's exactly where the question of whether or not refusing a polite request for a voluntary test would be enough to legally form the required suspicion.

I don't believe it would but a magistrates' court on a Monday morning might easily convict anyway. Taken to appeal I doubt that a judge would uphold that conviction because doing so would make a nonsense of your right to refuse and effectively extend police powers beyond what Parliament granted.