Random breath tests!

Honeydog

Paradigm wrote: »

Can we now spread this "by any means" to all crime?

Drugs & dealers are a blight on our society so how about random house searches? No matter if there's any evidence or suspicion, the Police will just wake you @ 5:00am & turn your house upside down "just in case"! After all, if you've nothing to hide etc etc you won't have a problem.

Laws are there for the protection of everyone & once the laws are allowed to be bent then it's a slippery slope, be careful what you wish for.

There's no comparison between breath tests and house searches.

They aren't bending the laws though just acting within them.

No one has time for random house searches but a lot of people don't know though that if you are caught shoplifting they will search your house for evidence of other shoplifting offences such as lots and lots of clothes with tags on. Too right as well.

Go plod!

thescouselander

I've been stopped a couple of times at these checkpoints over the years. Both times the policeman asked me a few questions about weather I had been drinking (which I hadn't) and then I was sent on my way without having to do a breath test.

Presumably if our interaction had provided any indication I had been drinking I would have found myself blowing into the machine.

Bottom line - I don't think the police are braking the rules as they don't automatically breathalyser you.

Trebor16

Honeydog wrote: »

There's no comparison between breath tests and house searches.

Yes there are as there is legislation in place that allows the police to carry out both.

Honeydog wrote:

They aren't bending the laws though just acting within them.

But you appear to be advocating that they should bend them.

Honeydog wrote:

No one has time for random house searches but a lot of people don't know though that if you are caught shoplifting they will search your house for evidence of other shoplifting offences such as lots and lots of clothes with tags on. Too right as well.

Go plod!

That's because there are laws that allow them to do that, but there are limitations as to when they can do it.

But then I wouldn't expect a hobby bobby to know that. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Honeydog

zagfles wrote: »

And they are probably well within the limit. The ones who are much more likely to be over the limit are those who have a skinful and then drive the next day.

Tis true. Does depend a lot on your build as well and how much and when you last had something to eat.

marleyboy

Paradigm wrote: »

I don't drink so I've nothing to hide but I would seriously consider refusing (as is my right) a voluntary test at a check point.

This "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about" sentiment is gradually chipping away at our rights.

This may well be your rights, just as a criminal has the right to remain silent, or to respond to any questions with a "no comment". Other than you having the right to refuse, what would be your reason??? Just to be awkward, or just to pi55 off a police officer for doing his\her job?

Johnmcl7

thescouselander wrote: »

I've been stopped a couple of times at these checkpoints over the years. Both times the policeman asked me a few questions about weather I had been drinking (which I hadn't) and then I was sent on my way without having to do a breath test.

Presumably if our interaction had provided any indication I had been drinking I would have found myself blowing into the machine.

Bottom line - I don't think the police are braking the rules as they don't automatically breathalyser you.

It's been the same for me when I've been stopped at a police checkpoint, they've checked the car over (tyres, insurance MOT), asked if I've been drinking to which I've replied no (I'm teetotal) after which they've finished and not required a breath test I assume because they didn't have any suspicions of drinking.

John

Joe_Horner

marleyboy wrote: »

This may well be your rights, just as a criminal has the right to remain silent, or to respond to any questions with a "no comment". Other than you having the right to refuse, what would be your reason??? Just to be awkward, or just to pi55 off a police officer for doing his\her job?

The theoretical reason is that rights which are never exercised have a nasty habit of being eroded by the State - why keep this, that or the other safeguard in law if no-one wants it? Next thing, you look round, realise you're living in Nazi Germany, and wonder how it ever happened here.

Sgt_Pepper_2

marleyboy wrote: »

This may well be your rights, just as a criminal has the right to remain silent, or to respond to any questions with a "no comment". Other than you having the right to refuse, what would be your reason??? Just to be awkward, or just to pi55 off a police officer for doing his\her job?

The fact they have no power to request a test is good enough reason to decline.

Yorkie1

I have two driver friends who were, on separate occasions, corralled into a queue of cars leaving a supermarket and breathtested. They were specifically told up front that the breath tests were random breath tests (as opposed to random stops which led to specific grounds for individual breath tests).

There was no pretence at initial checks for documents or problems with the vehicles, nor any prior opportunity for the police to observe moving traffic offences.

In such circumstances I wouldn't aggravate the police by refusing; I'd make a note of the officer's collar number, say that I was prepared to consent but ask them to provide their grounds under the RTA for my information.

Then I'd consider whether to write to the Chief Constable to complain about the policy of requiring breath tests without RTA grounds.

A._Badger

As it is now scientifically established (and as experienced drivers have always known) that tired drivers are as dangerous that those just over the limit, when are the police going to start targeting them?