Random breath tests!

Paradigm

Yorkie1 wrote: »

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.

Under those circumstances I would have seriously considered refusing & let it play out!

Sgt_Pepper_2

A._Badger wrote: »

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?

As the police enforce the law care to point out the one that covers this.

thenudeone

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.

Yes you can. All powers of arrest were changed when SOCPA became law in 2006.

The power of arrest for failing to provide a sample was a specific power granted under the Road Traffic Act and, as you correctly stated, was only applicable where the officer suspected alcohol. So a refusal to provide a breath sample after an accident or traffic offence, but where alcohol wasn't suspected, would be dealt with by summons, not arrest. The ORGINAL legistation is here s.6) (5) (b): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/6/enacted
The CURRENT version doesn't mention any powers of arrest because those powers now come from SOCPA

Under SOCPA, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/section/110 police can arrest for ANY offence if it can be justified on various grounds, the most common of which is if the arrest is necessary for the prompt and effective investigation of the offence. In practice this means you can be arrested for just about anything, including failing to provide a breath specimen (where a power exists) even if alcohol isn't suspected.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

thenudeone wrote: »

Yes you can. All powers of arrest were changed when SOCPA became law in 2006.

The power of arrest for failing to provide a sample was a specific power granted under the Road Traffic Act and, as you correctly stated, was only applicable where the officer suspected alcohol. So a refusal to provide a breath sample after an accident or traffic offence, but where alcohol wasn't suspected, would be dealt with by summons, not arrest. The ORGINAL legistation is here s.6) (5) (b): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/6/enacted
The CURRENT version doesn't mention any powers of arrest because those powers now come from SOCPA

Under SOCPA, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/section/110 police can arrest for ANY offence if it can be justified on various grounds, the most common of which is if the arrest is necessary for the prompt and effective investigation of the offence. In practice this means you can be arrested for just about anything, including failing to provide a breath specimen (where a power exists) even if alcohol isn't suspected.

the keywords are resonable grounds!

socpa does not overide section 6. it just updated the power to have reasonable suspicion rather than a breath test CAN ONLY be conducted with alchohol and or odour about persons.

this is where the loop hole came in.

colino

Please everyone who wants their liberty intruded upon, keep on being a pawn in the bored plods late night game of car snooker. Also remember, those members of the gendarmerie, the Mark Thomas case where he won back the equivalent of £100 per minute of unlawful detention.

richard734

I am curious.
All those who object to the presence of Police officers and the efforts they make, risks they take to keep the public safe -

Who are you going to call when your house is broken in to? Or you loved one gets run over by a drunk driver? Surely not those horrid boys in blue? you wouldnt want them to catch the bad guy and deprive them of their liberty and freedom would you?

Sgt_Pepper_2

richard734 wrote: »

I am curious.
All those who object to the presence of Police officers and the efforts they make, risks they take to keep the public safe -

Who are you going to call when your house is broken in to? Or you loved one gets run over by a drunk driver? Surely not those horrid boys in blue? you wouldnt want them to catch the bad guy and deprive them of their liberty and freedom would you?

If they do it right and follow the rules no one walls on a technicality.

lazer

I object to being stopped for random check points full stop TBH,

As a single female driving home on a sunday night around midnight on a very quiet country road after an 100mile journey, i didn't appreciate being stopped, when i was 5 mins away from home. It didn't feel safe actually!
And yes I had to do a breath test, and i couldn't actually manage to breath for long enough on the first attempt due to nerves! Did I give them any reason to suspect i was drinking probably not.

I believe the polices powers to stop or searc should be limited to where there is reasonable suspision on all occasions - Random stops impose on our liberty and undermine the innocent until proven guilty ethos that we supposedly act by (as do a number of other legal UK actions - 28 day detentions for suspiscion of terrorism offences for example).

Everyone should stand up for their civil rights and liberties, and not think that if people are innocent, they have no problem being stopped, searched, brought in for questioning etc, as they have nothing to hide - but all these thing are inconvienient and can change how people perceive you as a person. For example, the police come to your work place and ask you to come down to the station for questioning - do you think this looks good to your employer, no matter how innocent you are?

What about this case

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-18406769

How do you think the couple felt?

thenudeone

lazer wrote: »

I believe the polices powers to stop or searc should be limited to where there is reasonable suspision on all occasions

Powers to search are already limited to when there is a reasonable suspicion (except when related to terrorism).

Random checks of vehicles and drivers are the only way that certain offences could ever be discovered.

Of course we now have ANPR and databases of insurances which the police can check without stopping a vehicle, but all will they say is that someone is insured to drive the vehicle whose registration number is fitted to the car. These databases would never catch a car with false plates or a disqualified or unlicensed driver who had borrowed a friend's insured car, for example.
There is no other way to detect offences like this without stopping the car and checking the driver's identity and licence / insurance status.

So unless you're suggesting that disqualified, unlicensed and uninsured drivers should be allowed to get away with it, you're going to have to accept that the police need the power to stop and check vehicles at random.

Sgt_Pepper_2

lazer wrote: »

I object to being stopped for random check points full stop TBH,

As a single female driving home on a sunday night around midnight on a very quiet country road after an 100mile journey, i didn't appreciate being stopped, when i was 5 mins away from home. It didn't feel safe actually!
And yes I had to do a breath test, and i couldn't actually manage to breath for long enough on the first attempt due to nerves! Did I give them any reason to suspect i was drinking probably not.

I believe the polices powers to stop or searc should be limited to where there is reasonable suspision on all occasions - Random stops impose on our liberty and undermine the innocent until proven guilty ethos that we supposedly act by (as do a number of other legal UK actions - 28 day detentions for suspiscion of terrorism offences for example).

Everyone should stand up for their civil rights and liberties, and not think that if people are innocent, they have no problem being stopped, searched, brought in for questioning etc, as they have nothing to hide - but all these thing are inconvienient and can change how people perceive you as a person. For example, the police come to your work place and ask you to come down to the station for questioning - do you think this looks good to your employer, no matter how innocent you are?

What about this case

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-18406769

How do you think the couple felt?

And you stood up for your rights how?

Oh yes you did the test.

If you're advising others to stand up, why not take the lead?