Lying cop caught on camera.

[Cyclone]

If he gave a positive breath sample and subsequent positive blood sample and claimed he'd been drinking after he'd parked his car he'd have to prove his alcohol levels didn't place him above the permitted limit at the time he was driving, by providing scientific evidence which supported his defence.

 

You're saying that the burden of prove is reversed for this specific prosecution and the crown doesn't have to try to prove guilt?

 

---------- Post added 05-02-2014 at 10:52 ----------

 

That is incorrect. The police can require you to give a specimen of breath if they suspect that you may have been driving.

 

And You can still be convicted. The Police have the right to request the specimen based on a suspicion of whether you were driving. It is not critical to the offence that their is suspicion is correct. Your refusal to give a specimen on the basis that you do not believe the request is justified is an offence. So even if it can be proved that you weren't driving the offence is failure to provide and could carry a prison sentence.

 

Is it possible to dispute that they actually had a suspicion though? If there was no reason for a suspicion (and it was mistaken) then that would mean they were lying after the fact to justify an unlawful breath test.

[Uptowngirl]

Yep,there was one such case on "Police Interceptors" the other evening.. a girl left a club and went for a taxi..the taxi stopped but she changed her mind and went to her car,,the taxi driver saw this and reported her to the police 'cos he thought she'd had a couple too many..the police traced her car reg and found her at home..they breathalysed her,she was twice over the limit..the bobby felt the car engine,it was still warm..she was done for DD even though no policeman had seen her drive..she got a ban and fine..

 

It is perfectly true that you can be breathalysed at home even if you claim to have drunk 15 whiskies in the hours since you parked the car. However you can also tell the court that you had drunk 15 whiskies after you parked the car and it would be up to the court to decide such a case. I think the majority would be free to drive home afterwards.

[boyfriday]

You're saying that the burden of prove is reversed for this specific prosecution and the crown doesn't have to try to prove guilt?

The burden of proof has already been established-the defendant has provided an alcohol positive sample over the permitted limit.

 

From CPS website:

 

If a driver claims that the proportion of alcohol in a breath or laboratory specimen provided by him is above the legal limit because he had consumed alcohol after he had ceased to drive,

he will need to rebut

the presumption contained in section 15(2) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 that the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine at the time of the alleged offence was not less than in the specimen. The presumption will be rebutted

if the driver proves

the matters set out at section 15(3) on a balance of probabilities. In order to do so he will usually rely upon expert scientific evidence to establish that his alleged post driving consumption of alcohol accounts for the excess found in his sample, which took him over the legal limit.

 

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_drink_driving/#a03

[Zamo]

I don't think any objective person could fail to have a nagging doubt as to the honesty of the police officer when he said he could smell alcohol. If the cameraman had blown into the bag and provided a negative sample then it would take the nagging doubts beyond reasonable doubt and the officer would be the one with questions to answer. But he didn't and, rightly or wrongly, that reverses their fortunes.

[Lee_]

coppers shouldn't push people too much, look what happened when they pushed john j rambo too far, he blew the town up.

 

Hey, dont blame Rambo. They drew fist blood!

[boyfriday]

You're saying that the burden of prove is reversed for this specific prosecution and the crown doesn't have to try to prove guilt?

 

---------- Post added 05-02-2014 at 10:52 ----------

 

 

Is it possible to dispute that they actually had a suspicion though? If there was no reason for a suspicion (and it was mistaken) then that would mean they were lying after the fact to justify an unlawful breath test.

 

I guess it goes something like this-

 

PC "It's been reported that you were seen driving your car on the High Street having left the pub"

 

PC: "I saw you driving earlier on XYZ Street and talking to you now you smell of alcohol" (as in the case of the OP)

 

It's down to the accused to establish he wasn't driving at the claimed time or the alcohol in his system (if any) isn't responsible for him being over the limit.

[Uptowngirl]

The burden of proof has already been established-the defendant has provided an alcohol positive sample over the permitted limit.

 

From CPS website:

 

Quote:

If a driver claims that the proportion of alcohol in a breath or laboratory specimen provided by him is above the legal limit because he had consumed alcohol after he had ceased to drive, he will need to rebut the presumption contained in section 15(2) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 that the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine at the time of the alleged offence was not less than in the specimen. The presumption will be rebutted if the driver proves the matters set out at section 15(3) on a balance of probabilities. In order to do so he will usually rely upon expert scientific evidence to establish that his alleged post driving consumption of alcohol accounts for the excess found in his sample, which took him over the legal limit.]

 

I wouldn't take too much notice of that. The law is written to prevent the run-aways from wriggling round the law.

 

So if you run from the scene of an accident arrive home 2 minutes before the police and then claim to have drunk 6 whiskies when there isn't a used glass in the house then you will have to convince your peers that you weren't DIC.

 

However. If you arrive home from the pub and the police arrive 30 minutes later and find half a dozen people sharing a pizza and knocking back a couple of bottles of Chianti that's another matter. For sure the police can breathalyse you if they are a bit thick, and you could spend a night in the cells. But after your day in court your lawyer would be suing for wrongful arrest. Indeed the only thing you might be found guilty of is failure to provide breath if you did as the man in the clip.

[truman]

 

However. If you arrive home from the pub and the police arrive 30 minutes later and find half a dozen people sharing a pizza and knocking back a couple of bottles of Chianti that's another matter. For sure the police can breathalyse you if they are a bit thick, and you could spend a night in the cells. But after your day in court your lawyer would be suing for wrongful arrest. Indeed the only thing you might be found guilty of is failure to provide breath if you did as the man in the clip.

 

Did you read my post #90..

[boyfriday]

I wouldn't take too much notice of that. The law is written to prevent the run-aways from wriggling round the law.

 

So if you run from the scene of an accident arrive home 2 minutes before the police and then claim to have drunk 6 whiskies when there isn't a used glass in the house then you will have to convince your peers that you weren't DIC.

 

However. If you arrive home from the pub and the police arrive 30 minutes later and find half a dozen people sharing a pizza and knocking back a couple of bottles of Chianti that's another matter. For sure the police can breathalyse you if they are a bit thick, and you could spend a night in the cells. But after your day in court your lawyer would be suing for wrongful arrest. Indeed the only thing you might be found guilty of is failure to provide breath if you did as the man in the clip.

 

I'm sure you especially understand the need to respect the law as it's written.

 

Although you might have an argument in practice, you'll be aware that a constable with a malicious agenda (as the one in the OP might have had) will use the fine detail of law to justify his position-in fact many magistrates might be sympathetic to his argument given the wider implications of the man's behaviour and the issue of controlling a large crowd.

 

Incidentally, as you earlier pointed out the consequences for failing to provide a sample of breath are the same as providing one OPL, which could include a term of imprisonment, so it isn't something that can be trivialised.

[salsafan]

I don't think any objective person could fail to have a nagging doubt as to the honesty of the police officer when he said he could smell alcohol. If the cameraman had blown into the bag and provided a negative sample then it would take the nagging doubts beyond reasonable doubt and the officer would be the one with questions to answer. But he didn't and, rightly or wrongly, that reverses their fortunes.

 

And I was sitting here thinking that, the policeman knew of who these people were, as he later referred to the cameraman as well as other individuals who were sitting in the cars, waiting for the situation to unfold. This was communicated to his colleague. So it seems that this was a situation whereby a few individuals were on the standby to capture a situation, and the police know of this. Why can't the police ask them who they were and if they can actually avoid the scene or to stay out of harm's way if and when they do their job ? Some people do you know. In the film, words were said about the lines and the boundaries, so that they knew that this is likely to happen.

 

What it comes across is if the police is trying to frame the cameraman, and the cameraman knew the game. THIS kind of thing gets my goat, cos it is quite pre-preemptive on both side isn't it ?

 

The policeman also pushed the situation too which changed the way that he is portrayed as a law and order enforcer. It truly does not look good for him. How could he knew the cameraman before and actually use an excuse to get him charged and out of harm's way so that his colleague could do their job? Why couldn't he said to the cameraman that he is obstructing police matter, and ask him to move ?

 

Anyway, we are sitting here now analysing this like armchair warriors, but in reality, that situation unfolded and happened as it did, and who would have thought of such strategies to begin with? The police probably did have an idea and strategy but who would have thought that they would be captured on film in this kind of chaos ?

 

---------- Post added 05-02-2014 at 14:31 ----------

 

Yep,there was one such case on "Police Interceptors" the other evening.. a girl left a club and went for a taxi..the taxi stopped but she changed her mind and went to her car,,the taxi driver saw this and reported her to the police 'cos he thought she'd had a couple too many..the police traced her car reg and found her at home..they breathalysed her,she was twice over the limit..the bobby felt the car engine,it was still warm..she was done for DD even though no policeman had seen her drive..she got a ban and fine......

The taxi driver is pretty malicious in this scenario to be honest.

 

If she does not get into his taxi, that is her perogative. If he was so concerned, then he could've persuaded her to allow him to take her home without charge or other. But he didn't and instead he meddled with her karma and reprimanded her in this indirect way.

 

To know the law is one thing, but to use the law against another in a way to protect yourself is quite sick to be honest.